UncleEbeneezer linked to a good article in the comments of an earlier post today.
Merrick Garland and the Appeal of Autocracy (FAQS
by Teri Kanefield
She address all of these points, and more.
1. Garland isn’t doing anything. If he were, people would be getting subpoenaed and hauled before the grand jury and we’d know.
2. “If Garland was investigating Trump, we’d see some evidence of the investigation!”
3. “Garland should just indict what they have now and bring superseding indictments later.”
4. “We need Trump convicted to keep him from running for office.”
5. “But we need to speed things up because there is a looming election.”
6. “We Need Indictments Now to Get Rid of the Crazies and Save Democracy.”
… and more
Related…
Awhile back I contacted a few of our BJ attorneys and asked if they would be interested in participating in the occasional “BJ lawyers roundtable” when there was something interesting to discuss. Several said ‘yes’, none said ‘no’, and multiple people suggested other attorneys that should be invited to participate, also.
So while I hope we can have an interesting conversation in the comments of this post, I also want to ask if you guys think this would be a good topic for our first official BJ attorneys roundtable?
What say you BJ peeps and BJ attorneys?
Open thread.
schrodingers_cat
Did Baud say yes?
different-church-lady
“BANKSTERS!!1!”
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I’ve got to get away from the machine, so I’ll read the linked post later, but if this is gonna be a discussion here’s a half-understood thing I think I know but I’d be interested in feedback from attorneys: I’ve read/heard that acquittals can serve as precedents in future cases, which to my mind would go a long way toward explaining prosecutors’ caution beyond, “Oh, they’re just afraid of losing.”
Is this actually a Thing?
Benw
“BJ lawyers roundtable”
THAT’S what we’re calling cocaine-fueled orgies now!? And why wasn’t I invited!!?
Chetan Murthy
Boy howdy, it’s such a great story the lawyer tells about the lady sleeping in the truck.
HE DID THE COUP ON LIVE TEEVEE.
Jesus H. Christ. Ben Franklin is turning over in his grave (“A republic, if you can keep it”). We evidently can’t keep it.
Jerzy Russian
I would read/watch a roundtable with attorneys from Balloon-Juice. We could learn a lot, especially from those with direct experience with federal courts.
Old School
But things happen faster on TV shows!
Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes
The favorite middle tier whiskeys to wash down each day’s disappointments, grudges and bitterness, ranked.
My go-to is usually on the higher proof scale, like Larceny.
different-church-lady
Good grief, the amount of time she has to spend wrestling Twitter hot-takes is just absurd.
fancycwabs
I disagree with the author’s contention that Garland will be in office until 2025, because I guarantee you that there are members of the Sedition Caucus who are considering the assassination of President Biden and the installation of Donald Trump as dictator, should the Republicans retake the House in November.
There is no other reason to make Trump Speaker of The House (as Matt Gaetz has promised) without the end goal of returning him to the White House. Via violence.
I know this sounds unthinkable, and yet I’m thinking about it. And I’m not alone.
UncleEbeneezer
Yeah I was gonna warn you about the challenge of block-quoting etc. in WP. It was tough even just posting as an excerpt as a comment.
WaterGirl
Excerpt from the article:
WaterGirl
And another:
WaterGirl
@UncleEbeneezer: If you read something particularly interesting in the article, you guys are free to copy and quote small pieces from the article into the comments.
WaterGirl
@fancycwabs: Let the fear mongering begin.
UncleEbeneezer
From the other thread, here was my rough take (supporting excerpts in comment over there):
For me the big takeaway is that timing is everything and as much as I eagerly await indictments on Bannon, Stone and a whole host of others, if dropping those indictments jeopardizes getting people even higher up (most obviously: Trump) I’d rather DOJ work slowly. I’d rather be frustrated now than see high level officials skate free because DOJ moves before they have things air-tight. I know we all love to mock the “keeping their powder kegs dry” tendency of institutionalists/Dems, but this really is a case where lighting the powder keg too soon could mean a whole bunch of other bigger, more important powder kegs, never get ignited. Or more accurately it’s not “you go at the King you best not miss” but “you go at the Queen, knights, bishops etc., you better pick the right time or the King might escape as a result.”
I’m also happy to see that DOJ can in fact subpoena all kinds of stuff under a gag order so that nobody is aware of it. I also remind myself of the fact that Garland investigated and brought a grand jury for the Oklahoma City bombing, without any leaks. Granted, that was in much earlier internet days, but still it shows he understands the importance of doing so and has an actual big-time, historic investigation that he did on the down-low resulting in several convictions all of which held up on appeal.
CaseyL
Of course I’d be there, with bells on!, for a BJ Lawyer Round Table. The BJ Community has the most interesting and knowledgeable people in it I’ve ever encountered. It’s no accident that when “news” finally reports stuff, it’s generally old news to us, complete with contextual analysis.
Real time? With the chance to ask questions? Oh my goodness: YES.
And I do understand the necessities of having an air-tight case first. My anxiety is that the Treason Caucus is barrelling ahead with election laws that will make ours a “managed” democracy, a la Hungary, and there seems to be little time to stop them before the midterms. (Mind you, if DOJ issues a raft of indictments and takes out half, or all, of the GOP Leadership in one fell swoop, that would be lovely.)
Alison Rose ???
@WaterGirl: Just nominated that for a rotating tag.
oldgold
Is Sir Cole insisting it be a Round table as opposed to a Square table?
WaterGirl
If you’re a BJ attorney, chime in if you are interested in participating in the attorney round tables.
I am now trying to remember who all I communicated with when I first had this idea.
Omnes
Imm
Almost Retired
Kay
Laura
Barbara, pretty sure on this one.
But there’s a Barbara who is an attorney and another nym who is an attorney whose real name might be Barbara, so I am experiencing some Barbara confusion. :-)
Pretty sure I tried to contact Baud but he doesn’t answer my emails. :-(
Lots more BJ attorneys, so please chime in if you’re interested.
Martin
@fancycwabs: No, you’re not alone.
WaterGirl
@oldgold: He is not. But I personally much prefer round to square!
fancycwabs
@WaterGirl: Well yeah. But saying “there will be violence on January 6” was fear mongering until it wasn’t.
The Moar You Know
@fancycwabs: With a few changes, this could be my go-to excuse for never setting foot outside my house again.
4/10, too much doom porn. Possible but in no way plausible, like the “CIA assassinated Andrew Breitbart with a special gun that shoots ice bullets”
oldgold
@WaterGirl:
Do you know who the most well-rounded Knight of King Arthur’s Round Table was?
Barbara
So much of the commentary she is responding to is essentially asking Garland to use the apparatus of the DOJ for symbolic effect. Perhaps the most egregious is urging that he indict now and then replace the quick but insufficient indictment with a superseding indictment later — i.e., get a big symbolic boost from indicting even if the indictment is inadequate. I cannot stress how stupid this would be for all kinds of reasons, starting with validating accusations that indictments are being brought for political reasons, and making it harder to get an eventual conviction for all the other reasons she states.
As for the statements and opinions and critiques of “former prosecutors,” okay, there are A LOT of people who can claim this mantle. Unless they actively participated for more than two years in one of the more complex areas of criminal enforcement — like healthcare fraud or racketeering or money laundering — then I would discount their credibility on how to penetrate and take down an organization by the use of federal criminal prosecutions. I am happy to tell you that I am not a former prosecutor, but I know more than a few and I know that most of their important cases took years to come to a close. Work in other capacities also lets me understand that investigations can take years, and really, the number of indictments and convictions the DOJ has obtained from the January 6 mob incursion in such a short time is actually pretty amazing.
The kind of trial in the court of public opinion that these people crave is better conducted by congressional committees, but there is clearly a risk that kind of trial can undermine actual criminal prosecution.
WaterGirl
@oldgold: I do not.
WaterGirl
@Barbara: Nodding.
I think it’s key that part of the title is:
Appeal of Autocracy
So many people seem to want us to be autocratic like Trump was, though likely not to that extent, only use the powers for good, but there is no autocracy that is not dangerous as hell.
oldgold
Sir Cumference
ian
@fancycwabs:
That isn’t how it works. If (goddess forbid) something happens to Biden, Kamala Harris becomes president. The house can do nothing about it by themselves. The R party would need 67 (68?) votes in the senate to remove a sitting president. Do you think they are going to pick up 18 senate seats, and have all of them vote that way on a clearly bogus impeachment charge?
edited
schrodingers_cat
@WaterGirl: I am always suspicious of people who offer simplistic solutions to difficult problems.
WaterGirl
Open thread, right?
So glad they are back home.
schrodingers_cat
Do not respond to the Obvious Concern Troll.
germy
Meanwhile…
ian
@ian: weird blockquoting.. not sure why that happened
WaterGirl
@WaterGirl: Survived Russian captivity sounds ominous.
I really worried for the Snake Island soldiers because Putin could not have been happy with the rallying cry that these guys provided early on.
Sounds like my worry was warranted but I am glad they are back home.
villiageidiocy
@WaterGirl: Thank you. A couple of folks on the previous thread were getting on my last nerve.
n.b. I’ve found the Emptywheel blog very informative, if often too dense for the amount of time I have to read it, on these investigations.
Betty Cracker
This comment isn’t offered as a counterpoint to this post specifically but rather to the notion that people who are getting antsy about the apparent lack of progress from the DOJ either don’t understand how things work and/or lack patience.
No less a personage than Friend of the Blog and former US attorney and prosecutor Adam Schiff has expressed concern that “there’s a real desire on the part of the attorney general, for the most part, not to look backward.” Schiff pointedly emphasized yesterday that Congress has done its work and the DOJ needs to do its job too:
January 6th committee member Liz Cheney also name-checked the DOJ yesterday, publicly calling on “department leadership” not to inappropriately assign immunity. That’s pretty specific!
Rep. Luria, another January 6th committee member, was even more blunt:
These are well-connected people with more knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances than we and the lady who runs FAQ page have, and they are concerned about this issue. Just saying.
WaterGirl
@ian: I think I fixed that for you. Assuming I was successful at mind-reading.
Josie
I am very much in favor of a round table involving BJ attorneys. This blog is a constant source of good information and context for news. I am amazed at the wide range of knowledge and abilities found here.
Ramalama
@WaterGirl: Really great article. Thanks for sharing. She’s doing yeoman’s work and her writing is much easier to follow than one of my favorite journalists – Marcy Wheeler. Marcy’s also battling against sooooo many people wrt Merrick Garland – and she’s got the actual receipts. But I often have to come up for air and blink a bunch of times after reading a couple of sentences.
Kay
@Betty Cracker:
And not just that- that anyone who questions it is a supporter of “autocracy”.
Adam Schiff- autocrat.
ian
@WaterGirl:
Thank you, looks great!
WaterGirl
@Kay: I’m not sure what you’re saying there. “anyone who questions it”
Anyone who questions what?
Omnes Omnibus
I doubt that any further discussion of this will get us anywhere. Those who want action now want action now. Those who are willing to wait on the process are willing to wait on the process.
Betty Cracker
@Kay: Liz Cheney, maybe, but yeah, Schiff…not so much. ;-)
WaterGirl
@Adam L Silverman: This isn’t just about TRUMP. There are a whole bunch of formerly high ranking officials in his administration that can be held to account.
germy
@Kay:
If Adam Schiff, Elaine Luria and Liz Cheney came here to express the same concerns, they’d be shouted down by jackals telling them they just don’t understand the law.
WaterGirl
@Omnes Omnibus: I think there is a HUGE middle ground, made up of people like me, who want to further understand how things work so we can figure out where we land on the “will they or won’t they” question.
geg6
@Betty Cracker:
Totally agree. These are people, for the most part, who know what it takes to conduct an investigation and/or complicated prosecution. They also have a lot more information than anyone here or elsewhere have available. If they are concerned, I’m concerned, no matter what other experts have to say. If they aren’t part of the investigation, they are flying blind.
WaterGirl
No one can know what is going to happen in November. There are way too many wildcards to be able to know what the outcome will be.
I prefer to fight for the WIN rather than prepare for a LOSS that may or may not happen.
zhena gogolia
Yeah, back to work.
Mueller produced a very long, detailed investigative report. Congress failed to act on it.
zhena gogolia
@Adam L Silverman: How does one prepare oneself for it?
scribbler
@Adam L Silverman: How was one supposed to prepare for it?
I am not being snarky, I honestly don’t know.
Chris
@Adam L Silverman:
This. And all the rest of it too.
Everything that’s being said about Garland is stuff that was already said about Mueller a couple years ago, and Mueller wasn’t even the first to embody the total lack of consequences for malfeasance from right-wing politicians. At this point, “oh, they’re doing something, you just can’t see it” is sheer delusional wishcasting.
zhena gogolia
WHAT THE FUCK WAS MUELLER SUPPOSED TO DO? HE HAD NO POWER TO PROSECUTE TRUMP.
jl
@WaterGirl: ” there is no autocracy that is not dangerous as hell. ”
The Russian invasion got me to reading some European military history, going back to when it was ruled by autocrats. It was a continuous, pointless, blood bath for over a thousand years. And in retrospect, Jefferson was correct, almost all of the autocrats were fools, vicious fools.
Churchill was capable of wisdom in some some things. One was that democracy was the worse system of government except for all the others. And ‘jaw jaw is better than wahr wahr’
laura
We’ve become conditioned to expect immediacy in all things. I’ve been following Emptwheel both on twitter and at emptywheel.net because she is meticulous and dilligent in following so many threads of the J6 investigation and cases as well as the fuckery and criming of tfg and company leading up to the 2016 election. Marcy patiently reminds us of the practical realities including; that charged defendants have the right to discovery that could be used to protect of subjects of investigation as well as the GOP writ large; that contempt proceedings for some such as Mark Meadows are minor misdemeanors that could result in a fine but then preclude serious federal criminal charges – would you prefer a parking ticket instead of a criminal conviction for say obstruction or conspiracy to obstruct; and the actual reality that the current J6 defendants are creating a serious backlog for AUSA’s that attorneys are being redirected from outside DC to handle these current cases. For those who mistakenly believe that the DOJ is not working may not be aware that the first act upon confirmation by Lisa Monaco was to subpoena Rudy Giuliani and his many many electronic communication devices.
That said, it is not unreasonable to wish for more “action” and the midterms pose a risk that the GOP will fuck over We the People if they take the House and Senate so we see the high stakes and wring our hands because the only thing to be done right now is to work our asses off to elect more Democrat candidates in November.
Watching TV lawyers is not the best use of your time and attention IMHO.
That’s my take and I’m available for criticism at this time.
Geminid
@ian: Most of the Republican Senators sitting now despise Trump.
geg6
@Adam L Silverman:
To be fair, if I had any idea what to do to prepare for your scenario, I would. I just don’t know what I can possibly do. I’m not wealthy, I don’t have liquid assets, and I don’t know where I could go anyway.
Omnes Omnibus
@Chris: There have been no indictments so far? No witnesses are cooperating? Hmmm…. Obviously part of my delusional wishcasting.
WaterGirl
@laura: Thank you for that.
This should be a rotating tag.
germy
We need smarter voters.
I blame right wing media.
If we had smarter voters, Trump never would have come anywhere near the presidency. If we had smarter voters, Manchin and Sinema wouldn’t matter. They might not even be in office.
laura
@WaterGirl: it’s the story of my life?
jl
I would like a periodic roundtable of the BJ legal flying wing. I guess Cole could send them some BJ gear as compensation.
I have no clue how these things work. I do think that the impact of whatever happens on upcoming elections is more important than legal action. The law can often be an ass, and although justice can grind fine, it often grinds far too slowly. Especially when it has been corrupted to let wrong doers off the hook in proportion to their wealth and power (as I think it has in the US, whether Trump, GOPer or not).
I think that the court of public opinion is the most important factor in a political crisis that threatens democracy. I think we are in such a crisis, and shaping the consensus of popular opinion with the truth is the best way to meet the crisis in time to fend off the worst. I think the political dimension of the crisis is far more important than the narrow legal issues. In a better world we would get justice in both courts, but in the current situation, we may have to settle for justice in just one, the critical one that will determine who will govern the country in the near future.
Jinchi
Right. People remember Robert Mueller. Now they’re sceptical when told that Garland has some master plan to take down Trump. What is it? Not going to believe it until they see evidence that Garland is actually pursuing an indictment.
So far the system has been pretty effective at protecting the rich and powerful. We’ve seen Trump committing crimes on live TV and yet prosecutors are twisted in knots trying to make a legal case.
Ksmiami
@Adam L Silverman: then Civil War 2 it is. Oh well, we had a good run
Kay
@WaterGirl:
It just always goes to this. This claim that they’re demanding people be hauled off in irons.
The writer is saying “abscence of evidence of an investigation is not evidence of an abscence of an investigation”
That’s fine but what it really means is “I don’t know” and the people asking don’t know either. There’s no correct answer. They’re not “wrong” or “autocratic”. They don’t know, hence, they’re asking.
skerry
I’d be very interested in a “roundtable”. I think the DOJ would be a good topic to start with.
Would we try to zoom a meeting or just in the blog?
WaterGirl
@laura: I added it as a rotating tag. :-)
Geminid
@germy: They’d cerainly get arguments, and they would argue back. I don’t keep track, but it seems to me that either side of this issue has strong advocates here, some vehement.
jl
@skerry: I’ve never joined any BJ remotes. I think some of the lawyers would want to preserve their anonymity. I do think that a remote with pixeled faces with funny sounding disguised voices would be a blast, especially as how it would be done BJ-style.
But either written blog or remote would be fine with me.
WaterGirl
@skerry:
I suspect we would do both, because this certainly lends itself to conversation, so some people would prefer zoom and others would prefer a thread. In fact, some of the Bj attorneys might be interested in a thread but not a zoom, and vice versa.
No reason we can’t do both.
jl
@Geminid: The BJ legal squad does vehemence in such a high toned, entertaining and stylish way, though.
surfk9
Marcy Wheeler deals with a lot of the same stuff. She comes up with pretty much the same answers.
Sure Lurkalot
From USA Today, DOJ looking to hire 130 attorneys:
Ms. Monaco sounds more zealous than Mr. Garland, though he too has trotted out with similar words.
Still, as Betty points out, how should we understand the frustration displayed by the Congress persons she quoted? Wouldn’t they be more dialed in than Teri Kanefield?
I don’t think anyone here wants performative action for its own sake. I know I have a Mueller obsession, but it’s not a stretch to feel we’ve been down this long and fruitless road before.
WaterGirl
@jl: I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that Baud would participate in a zoom, and there’s maybe half a chance in hell that Omnes might. Probably less. But I’ll bet that Imm and Almost Retired would, and likely some of the other BJ attorneys would zoom also.
So yeah, we would do both, I think.
Betty Cracker
@jl:
Excellent point. A dramatic shift in public opinion is one of the few — maybe the only — things that could avert the scenario Adam outlines at #44.
germy
Some good news:
Old School
Hmmmm. Adam’s comment seems to have been deleted. I assume he did so himself.
Barbara
@Omnes Omnibus: I don’t even think it’s that people who want things immediately want things immediately so much as they are existentially afraid and really, really, want to feel like they have finally awoken from a nightmare situation they are powerless to stop.
These people are not thinking rationally. Let’s say Garland does what they say he should. What happens if another retrograde mob boss gets control of the executive branch? He pardons everyone and launches a new round of criminality in the exercise of power. The real solution isn’t criminal prosecution of today’s miscreants, although such prosecutions are warranted and important — nonetheless, I guarantee there will be others waiting in the wings to do as much and worse.
The solution was is and will always be more engagement with the democratic process.
SiubhanDuinne
@WaterGirl:
@zhena gogolia:
@scribbler:
@geg6:
You all apparently replied to an Adam post that now isn’t there. I guess he deleted it after posting, which is obviously his right, but it’s very confusing to the rest of us — okay, to me — to read a series of responses to a comment that doesn’t exist.
Betty Cracker
@Barbara: You can’t really have democracy without accountability for those subverting it, IMO. When criminals get away with subverting democracy, there’s less democracy with which to engage — until finally there’s none.
WaterGirl
@Sure Lurkalot: I read somewhere that the past is useful in predicting the future about 33% of the time.
We can work for the future we want.
Or we can sit back, proclaim that we can know ahead of time what is going to happen, certain that things are going to go badly, and prepare for a future that may or may not happen.
No one can know because the future hasn’t happened yet.
It’s time to pick a side. One side is going to be right, and the other wrong. Since we can’t be certain of the outcome until it happens, I want to be on the side of no regrets, knowing that I have done everything I can to increase the odds of the best outcome.
It’s time to pick a side, and I choose fighting for the future I want.
I will just say that everyone knew Ukraine was going to be crushed by Russia. Until they weren’t. i would rather be on team “Russian warships, go fuck yourselves”.
J R in WV
Surely B-J lawyers will never disagree with each other — ;~)
I’ve enjoyed legal reporting at Emptywheel.net and see no reason why we shouldn’t have some here as well… you guys can tell us why AG Garland is doing a great job and how come he isn’t doing anything at all at the same time…
or something like that!
Thanks in advance!!
CaseyL
@Sure Lurkalot:
“Fitzmas,” also, too.
Believe me, I am right there with you. I am listening to people like Wheeler and Kanefield for the sake of my sanity.
Regarding Schiff and other MOCs who are calling out DOJ: None of them, SFAIK, are prosecutors. They are also operating under a different time table (hoping to get things wrapped up before January 2023) and therefore have slightly different end goals in mind. I don’t know what, if any, criminal penalties can be imposed by Congress – the answer may be “none at all, they can only refer actionable matters to DOJ” – in which case, they are at best duplicating the work DOJ is doing.
Martin
@Barbara: I think the broader problem is that we have watched lawlessness of the wealthy and powerful go unaddressed for so long that we now have ZERO faith that this trend will suddenly get reversed. So every time the House makes a contempt referral, we lean into the federate statute that says the AG must convene a grand jury. We’re looking for a forcing function to hold people accountable because we have no faith it can happen in any other way.
And I get that. I was banging the drum in 2015 that Donald Trump was a fucking criminal, and had been since the 70s, and had mostly skated by because of his wealth. Nearly half a century of lawlessness going unpunished with the final reward being that he got to be President and could pardon all of his co-conspirators. But the criticisms of Garland to me fall flat. They seem to mainly be predicated on the belief that Garland wasn’t liberal enough when Obama nominated him and isn’t sufficiently loyal to the mission of punishing conservatives. And that’s bullshit.
And yeah, there’s additional worry about the state of USSC, that not only is the majority predisposed to support Trump, but there’s this additional worry of corruption due to Ginni Thomas. If we were already lacking faith in our institutions, boy, they’re turned up to 11 right now.
But the DOJ has been getting results. We doubted that DOJ would risk pushing for seditious conspiracy charges and they’ve been doing that consistency, and getting convictions, guilty pleas, cooperation, etc. They’ve so far exceeded what people thought they could get. It’s just taken longer than we want. And we’re terrified about the implications of upcoming elections on all of this. The Jan 6 committee is on a timer.
SiubhanDuinne
@WaterGirl:
Steve in the ATL is an attorney. If you haven’t reached out to him yet, I’m sure he’d enjoy being part of the roundtable. (ETA: I think burnspbesq is also a lawyer, but that’s mostly an assumption based on the last three letters of his nym.)
IANAL myself, but would be very interested in muting my microphone, sitting back, and watching jackalawyers go at it. Hope you can set it up.
Cathie from Canada
It comes back to that Monty Python line “This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who.”
It’s always easier – plus it always feels more productive – for a new administration to do new stuff rather than clean up the old stuff. This is true about most Western governments, not just the USA.
Whenever a government changes – even when The Former Guy is universally reviled and hated — there are always new people in the administration who want to want to “look forward” and “not re-litigate the past”. Anyone who tries to demand accountability for past crimes and misdemeanors will find themselves smeared as “backward-looking sensationalists” and “petty revenge-seekers”.
So the idea that Garland and Justice have spent the last 14 months secretly building some kind of magnificent substantial case against Trump or against any of his close staff — a case so secret that nobody anywhere knows anything about it and nobody involved is saying a single word about it to anybody — is just ridiculous.
If Garland had ever wanted to do this, then Justice and the FBI would have been holding monthly press conferences since February 2021 — to maintain media interest in the case, to build a narrative that explained to the general public about the connections between the Trump administration and the Jan 6 insurrectionists, and to help create a public consensus for prosecution. That what Adam Schiff would have been doing. That’s what he wants the Justice Department to do. But Garland and Wray haven’t been doing this because they are “looking forward”.
I don’t think the Garland justice department will ever try to prosecute Trump or his staff for anything.
Barbara
@Betty Cracker: Totally agreed. My point is that clamoring for the “immediacy” of such prosecutions can make them ineffective, and might even be counterproductive to longer term accountability. Trump simply pardoned Manafort et al. and that’s what would happen to new prosecutions if they are vulnerable to accusations that they were politically motivated.
oldgold
For a practicing attorney, uncloaking and spouting off on controversial matters might not be where wisdom lies.
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne:
I’ll paraphrase from memory.
There will be no prosecution of Trump. We will lose both houses in November. There are no investigations of any of this, which is why we are not hearing anything. I was right about Ukraine, I am right about this. We are doomed, and you will not like the future that is coming, especially because you have not prepared for it.
Something like that.
Kay
@Barbara:
Yeah, really disagree. Prosecutions are one at a time. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not more criminals will be coming along. No one is asking Merrick Garland to fix our political system. They’re asking whether these specific people will be held accountable for specific acts.
The only accountability measure cannot be elections. It won’t work. They’ll simply screw with elections, well, “will”. Are.
germy
@Cathie from Canada:
You’re from Canada? Are you looking to adopt? I don’t eat much and I’m generally neat and noiseless.
Miss Bianca
@Sure Lurkalot: I keep thinking that at least some of this huffing and puffing at the DOJ on the part of the J6 Committee may be performative: I’m sure *they* are getting a lot of
whininginput to the effect of, “why are you and/or the DOJ just sitting there, don’t you understand you need to be seen to be DOING SOMETHING!”It may be signal, it may be noise. It may be a bit of both.
MisterDancer
@Betty Cracker: If I understand correctly: The DoJ can’t tell Schiff what’s up w/o telling others in Congress — including GOP members (at least w/o major fallout and accusations of bias which are A Problem).
And Cheney (maybe) aside, that opens up Risk around leaks that can derail ongoing investigations.
I don’t see the lack of bowing to political pressure, and desire for feedback, as a completely bad thing, here. Instead: it is, at least for now, a potential sign of the kind of independence we now know Muller failed to support in his work. A way to insulate whatever we may get, from any hint of political bias.
We’ve seen it already in the 1/6 convictions to-date. As much as I am personally frustrated at how it looks like kid gloves, I cannot fault that they’ve been running people thru the court system at a regular clip, these days. And that we’re not seeing a lot of pushback in the right-wing media on said convictions; a lot of generic churn, but no case they cling to as a cause to circle/fundraise around, to date.
I may be naive, and I sure as hell ain’t a Lawyer. Yet that feels like the play the DoJ is making, so far.
CaseyL
@Cathie from Canada:
All of which has sod-all to do with actionable prosecutions. You don’t “build a public consensus for prosecution” unless you’re comfortable broadly contaminating potential jury pools.
Miss Bianca
@CaseyL: Schiff was a prosecutor. I don’t know about any of the others.
WaterGirl
@Betty Cracker: I agree. I believe that both the Jan 6 committee and the war in Ukraine, and the associated corruption of Republicans / Russian funding of Republicans are two things that can and will have a big impact on the outcome in November.
I think even my sister who pays no attention to world events could be influence by either or both of those things, if we are successful in getting information out there – regardless of whether there are prosecutions.
But I totally agree that prosecutions are necessary. Some of the SERIOUS SLIME in the T**** administration were involved with Watergate, with corruption in previous administrations, with the bullshit impeachment of Clinton. There have to be consequences.
My criminology professor told us that we shouldn’t be trying to figure out what makes people criminals; we should instead be looking at why non-criminals are playing by the rules, working for a living, when instead they could just steal the money for a lot less effort.
With no consequences, the wrong behavior is rewarded.
JanieM
@Miss Bianca:
Thank you. I’ve been trying to figure out how to say this without getting stuck in the mire. They’re politicians, after all.
J R in WV
I also want to point out that when Mr Mueller testified before congress regarding his reports, I was astounded that he seemed vague and confused most of the time. He had trouble looking up portions of his own report, and answered most questions by reading from the report, as opposed to speaking off the cuff.
Which was OK.
But if he was suffering some sort of age related dementia, or even just slowing way down, he should have refused the appointment to lead that investigation, or even resigned during the investigation. Or maybe not, thinking back on who might have appointed a fascist replacement. Times are confusing right now…
Miss Bianca
@Cathie from Canada: Maybe I’m just a fool, but I think I’m going to trust the instincts and legal know-how of the guy who prosecuted the Oklahoma City bombing case over the opinions of randos on the Internet.
zhena gogolia
@germy: Haha, after Adam’s post I was fantasizing about Canada too.
Kay
@Barbara:
I tend to agree with Adam, that Trump won’t be prosecuted, so I’m not disappointed. I never thought it would happen. But I do expect the DOJ to move with some urgency regarding the work of the January 6th committee, especially as that is likely the only accountability we will get. I don’t care about their concerns about being perceived as “political”. I think that’s almost tragically misguided and ends them exactly where they don’t want to go- it lands them right back at “political”. It is as political NOT to prosecute because of concerns about how it will be perceived as it is to conduct a political prosecution. They’re both wrong.
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne: Yes, Steve in the WTF, definitely! I may have contacted him months ago when I first came up with this idea, or he may have been on my, “okay, look like there is enough interest to pursue this at some point, and I’ll contact more people then” list.
Like you, i assume Burnsie is an ESQ. It was easier to start with the folks I had communicated with about other things in the past.
WaterGirl
@oldgold: Many people participate in zooms without people seeing their faces or knowing their real names.
Our attorneys here spout off here all the time. In the best possible way, of course! :-)
UncleEbeneezer
@Betty Cracker: It’s not just law professors on blogs pointing out these things. Three out of four of the women of the #SistersInLaw podcast have extensive and recent experience in Federal and US Attorney prosecutions, including work on Watergate, working for Eric Holder and prosecution of organized crime. They all echo similar points to those written by Kanefield, on a regular basis.
sdhays
@oldgold: Not sure, but King Arthur has got some terrific recipes on his web site.
SiubhanDuinne
@WaterGirl:
?
Jerszy
This attorney sez “Yes”, great 1st topic.
MisterDancer
As far as expectations: I expect we will have a long , hard, brutal election season. Possibly the worst, in terms of vulnerable populations being directly attacked for political gain/votes, since my Parents’ time.
I expect many of us are, or will be, working hard to protect whom we can, and ensure we do our best to elect quality politicians on all levels. [EDIT: And it may have to be the former only, due to a host of personal choices. That’s understandable!]
I do expect the 1/6 Commission to go public, next month, with their findings. I do expect some delays given what’s being reported, such as the Ginni Thomas and 6 hour Trump phone log gaps, to impact the delivery of findings.
I don’t expect the DoJ to save American Democracy. Not out of cynicism, but because the ways our legal system works are very challenging at the best of times. Given that:
Yes — I 100% expect that if there are any “top” people indicted, it will take a ton of time. Maybe past this election cycle. And the answer may well be “no,” and not because Garland hates America.
I do not like that answer. But saying it out loud prepares me to do what I can, to mitigate that risk.
sdhays
@Martin: Clarence Thomas has been a consistent Republican hack “Justice” ever since he was appointed. I don’t actually believe that he voted any way different than he would have if Ginnie wasn’t his wife.
He is corrupt as a matter of principle. And a lot of his colleagues are too.
UncleEbeneezer
@MisterDancer: Jill Wine Banks was a prosecutor on Watergate. When asked about communication between DOJ and Congress she said: There can be information shared and coordination. But DOJ absolutely won’t do so if there’s a chance it will jeopardize their pursuit of justice. In other words, claims about lack of communication with regards to 1/6 really doesn’t tell us much of anything. Also, this case (umbrella term for everything related to 1/6) is exponentially more complex, with more moving parts, participants, considerations, privileges, jurisdictions etc., than probably anything DOJ has ever attempted. It really is unprecedented.
Noname
@oldgold: ?
topclimber
@WaterGirl: The snark, it burns!
laura
@Cathie from Canada: I call bullshit. This would make it impossible to empanel juries and raise all manner of appeals by defendants as well as trivialize to the point of a reality TV show. But do tell us all about the Canadian legal system. Conversely, the J6 Committee could/should start televising their proceedings instead of pushing the date to do so out further and further in time for Summer vacation when the public might be otherwise occupied.
CaseyL
OT, but I’m listening to the WH Press Briefing, and have to say Kate Bedingfield (Director of Communications) is doing an excellent job. As good as Jen, even.
zhena gogolia
@MisterDancer: Excellent comment.
Barbara
@Kay: I think you misread or I just stated my point badly. I am totally on board with prosecuting people who broke laws related to January 6, including organizers and co-conspirators. I think it’s important. I want it to happen. What I disagree with are those who think that it’s not worth doing — basically — unless it is done immediately. My perception of where they are coming from is that they are trying to salve their anxiety as to how broken our system has become. And much as I hate to say it, I don’t think even the most effective prosecutions of January 6 criminals is going fix what is most broken in our system. That’s my point. No matter how good a job he does, Merrick Garland isn’t going to be the savior of democracy.
WaterGirl
@topclimber: What snark?
I certainly didn’t intend anything as snark. I was paraphrasing what Adam had said. What did you think was snark?
Ken
@zhena gogolia: I sometimes I get a whiff of “why do we have to work within these laws” from some comments here. It makes me think of the “Devil speech” from A Man for All Seasons.
(Sometimes — rarely, thankfully — I even get a whiff of “In properly run countries, they take care of these problems with novichok and polonium.”)
WaterGirl
@CaseyL:
I’m not sure that is even theoretically possible! :-)
I have that open in a tab to listen to later. I am looking forward to it.
oldgold
@sdhays:
Yes, that is how Sir Cumference became so well-rounded.
As far as Sir Cole getting that way, I think it was eating pi 3.14 times a day.
zhena gogolia
@Ken: We all have those thoughts sometimes!
topclimber
@WaterGirl: The wording was spot on and the message all too familiar. If it looks like snark and sounds like snark…a guy like me could misinterpret your intent.
Betty Cracker
@UncleEbeneezer: Opinions differ, which isn’t surprising. My objection is to the negative assumptions about those who disagree, i.e., that they must be uninformed or unreasonably impatient or secretly longing for autocracy blah blah blah.
@MisterDancer: I don’t think Garland hates America, but it’s not a stretch to believe he’s an institutionalist to his core and that he believes his primary mission is to depoliticize the DOJ. That sounds like a great goal on the surface because Trump/Barr politicized it to a shameful degree.
But as Kay suggests at #104, choosing not to prosecute wrongdoing because prosecution would be perceived as political is a political act in its own right. The only way to restore credibility is to just do the job competently. (And even then, some people will perceive it as political. That’s inevitable.)
I don’t know whether Garland is falling into that trap or not, but it’s not a crazy notion, and there are credible people like Schiff who’ve expressed concern about it. We’ve seen plenty of institutions fail because people focused on the reputation of the institution more than the people it’s supposed to serve.
WaterGirl
@topclimber: Definitely not snark. I truly was just repeating what Adam had said. Obviously I disagree with Adam’s take, but I would never snark on another front-pager or publicly mock or disrespect another front-pager, no matter how much we disagreed.
Kay
@Barbara:
Let’s just give them ordinary accountability and process and see what they do with it. I think they’ll be fine with it. What they’re not fine with is what seems to be absolute impunity for powerful people and I agree with that.
This is nothing like the legal system they encounter in their lives. In that legal system, when they’re directed to do something they do it or the consequences are immediate and harsh.
It is unsustainable to have one harsh, punative system for ordinary people and another for powerful people. It can’t be sustained. They’ll stop complying. And they should.
WaterGirl
@Betty Cracker:
Yes! That would be getting into James Comey territory. Just do the right thing. Or, as we all said at the time, do your fucking job.
The Moar You Know
@SiubhanDuinne: Very un-Adam like behavior. Also not a time of day when he normally posts. Possibility of hacking?
topclimber
@WaterGirl: Yes, that’s the job of the little people.
zhena gogolia
@The Moar You Know: Oh, no, it was him all right!
Barbara
@Kay:
Yes, I totally agree with this, and really, I feel like many people are already on this path.
Kay
@Barbara:
I see so, so much more complete noncompliance with taxes than I did a decade ago. It’s just shocking. It’s like they figured out no one is minding the store. I see the estimates on what they would collect if they started enforcing and I think “oh, it’s higher than that“
WaterGirl
@topclimber: Gosh, I should just quit while I’m behind. I think it’s fair game when it comes from a commenter, but I think it would be totally disrespectful and inappropriate for one front-pager to snark on or mock another front-pager publicly.
Disagreeing is one thing; snarking or mocking publicly is way over the line, in my opinion. I’m sorry if that sounded elitist, it wasn’t intended that way.
O. Felix Culpa
@topclimber: The disrespect, it shows.
Baud
@WaterGirl:
Hey, I saw your message above. I never check the email at the address I use for BJ, so I’m sorry I missed the emails you sent me. I just logged on to see them.
WaterGirl
@Baud: Maybe we need a new “in case of Baud emergency” email address for you. :-)
Baud
@WaterGirl:
If you’re ever at that point, it’s already too late.
WaterGirl
@Baud: Ha!
Matt McIrvin
@Ken: The thing is, if we follow the rules and they are just straight-up gangsters and get away with it, they win. Over and over and over. It only makes sense if all sides have some respect for the law or there are consequences for breaking them, and they don’t and there aren’t.
It really feels like we are entering a new, brutal age in which only force matters. A kind of soft civil war. And it’s hard to see how to keep pretending to care about laws and principles in such an environment without just getting crushed.
SiubhanDuinne
@WaterGirl:
This is that “no-pants” thing again, isn’t it?
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne: Not just that. Baud has said he wouldn’t even zoom with the camera off, so I think his voice must be someone we recognize. Is Baud Barack? Adam Schiff? Jen Psaki? ?♀️
The possibilities are endless!
O. Felix Culpa
@WaterGirl: If a person withdraws a comment, perhaps the respectful thing to do is let it stay withdrawn.
Geminid
@WaterGirl: A lawyers’ round table is a good idea!
Personally, I hope this round table will be done as a post and thread. I think that for this kind of event text is more efficient than Zoom, and easier to follow and think about.
SiubhanDuinne
@WaterGirl:
Now that is intriguing. I’m going to have to make a list of all the people I’ve never seen Baud in the same room with.
WaterGirl
@O. Felix Culpa: Perhaps so.
SiubhanDuinne
@O. Felix Culpa:
That’s on me. I asked the question. WG was merely responding — she didn’t initiate it.
WaterGirl
@Geminid: Perhaps so. I think some people would prefer the back-and-forth of conversation in real time on the zoom. One thing I have learned here is that everyone is different!
zhena gogolia
@O. Felix Culpa:
@SiubhanDuinne: exactly. She didn’t volunteer it you asked for it.
schrodingers_cat
@O. Felix Culpa: He is not just an ordinary commenter besides being a FPer, he gives us his takes as a national security analyst. So I don’t think Watergirl was wrong in paraphrasing his comment.
schrodingers_cat
Adam’s suggestion in a late night thread was to leave the country if you are a visible minority. If the United States collapses into a Republican led kleptocracy what makes anyone think that anywhere in the world will be a refuge?
It won’t.
Dire predictions are just that predictions. They may come true or they may not.
stinger
@Jinchi:
I really hope he doesn’t have such a plan. That’s not Garland’s job. And it’s not supportive of a democracy.
Jill
This might be naive or wishful thinking but I believe Merrick Garland is a stalwart steward of democracy and extremely aware that the fate of our democracy rests almost entirely upon his shoulders at this point. Both his character and history suggest he is guided by principle, respect for the rule of law and love of country. He doesn’t grandstand, or kowtow to public opinion or pressure. He keeps his head down and steadfastly does his work. I ask you to harken back to when he announced the indictment of the 11 people on sedition charges. There was no inkling or indication this was happening, until it happened. And from everything I’ve read he and his team built an air-tight case against them. He subsequently stated that no one is above the law and the DOJ will work to ensure that everyone responsible for Jan 6th is brought to justice. There is no reason in the world to believe he won’t live up to those words. Personally, I would rather he take his time and cross every “t” and dot every “i” in order to build an airtight case against Trump and anyone and everyone else involved in this soft coup to ensure not just an indictment but a conviction. Regardless of how one feels about Trump, and trust me I loathe the man as much as anyone, but we are talking about a former president of the United States and that requires having irrefutable, iron clad evidence against him and others, that will make conviction the ONLY possible outcome. I don’t have faith in many things at this point but I do have faith in Merrick Garland and I wish others would as well. The more we publically call on him to indict Trump the more we are allowing any outcome to be seen as political and that will not serve our democracy in the end.
topclimber
@WaterGirl: I did not consider your remark elitist. I agree that you should not pick on fellow FPers.
topclimber
@O. Felix Culpa: Another little person heard from!
Geminid
@SiubhanDuinne: You know, now that I think of it, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen Tony Jay and Mangy Jay in the same room!
zhena gogolia
@Jill: amen ?
SiubhanDuinne
@Jill:
Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more.
schrodingers_cat
@Jill: FWIW I agree with you.
O. Felix Culpa
@SiubhanDuinne: I’d suggest that there were other ways of responding to your question without paraphrasing the withdrawn words. Which, because they were withdrawn, would indicate that the author did not wish them to remain public.
stinger
@Jill:
Excellent point.
Dan B
From my perspective the looming election is unnerving but the Supreme Court is truly frightening. They don’t have a timetable but have already informed Wisonsin that state’s rights are moot. I have heard from an inside source that there is a robust group at DOJ working on Jan 6 and more.
O. Felix Culpa
@topclimber: LOL. Perhaps not as diminutive as I would wish, but little nonetheless.
Glau
I think the thing that bugs me most here, aside from the MASSIVE difference in how you are treated and the presumption of innocence afforded one by money, is the way that the legal system behaves towards information.
Like, it is politically relevant that we know who took what actions on Jan 6th. It matters for the people who publicly stood behind them, for the way that it’s lack is taken as proof nothing happened, etc.
But that information is withheld by the legal system from the public, until such a time as the legal system deigns to release it.
So it’s this attitude of simultaneous distain towards political influence AND superiority to politics that really gets to me.
Honestly, I’d prefer knowing everything and having no convictions to the reverse. And I strongly believe it would be better for democracy too.
WaterGirl
@topclimber: Maybe you “little people” comment was just humor, then?
WaterGirl
@O. Felix Culpa:
I tried to give a straightforward answer that would put the question to rest, but this is Balloon Juice so of course it didn’t.
Citizen Alan
@WaterGirl:
I’m a lawyer, albeit exclusive a bankruptcy attorney.
Chris Johnson
@WaterGirl: I hate so much when he gets like that (I took your little summary as haha-only-serious snark, btw). I have to watch my ass around that stuff because I get all paranoid and think anyone loudly pushing Russian talking points about how fucked we are, must be straight up an enemy. And it ain’t necessarily so. Sometimes people just get worked up and see the world the way they are determined to see it.
Just as well I didn’t see that comment, I’m still on people’s shitlist from the last time I unloaded on Adam. I really, really hate when people start pushing heavy doomer narratives. We don’t have that luxury, plus it’s insulting to our intelligence. WTF are they going to do, run Trump again and he will win and put us all in death camps? No wait, they’ll run Madison Cawthorn.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
a modest proposal on the roundtable: Pick a limited number of lawyers willing to respond, and let them select a few questions each, at least to start the discussion, so its not a free-for-all of “that question was answered at post 47” on post 153
artem1s
I’d like to see a banner link for the Jan6 investigation posts with Kanefield’s and similar FAQs based posts pinned to the top of the list. It’s a good thing to have an occasional post where the jackals can vent their frustration and debate what is happening in real time. But we’ve had much few posts like Kanefield’s. If you are going to invite someone to a legal forum, why not start with her? I’d love to see a discussion with a series of guest speakers, if possible. Otherwise it’s echo chamber all the way down chanting ‘Lock her up!’
She has linked things we can do in her post several times.
https://terikanefield.com/things-to-do/
To the BJ Community’s credit we are doing these things – small and incremental matters. Let’s celebrate those things more often.
UncleEbeneezer
Former US Attorney (under Eric Holder) Barb McQuade has a similar thread here:
https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/status/1509023935744159744
She’s not the first lawyer, with actual experience prosecuting large and complex cases who has opined that she expects investigations, indicts of officials at the top of the 1/6 food chain to take years due to a whole host of procedural hurdles that are inherent to the way our justice system operates. And that seeing little/nothing from DoJ is probably a good sign. DoJ announced that it is hiring over a hundred more attorneys to work on 1/6 so it definitely seems like they are doing quite a bit. How far up they will go (all the way to Trump?) will remain to be seen probably for awhile. But they have 3-4 years to do so, not 6 months. I think another good thing to remember is that the 1/6 Committee and DoJ have different roles and different goals. The January 6th Committee’s purpose is to raise public awareness for potential legislation and political remedy. DoJ’s purpose is to build a case and prosecute crimes, often needing to do the exact opposite of public awareness, ie- do everything as stealthily as possible.
WaterGirl
@artem1s: I tried sending email to the address you have listed for BJ, and it was returned.
Would you mind sending an email message to me at my nym at balloon-juice.com?