When this is all over; when all the investigations are done and everyone who is going to be prosecuted has been prosecuted…
I sincerely hope that it’s you pointing at pictures of Trump and some other government figures being put in jail, and saying “See, I told you they were going down.”
And that it’s not me, pointing at Trump and the others campaigning and carrying on with their lives, and saying, “See, I told you that no one was going to do anything to them.”
This is one difference of opinion about which I really want to be proved wrong. Absolutely 100% wrong.
…charges twice in the past six months - first against the Oath Keepers, and today against five
members of the Proud Boys.
Enjoy those indictments. It’s as high up the crooked food chain as Merrick Garland is going to venture.
Quote:Enjoy those indictments. It’s as high up the crooked food chain as Merrick Garland is going to venture.
1. I don't know how high up the chain the DOJ will pursue.
2. And I won't pretend to know.
3. But, it is still a good thing that the DOJ has indicted those that they have indicted.
4. It is also a good a good thing that the DOJ has prosecuted those that they have prosecuted.
And we know that no matter who they finally charge and bring to trial, these cases take time, and time is running out. If they have done nothing to the big targets by the time the midterms get here IN FOUR MONTHS, it will damn sure be too late. Do you at least agree to that?
Members of the House committee investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat called on Sunday for the US justice department to consider a criminal indictment for the former president and warned that “the danger is still out there”.
Their comments on the eve of the second of the panel’s televised hearings into the January 6 2021 insurrection and deadly Capitol attack will add further pressure on the attorney general, Merrick Garland, who has angered some Democrats by so far taking no action despite growing evidence of Trump’s culpability.
“There are certain actions, parts of these different lines of effort to overturn the election, that I don’t see evidence the justice department is investigating,” committee member Adam Schiff, Democratic congressman for California, told ABC’s This Week.
“I would like to see the justice department investigate any credible allegation of criminal activity on the part of Donald Trump.”
Schiff, who led Democrats’ prosecution of Trump at his first impeachment trial in 2020, said Thursday’s primetime televised hearing, which attracted 20 million viewers, provided “just a sample” of the evidence the panel has gathered.
During Monday’s daytime hearing, he said, the committee will “tell the story of how Trump knowingly propagated his big lie” that his election defeat by Joe Biden was stolen from him by fraud, and how that lie was used to spread disinformation by Trump and his allies.
“Once the evidence is accumulated by the justice department, it needs to make a decision about whether it can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the president’s guilt or anyone else’s,” Schiff said.
“But they need to be investigated if there’s credible evidence, which I think there is.”
The Maryland Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin, another panel member, appeared on CNN’s State of the Union to assert his confidence that Garland “knows what’s at stake”.
“One of the conventions that was crushed during the Trump administration was respect by politicians for the independence of the law enforcement function,” Raskin said.
“Attorney General Garland is my constituent, and I don’t browbeat my constituents [but] he knows, his staff knows, US attorneys know, what’s at stake here.
“They know the importance of it, but I think they are rightfully paying close attention to precedent in history as well as the facts of this case.”
Raskin said Thursday’s televised hearing had “pierced the sound barrier” but that “Americans need to pay further attention because the danger is still out there”.
It emerged that “multiple” Republican Congress members had sought pardons from Trump, with the Pennsylvania representative Scott Perry, the only one identified so far, denying he had done so.
Perry was included in a meeting of congressional Republicans before the 6 January attack that strategized how to prevent lawmakers certifying Biden’s victory on that day.
“The seeking of pardons is a powerful demonstration of the consciousness of guilt, or at least the consciousness that you may be in trouble,” Raskin said.
“Everything we’re doing is documented by evidence, unlike the big lie, which is based on nonsense. Everything that we’re doing is based on facts.”
“They know the importance of it, but I think they are rightfully paying close attention to precedent in history as well as the facts of this case.”
-----Attorney General Merrick Garland has not closed the door on possibly charging Trump over
Jan. 6.
-----Garland told NBC News that Trump's possible 2024 candidacy would not affect his decision.
-----Legal and political experts are mixed on whether they think Trump will be federally indicted.
A 2024 Trump campaign would not necessarily protect the former president from federal charges in connection to the January 6 Capitol attack, US Attorney General Merrick Garland told NBC News this week.
Garland made the remarks in an exclusive interview with anchor Lester Holt on "NBC Nightly News" in a segment scheduled to air in full on Tuesday evening at 6:30 p.m. ET.
In an exchange from the interview shared early on social media, Holt pressed the attorney general on whether Donald Trump's possible candidacy in the next presidential election would impact the Justice Department's investigation into the insurrection.
"Look, we pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for the events surrounding January 6, for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable, that's what we do," Garland said. "We don't pay any attention to other issues with respect to that."
When Holt pushed for more specificity, Garland doubled down.
"I'll say again, that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer — legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next."
Trump told his allies recently that part of the draw of holding the nation's top seat again would be the legal immunity it provides, according to a Rolling Stone report published earlier this month.
Garland's comments come on the heels of eight public hearings full of bombshell witness testimony presented by the House Select Committee investigating the Capitol riot and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Legal and political experts thus far are mixed on whether they expect Trump to be indicted.
The choice of whether or not to charge Trump will ultimately fall to Garland who will have to weigh the optics of indicting a former president in a politically polarized country, Robert Weisberg, a criminal law professor at Stanford University previously told Insider. But even if Garland does conclude that he has a potentially winnable case, he could still forgo charges, thanks to prosecutorial discretion.
"Maybe people will think he shouldn't make that decision, but he has the legal power not to prosecute even if he has a legal basis for prosecution," Weisberg said.
In his NBC interview, Garland also touched on the possibility of the Jan. 6 panel issuing a criminal referral. The committee has yet to decide whether it will issue one, but Rep. Liz Cheney, who serves as vice-chair of the committee, said earlier this month that the panel could potentially make multiple criminal referrals, including one against Trump.
Garland told the outlet that a referral would be welcomed by the Justice Department, but added that the act has little concrete legal effect and serves as more of a symbolic measure.
"That's not to downgrade it or to or disparage it. It's just that that's not what, that's not the issue here," he said. "We have our own investigation, pursuing through the principles of prosecution."
Read the original article on Business Insider
I hate to say it, but Donald Trump is not going to prison.
Today they announced the first of the January 6th insurrectionists, Guy Reffitt, was sentenced to 87 months in prison for his participation in the event. Reffitt brought several guns to Washington D.C. and carried one onto the steps of the capitol building. He stated at the time “I just want to see Pelosi’s head hit every f**king stair on the way out. … And Mitch McConnell too.”
In a plea for leniency following all his earlier bravado, Reffitt stated he was a “f***king idiot” who was parroting the Founding Fathers.
Agreed, especially the part about being a “f***king idiot.”
His daughter Peyton told the judge her father was not dangerous, and correctly pointed out his name was not on the flags everyone was carrying, in a reference to Trump. “He was not the leader,” she said.
She also stated her family had “turned a blind eye to his mental health issues.”
Isn’t it reassuring to know a man with mental health issues was on the steps of the capitol building with a loaded gun? Fortunately for Reffitt, the judge denied a request from the prosecution to add terrorism to the charges. Had the judge granted that Reffitt would have been looking at a much longer sentence.
Apparently storming the U.S. Capitol Building with a loaded gun with the intent to kill members of Congress and overturn the election doesn’t qualify as terrorism. Who knew?
Trump’s involvement
You would have to be a pioneer, a real trailblazer in the field of denial to say Trump wasn’t the leader of the insurrection. Beginning with the “Stop the Steal” campaign, orchestrated by Roger Stone (remember him?) in 2016, it became the rallying point for Trump and his supporters who would in no way accept a November loss.
We all saw the video of Trump and his family at what can only be described as a command post on the day of the insurrection where he spoke to his angry followers and directed them to march to the capitol building. We heard the music playing and watched his family sing along and dance. It was a real party.
Trump himself wanted to join the insurrectionists, but as we found out recently, he was prevented by the Secret Service. We heard how he tried to grab the steering wheel of the car he was riding in so he would be able to be there. While some people said this was untrue, others corroborated the story. Is there anyone who thinks that is out of character for Trump?
We watched as Trump refused to tell the insurrectionists to stand down. We watched him refuse to call in the National Guard to put down the insurrection. We watched him tell everyone Mike Pence had it coming for not overturning the election in his favor.
Trump never actually conceded the election. He never made a public statement acknowledging Joe Biden won. Instead, he had a spokesperson in a tweet state the following: “Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless, there will be an orderly transition on January 20th.”
How much more evidence does a rational mind need to conclude this was Trump’s insurrection, that Trump in fact was the leader of it?
Five reasons why Trump will not go to prison
There are people out there who think Donald Trump is actually going to prison at some point. I hope they’re right, but I know they’re not. I would love nothing more than to have to eat these words and apologize for being wrong, but I don’t think that is going to happen. Here is why.
The first reason Trump will not go to prison is a general disinterest by the public. People like me who are into politics are following it, and those of us who found Trump repugnant want to see him to go prison. His supporters clearly do not. But the vast majority of the American population has moved on. It’s yesterday’s news. The outcry for Trump to be imprisoned simply isn’t there, no matter how badly I wish it was. I am not going to gaslight myself on this one. Neither should you.
A second reason Trump will never spend a day in prison is he has the goods on a lot of people. A LOT of people. Trump has been doing business for decades, mostly in a shroud of secrecy. Those who get close to him in business find themselves signing non-disclosure agreements.
The first task of any mob leader is to make sure everyone’s hands get dirty. If everyone’s hands are dirty, it is much less likely anyone would be a rat. You can bet your neighbor’s MAGA hat that most people who did big business deals with Trump did so in less-than-ethical ways, and in other instances, outright illegal ways. Trump made sure their hands got dirty so they would never turn on him.
Due to this high level of secrecy, we most likely will never know which Russian oligarchs used Trump properties to launder money, or how favors were repaid by these people. We will never know which high-profile Americans have been involved in illegal or unethical business dealings with Trump.
Trump has signed hundreds, if not thousands of these non-disclosure agreements with people he has done business with. Someone who violates these legally-binding agreements could pay heavily for their loose lips. Thus silence is assured as Trump moves through the shadows.
None of the people who could out Trump ever will. The price for them is too high. Keep in mind many of these people could be at higher levels of government and have reputations and re-election campaigns to protect. If Trump goes down, does anyone think he won’t take as many people as he can down with him?
If you did something illegal with Trump and made a lot of money, and you were afraid he would spill the beans, would you testify against him? Of course not.
Closely related to this, and the third reason Trump will never go to prison is his army of lawyers and accountants. The IRS doesn’t touch Trump. Not really. They pretend to. He has more accountants and lawyers than they can assign to his audits. Remember when Trump campaigned in 2016 and said the past ten years were still being audited? If Trump’s accountants can’t confound the IRS, his lawyers can. There is no way the IRS will win. It is easier for the IRS to go after the low-hanging fruit like you and me and leave people like Trump alone. It’s not worth the fight.
Trump’s mentor Roy Cohn admonished him to “use lawsuits like bullets,” and indeed Trump does. He keeps his enemies busy fending off lawsuits, which eats up both their time and money. Few people want to expend that much time and energy fighting Trump, so they simply avoid the conflict and acquiesce to Trump.
Still another reason Trump will not go to prison is the fear of turning him into a martyr or a political prisoner. Make no mistake about it. If Trump were to be convicted and sentenced, he would go down swinging. His followers would be outraged, and we have already seen what they are capable of. He would be quick to call himself a political prisoner.
Those in a position to bring charges against Trump are well aware of what the fallout could be. It is unlikely they will want to create a situation like this after what the country went through during the Trump presidency. Putting Trump in prison would not be anything like it would have been if Nixon had been prosecuted. Trump has an army of loyalists that are willing to risk everything.
Finally, there is the fear of revenge. Trump has a long history of taking vengeance on anyone who stands up to him or undermines him. This revenge could be physical or financial, or both. It could be directed at the person who stood up to Trump, or a member of that person’s family or friends. Who among the prosecutors would want to be #1 on Trump’s revenge list?
My guess is in the months to come, more people like Guy Reffitt will be tried and sentenced. People who participated at lower levels than that will receive lighter sentences such as 30 days or probation. Some simply won’t be prosecuted at all.
As for the case against Trump, in all likelihood, this will go the way of the Mueller investigation. Evidence will be gathered and presented, and it will all wilt on the vine as Trump runs out the clock and prepares for 2024.
How many times have you heard it? “No one is above the law.”
Yet that aphorism of American democracy has been a myth when it comes to presidents.
Fortunately, few presidents have shown such a penchant for criminality as Donald Trump. And none have done so to a more heinous end: threatening our very system of government. To stay in office, he worked to overturn a historically free and fair election and to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Even in failing, Trump undermined democracy; many millions of Americans, Republicans, wrongly believe President Biden stole the 2020 election.
The Justice Department under Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland should take all the time it needs to build a case against Trump for his central role in the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021, one that is strong enough to persuade a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt — and thus ensure, as Rep. Liz Cheney says, that Trump never gets “anywhere near the Oval Office ever again.”
But unless Justice does charge and prosecute the unrepentant former president, the truth will be clear: One man is above the law.
Garland has repeatedly insisted otherwise, without naming Trump. His exasperation was evident last week when, after his latest reassurance that the law reaches all Americans, a reporter challenged him, “Even a former president?”
“I don’t know how to — maybe I’ll say that again,” came the reply. “No person is above the law in this country. I can’t say it more clearly than that.”
Days later, NBC anchor Lester Holt came at Garland again but asked whether Garland worried that “the indictment of a former president, and perhaps a candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart.” The attorney general didn’t buckle:
“We pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone, anyone, who was criminally responsible for events surrounding Jan. 6, for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable.”
Prove it.
Presidents current and former inarguably enjoy a higher bar to prosecution, and not without reason: the national interest.
For sitting presidents, the Justice Department has held since Richard Nixon’s time that criminally indicting an incumbent “would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.” Thus, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III didn’t indict Trump in 2019 despite detailing 10 damning instances suggesting he’d obstructed justice in the investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.
For former presidents there aren’t constitutional restraints to prosecution, but there are practical, political red flags, especially for Trump.
Inevitably many Americans — a minority, various polls suggest, but a significant one — will see any Justice Department prosecution of Trump as partisan, especially when the government is headed by the opposite party and by the man who was Trump’s once and perhaps future political rival. Failure to convict could elevate Trump politically, just as he was emboldened after Senate Republicans prevented his conviction in two impeachments. And trying Trump could spark rounds of revenge prosecutions as the parties swap power over time.
Yet the ramifications of not putting Trump in the dock — and, ideally, in an orange jumpsuit — would be even worse. On that, I’m with the two renegade Republicans on the House’s Jan. 6 committee.
Cheney recently warned that letting a president get away with treasonous activities is a “much graver constitutional threat” than prosecuting him. On Monday, Rep. Adam Kinzinger said, “If we just wash this under the rug … there is going to be somebody else, whether it’s Donald Trump in 2024 or somebody else somewhere down the line, that recognizes that was the floor of their behavior, and pushes even more. And we can’t survive that.”
After all the chants of Trump’s MAGAts to “Lock ‘er up” and “Hang Mike Pence,” the karmic prospect that it would be Trump who’s actually threatened with jail time, with the rope to figuratively hang him unspooled by testimony from his own inner circle, is especially satisfying.
Seriously, though, the evidence we’re aware of — you know there’s more — argues for charges of fraud, seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding (Congress’ Jan. 6 session to certify Biden’s victory) or all of the above.
From election night on, Trump has insisted he was defrauded of reelection although top advisors told him otherwise. He pressured Justice Department officials to confirm such fraud despite their denials of it — “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen,” he said.
He urged Republican officeholders in states Biden won to back bogus pro-Trump slates to the electoral college. He summoned his MAGA army to Washington for Congress’ Jan. 6 session and then, knowing some supporters were armed, urged them to march on the Capitol. For three hours he did nothing to stop the rampage; instead he called Republican senators to goad them to keep trying to block Biden’s election certification.
In 1974, like most Americans, I opposed President Ford’s pardon of Nixon for his Watergate actions and other crimes in office. A quarter century later, however, I approved when the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation gave its “Profile in Courage” award to Ford for his unpopular act to help a divided nation put the scandal behind it.
But now I’ve come full circle: Had Nixon been prosecuted for his crimes, we wouldn’t be without a precedent for trying Trump.
Instead we’d have proof that, indeed, no man is above the law.
