The case against Trump

Both the utterly fraudulent nature of Trump’s Big Lie about massive 2020 voter irregularities — laughed out of roughly 50 ridiculous lost court cases — and the shocking role a sitting president played in urging an angry mob to march against the Capitol on January 6 occurred in blinding daylight. Last week, House lawyers essentially filed a brief affirming the nakedness of the emperor’s new clothes.

[...]

Douglas Letter, general counsel of the House, wrote in the court filing that the January 6 investigation already “provides, at minimum, a good-faith basis for concluding that President Trump has violated” the law against obstructing Congress, adding: “The select committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the president and members of his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

[...]

This occurred in the same week that new pieces of remarkably damning evidence showed up to dot some of the “i”s and cross some of the “t”s in the conspiracy by Trump and his top associates to attempt what would have been the first coup to prevent the peaceful transfer of presidential power in American history.

In a Washington courtroom, Joshua James — a 34-year-old Alabama regional leader of the Oath Keepers, a radical militia-style group heavy populated by former (and some current) soldiers and cops — pled guilty to the serious charge of seditious conspiracy.

[...]

It was, quite significantly, the first time in more than two decades that federal prosecutors had gained a seditious conspiracy conviction, but possibly the greater importance lies in the possibility that in unraveling the role of the Oath Keepers on January 6, James could implicate higher-up figures. This includes the longtime Trump associate for whom Oath Keepers provided security, the political provocateur Roger Stone.

[...]

Then, almost on cue, a documentarian emerged with extensive video footage of Stone on January 6 and the days leading up to the insurrection, openly discussing the plot to derail Biden’s election certification — and then urging a presidential pardon for those involving in storming the Capitol. The Washington Post said some 20 hours of tapes reviewed by its reporters showed Stone in contact with far-right groups at the center of the insurrection — and assuring them that he had continued to have the ear of Trump, who’d recently pardoned Stone.

[...]

Stone told the Post that its story took quotes out of context and that he was involved in no criminal activity, but the appearance is damning — and apparently Stone thought that, too. He fled D.C. in a hurry on January 6, stating on film that he feared Biden’s by-then-announced Attorney General Merrick Garland, explaining, “He is not a friend.”

[...]

Indeed, a federal investigation that so far has netted charges against more than 700 smaller fish hasn’t ensnared any swamp creature larger than James or Rhodes, who pleaded not guilty to the same seditious conspiracy charge. The big kahunas — Stone, his pal Michael Flynn, Trump January 6 advisers like Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, and Steve Bannon, as well as Trump himself — have not been charged (although Bannon faces trial for ignored the House committee’s subpoena), and legal watchers have seen scant evidence such a probe is far along.

[...]

In announcing its strong evidence of Trump’s criminality around January 6, the committee also made it all but inevitable it will eventually send a criminal referral against Trump to Garland’s Justice Department. This will likely come after public hearings, probably this spring, that will lay out the case of the United States vs. Donald J. Trump. The pressure will mount on Garland to do something America has never done — charge a president with a crime.

[...]

In Sunday’s Washington Post, veteran journalist Dan Balz reports the biggest worry of America’s western allies in working so closely with the Biden administration against Russia is their fear that U.S. voters — or U.S. vote counters — will return Trump to the White House in 2024.

[...]

It’s totally legit to worry that the milquetoast-y Garland — whose prosecutors have already pulled their Trump-related punches in other matters — is the next frightened deer standing on the roadway between January 6 and real justice.

  Philadelphia Inquirer

The committee’s mission is legislative — to find the facts and identify gaps in the law that should be filled to prevent the events of Jan. 6 from ever occurring again. Garland and his Justice Department prosecutors, by contrast, assess the facts to decide whether to file criminal charges. And it’s a decision that requires more than just a good-faith belief that crimes may have been committed. Before charges may be filed, Justice Department policy requires evidence from which it is probable that a conviction can be obtained and sustained.

Even before a charging decision can be made, however, an investigation must be initiated. To do that, the department requires only “predication” — an allegation, report or facts indicating possible criminal activity.

[...]

— is it possible to find a jury of 12 people who could agree unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Trump of any crime, or, as he once famously said, could he “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without repercussion?/> [...]

It’s true that good reasons counsel against charging a former president. First, the inevitable claims of partisan politics alone would be harmful to the public trust in the Department of Justice, the restoration of which is Garland’s primary mission. Second, investigating a former president for crimes committed while in office sets a dangerous precedent, usually seen only in authoritarian regimes. One could imagine a future President Trump charging Joe Biden or even Hillary Clinton for fabricated criminal offenses. Third, there is the litigation risk of losing the case.

It’s true that good reasons counsel against charging a former president. First, the inevitable claims of partisan politics alone would be harmful to the public trust in the Department of Justice, the restoration of which is Garland’s primary mission. Second, investigating a former president for crimes committed while in office sets a dangerous precedent, usually seen only in authoritarian regimes. One could imagine a future President Trump charging Joe Biden or even Hillary Clinton for fabricated criminal offenses. Third, there is the litigation risk of losing the case.

But equally good reasons — maybe even better ones — argue for criminal charges that would advance a substantial federal interest in protecting the integrity of American elections.Garland will not make any investigative decisions based on the public outcry. I am equally confident that he is not ignoring what we all are beginning to see.

[...]

Garland will not make any investigative decisions based on the public outcry. I am equally confident that he is not ignoring what we all are beginning to see.

  BarbMcQuade at WaPo

Pray for the sake of democracy that Merrick Garland has balls.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.