A Washington grand jury is going to indict Donald Trump

(I think.)

I’ve watched Lester Holt’s NBC News interview with Attorney General Merrick Garland twice, and I’ve parsed the language of Garland’s response to Holt’s most pointed questions multiple times, and the only conclusion I can come up with is that a D.C. grand jury is about to indict former President Donald Trump. 

I’ve been doing this for awhile now…decades, if you want the truth…and I’ve watched politicians and public servants tap dance around reporters’ questions before.  I’ve even questioned a few public figures myself.  This wasn’t an interview choreographed by Merce Cunningham or even Twyla Tharp.  Dance steps were not involved.  Garland sat there under the lights of NBC News cameras and answered Holt in as straightforward a manner as I’ve ever seen a man with the august power to take away a person’s freedom.  Not once, but twice, he used almost identical language that appeared to be directed straight at Trump and his lawyers.

When Holt posited that “the indictment of a former president, and perhaps a candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart,” Garland responded, “We intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for the events surrounding Jan. 6, for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable. That’s what we do. We don’t pay any attention to other issues with respect to that.”

Holt took another shot, asking if Trump became a candidate for president again, would that “change your schedule or how you move forward or don’t move forward?”

Here is Garland’s answer.  Note his precise repetition of his language when it comes to stating the gravity of the crime they’re looking at: “I’ll say again that we will hold accountable anyone who was criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer, legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.”

Garland’s visage remained stony.  It was obvious that he came to the interview prepared with legalese that had been thoroughly vetted, probably by lawyers in the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel.  How far could Garland go in describing the department’s continuing investigation?  Which crime should they say that they are looking at?  Should he even respond at all when asked the inevitable question that bore on the issue of prosecuting a former president?

The fact that Garland gave the same answer twice using the exact same words is the tip-off.  He wouldn’t talk about someone interfering “with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another” unless the DOJ had been looking at the exact statutes the grand jury is being presented with to consider whether or not they have been violated.