It has become something of a sport in certain media circles and elsewhere to complain, sometimes vociferously and repeatedly, that the Attorney General of the United States has been too plodding and reticent in the way he and his department have gone about the business of investigating Donald Trump for the crimes he committed while in office and afterwards, specifically, his attempts to overturn the results of the election he lost in 2020, and his removal from the White House and subsequent mishandling of thousands of government documents, hundreds of them classified, when he stored them in insecure facilities at his home and office at Mar a Lago in Palm Beach, Florida.
I keep seeing all these 'legal experts', law professors and talking heads discussing this like they're in the loop on the various cases.
They keep saying doing this or that is a mistake. They're convinced Merrick Garland is making mistakes.
All I would like for them to do is to step into Mr. Garland's shoes for a week and then tell me what they would do if they were doing his job?
They'd all be floored. None of them have been in the position Garland is, or have done as much as he has so far.
They'd all be floundering because, as you have so perfectly put it, a President of the United States has never been investigated or prosecuted for the crimes that they're investigating him for: espionage, sedition, obstruction of justice and any other great number of crimes we won't even go into.
These legal experts and opinionators have no idea of how legally complex, unique and arduous this undertaking is, and I wouldn't blame Merrick Garland for getting a bit pissed at being told he isn't doing his job properly.
Donald Trump knows his rights, unfortunately and he's going to throw glass into the road to make the cars slow down-but that does not mean the DOJ or Garland are going to back off at all.
If anything, it's making them double-down even harder because they know what he's doing is wasting everyone's time and money-but they have more of both, and they'll break him yet.
Double-guessing the man is a mistake. Garland brought Timothy McVeigh and his crime to justice. If anyone can take down Donald Trump, it's Merrick Garland.
And I'm sure he'd be the first to quit if he could not bring a solid case against Trump. He's not a tool or a fool.
Jack Smith was a prosecutor at the Hague. That's about the highest place any lawyer can ever go, even better than the Supreme Court. If he can't handle the case, nobody can.
Prosecuting war crimes is much harder than prosecuting 2 bit ante ex-President con men.
People would do well to look at Merrick Garland's record. As a US attorney, Garland won every case he prosecuted; as a federal judge, he was never overturned. Garland gets it right the first time.
This is taking me away for a few minutes from the classic Iowa-Minnesota football battle for Floyd of Rosedale here in Minneapolis, I noticed one of the Gophers' linebackers, #45 "Lindy" Lindenberg was playing stout defense in the bitter cold sixteen blocks from here, in a close game (Iowa 10, Minnesota 7) late in the 2nd Quarter.
Special Counsel Jack Smith shows no signs of being intimidated at all by any of this --- he just came onto this project from war crimes investigations in Europe. Watch for indictments for at least 18 USC 793 (e) by the spring of 2023. And of course the GOP wingnuts will be obfuscating, and lying constantly, and inciting their crackpot base, in attempts to shut it all down.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the DOJ removed several Republican congress critters from office for taking part in a sedition and control of the house fell back to the democrats.....
Here's the thing - not all Republican Congress-critter offenders are in totally red states - Lauren Boebert for example is from Colorado, with a Democratic governor. Would he replace her with a Republican after what she did? I wouldn't, in his position.....
Yes, my bad - on the other hand, some of the more notorious Republicans, like Trump, ran and existed on the basis of their personalities. There is no guarantee a different candidate would do as well with the MAGA crowd.
Late to the game here but yes, it would be delightful if Smith renders a decree that certain Pro-Rape Partiers be arrested and tried for aiding and abetting sedition. Actually, it would be delicious!
For what it is worth, on CNN, John Dean (of Watergate fame) said he felt the investigation was broader than just Trump's actions on Jan. 6, and that it could also involve other conspirators, even members of Congress. His lips to God's ears.....
It's no surprise to me - we know that Loudermilk from Georgia gave a "tour" to a bunch of people before Jan. 6, when they photographed entrances and exits below the Capitol - things tourists rarely photograph. And Boebert and Greene were implicated in communications, as was Jordan.....
Thanks for this, Lucian. When I saw that a special counsel had been appointed, I groaned and wondered why the DOJ couldn't handle the damn thing themselves. You've calmed me!
I basically agree. The task is massive, and AG Garland has much more to attend to. It is a good idea to turn over the work of an ongoing team to a seasoned prosecutor to focus on nothing but investigating the crimes (alleged) of tfg. The argument that Garland is so good he should do it is a paradox--if he is so great, why would we not trust his judgment about the best way forward for the work? I admit I am saying something a bit like what some of my students used to say of Nixon: We have to trust the President. Here, for me, AG Garland. I would not want Jack Smith flyspecking my life. I would rather have Garland, who is far busier and might not manage to find that minor imperfection in my otherwise perfect life.
You are correct. And Garland appointed a special prosecutor who has been out of the country for years and whose reputation is impeccable, because the MAGA crowd will try to claim otherwise.
I would rather see a slower and more meticulous investigation of Trump than a hasty one that inevitably will fail.
It’s been said that the best defense is a good offense. Trump does this in spades. He relentlessly pushes his narrative that DOJ can’t get away from. J6 prosecutions are important but look for Georgia to strike first against teflon Don.
It's so hard to wait and be patient when it's perfectly obvious to anyone with normal eyesight and hearing that Donald and his handlers and victims are guilty in various degrees of sedition and treason, to name just a couple of terribly embarrassing behaviours while in the office of President. However, Merrick Garland is being meticulously methodical and hopefully will net the fishy characters that swarm around the Mouth That Roared, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor. I'm hopeful that Bill Barr and Stephen Miller will end up catch of the day and maybe the whole Federalist Society, and that Fox (not) News will melt away like the wicked witch of the West. The oligarchs fantasy has finally begun to implode: fake bit coinage, big takeovers, the nation suddenly full of nouveau poor who lost their homes to climate disasters, gun crazy men who can only think of blaming and destroying. It will take a very determined and dedicated crew to get us out of this mess. God bless Garland and his associates and grant them the strength and courage to do the job.
I don't have normal eyesight. I could go on, but despite my crappy but more or less correctable eyesight I've managed to make my living mostly as an editor for many decades. What I've seen over the years of people of more or less my political persuasion who have "normal eyesight" does not inspire confidence.
Presiding over war crimes cases can be a tough and thankless job. As a senior judge In the International Court of Justice, Jack Smith must be doing something right; and his prior DOJ experience in heading up the Public Integrity section of the Justice Department tells us that this is not his first rodeo. Granted, the former president can clearly be described as the Corrupter in Chief during the four years that he was president. By work history and by temperament, the new Special Counsel is a world apart from that of Kenneth Starr and his prurience-drenched pursuit of Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky, stained blue dress at all.
As DOJ's Special Counsel tasked with handling two heretofore independent inquiries into former President Trump's history of official misconduct: the January 6 Insurrection and attack on the United States Capitol, and his mishandling and misappropriation of national security documents that he failed to turn over to the National Archives and Records Administration upon his leaving him office, both are fully within the capabilities of Judge Smith to oversee and manage.
As for the bitching and complaining about Attorney General Merrick Garland's slowness to act following the January 6 assault, the evidence tends to show that the plot to subvert and to overturn the 2020 presidential election was years in the making, and that it involved hundreds, if not thousands of disaffected individuals who were convinced by right wing media and domestic terrorist groups to participate in the attack. Taking the case to trial against individual defendants may have been the easiest part of the task. Gathering the evidence, sifting through the network of those involved, that kind of dogged investigative legwork is all in the background. Gathering the evidence derived from such investigation, and sifting through that evidence to find evidence meeting the standard of proof needed to convict an individual at trial is a very tough job, indeed. In fact, Judge Smith's experience in handling war crimes trials as a prosecutor may be just the kind of experience that he needed to have in order to go after American domestic terrorists.
No one has mentioned the January 6 Committee’s report. Smith will have that body of work, with sworn testimony, to use as evidence in addition to the Grand Juries’ investigations, trial testimony of those already convicted, TV footage, tweets, rants from Trump, Steve Bannon and Pillow Guy, Ginny’s correspondence with Eastman, and on and on.
Predicated, narrative, and factual, and the product of an official proceeding. Testimony taken under oath, and part of the public record. I would have no trouble admitting the findings and sworn testimony into evidence against Trump and his enablers in a criminal trial as prima facie evidence of their wrongdoing. Due process does not require the reinventing of the wheel. Witnessed can be recalled to submit to cross examination on their prior testimony, if need be. If the defendants choose to do so, they can compel witness testimony via trail subpoena, but be careful what you wish for.
Love this. Thank you for a comprehensive, rational summary, Lucian. trump is a clown, but he is king of the clowns. And when you come at the king, you best not miss.
I'm sure Mr Garland is well aware of the principle, "that which is not forbidden is permitted." The stakes could not be higher for our democracy and for our country's future. I'm glad he is in charge.
Many thanks. Although I was hoping that TFG might get epic hemorrhoids or chronic shingles, there seems to be a possibility that he will be accountable for his actions in front of a jury. The thin skins are pretty frightened. The phrase “scared to death” is rolling in my brain! Oh...I wish.
Do you think the fact that we are both from NJ, let people know we’re tough? We aren’t wishing too much ill will, are we? Never said a slow death, just an uncomfortable life.
When the DOJ finally pulls the trigger on the orange shitgibbon, the charges have got to stick. Full stop. That's what Garland and the DOJ are doing. Brick by brick, their wall has got to hold. Takes time.
I am not a sports fan, so the phrase "armchair quarterback" does not apply to me. I am, however, a reasonably sentient political activist who in the last few years has become ever more interested in the "rule of law." Having watched the Trump administration and the GOP more generally ignore it, I've become ever more aware of why it's important. So watching the "armchair prosecutor-judge-and-juries" in action is driving me nuts. Thank you for this column, Lucian, and thank you, commenters, for reminding me that sanity prevails in this small corner of the universe.
Your words are reassuring and reasonable. But we’re dealing with a kind of “crazy,” a kind of sociopathic “crazy” that normal folk like Merrick Garland don’t/can’t really understand. You can read the DSM and have an intellectual understanding of it, but it always surprises. Always catches normal folk, like Garland, like you, off guard. The world knows what Trump has done. He planned a coup. He sat back and watched it happen. He stole top secret documents. He also colluded and collaborated with the Russians. This is all proven. It’s all seditious. There was no need to appoint a special counsel. The “T”s were crossed. The “i’s” were dotted. We know it all. A proven criminal, a former President who attempted a coup against his own country’s government and constitution, is still a free man and is running for President, AGAIN. The Dems believe keeping Trump out there is good for them. Maybe. Maybe not. It’s tragic for the United States.
I hope McConnell, who orchestrated the SCOTUS takeover in ways that TFG was never capable of, can't sleep at night. I wonder if the right-wing crazies are sane enough to realize that McConnell's packing the Court contributed to their dismal midterm showing. Maybe a sculptor could redo "Laocoön and His Sons" with McConnell in the middle and, say, McCarthy and Jim Jordan also beset by serpents?
Very little of what you allege has actually been "proven." If you yourself had ever been on the wrong side of the law -- as lesbians and gay men of my age, and antiwar activists, and many, many others have been -- you might understand why many of us are more cautious about the rush to judgment.
And you're talking to a lesbian who came out in the 1970s and isn't easily impressed by XY-chromosome people. Do you know what constitutes "proof"? As in "proof that might convince people who don't already agree with you"?
Amen!
I keep seeing all these 'legal experts', law professors and talking heads discussing this like they're in the loop on the various cases.
They keep saying doing this or that is a mistake. They're convinced Merrick Garland is making mistakes.
All I would like for them to do is to step into Mr. Garland's shoes for a week and then tell me what they would do if they were doing his job?
They'd all be floored. None of them have been in the position Garland is, or have done as much as he has so far.
They'd all be floundering because, as you have so perfectly put it, a President of the United States has never been investigated or prosecuted for the crimes that they're investigating him for: espionage, sedition, obstruction of justice and any other great number of crimes we won't even go into.
These legal experts and opinionators have no idea of how legally complex, unique and arduous this undertaking is, and I wouldn't blame Merrick Garland for getting a bit pissed at being told he isn't doing his job properly.
Donald Trump knows his rights, unfortunately and he's going to throw glass into the road to make the cars slow down-but that does not mean the DOJ or Garland are going to back off at all.
If anything, it's making them double-down even harder because they know what he's doing is wasting everyone's time and money-but they have more of both, and they'll break him yet.
Double-guessing the man is a mistake. Garland brought Timothy McVeigh and his crime to justice. If anyone can take down Donald Trump, it's Merrick Garland.
And I'm sure he'd be the first to quit if he could not bring a solid case against Trump. He's not a tool or a fool.
Jack Smith was a prosecutor at the Hague. That's about the highest place any lawyer can ever go, even better than the Supreme Court. If he can't handle the case, nobody can.
Prosecuting war crimes is much harder than prosecuting 2 bit ante ex-President con men.
People would do well to look at Merrick Garland's record. As a US attorney, Garland won every case he prosecuted; as a federal judge, he was never overturned. Garland gets it right the first time.
Thank You, Mary! Ditto here!
This is taking me away for a few minutes from the classic Iowa-Minnesota football battle for Floyd of Rosedale here in Minneapolis, I noticed one of the Gophers' linebackers, #45 "Lindy" Lindenberg was playing stout defense in the bitter cold sixteen blocks from here, in a close game (Iowa 10, Minnesota 7) late in the 2nd Quarter.
Special Counsel Jack Smith shows no signs of being intimidated at all by any of this --- he just came onto this project from war crimes investigations in Europe. Watch for indictments for at least 18 USC 793 (e) by the spring of 2023. And of course the GOP wingnuts will be obfuscating, and lying constantly, and inciting their crackpot base, in attempts to shut it all down.
And apparently he will be investigating those at the top of the heap...several of whom are in Congress.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the DOJ removed several Republican congress critters from office for taking part in a sedition and control of the house fell back to the democrats.....
That has crossed my mind more than once!
Chief among these would be the serpentine Elise Stefanik.
Here's the thing - not all Republican Congress-critter offenders are in totally red states - Lauren Boebert for example is from Colorado, with a Democratic governor. Would he replace her with a Republican after what she did? I wouldn't, in his position.....
Governors do not fill empty House seats. They only replace Senators.
Yes, my bad - on the other hand, some of the more notorious Republicans, like Trump, ran and existed on the basis of their personalities. There is no guarantee a different candidate would do as well with the MAGA crowd.
Late to the game here but yes, it would be delightful if Smith renders a decree that certain Pro-Rape Partiers be arrested and tried for aiding and abetting sedition. Actually, it would be delicious!
For what it is worth, on CNN, John Dean (of Watergate fame) said he felt the investigation was broader than just Trump's actions on Jan. 6, and that it could also involve other conspirators, even members of Congress. His lips to God's ears.....
If dean is feeling this, then yay!
It's no surprise to me - we know that Loudermilk from Georgia gave a "tour" to a bunch of people before Jan. 6, when they photographed entrances and exits below the Capitol - things tourists rarely photograph. And Boebert and Greene were implicated in communications, as was Jordan.....
Yea boy, 👍👍
Thanks for this, Lucian. When I saw that a special counsel had been appointed, I groaned and wondered why the DOJ couldn't handle the damn thing themselves. You've calmed me!
I basically agree. The task is massive, and AG Garland has much more to attend to. It is a good idea to turn over the work of an ongoing team to a seasoned prosecutor to focus on nothing but investigating the crimes (alleged) of tfg. The argument that Garland is so good he should do it is a paradox--if he is so great, why would we not trust his judgment about the best way forward for the work? I admit I am saying something a bit like what some of my students used to say of Nixon: We have to trust the President. Here, for me, AG Garland. I would not want Jack Smith flyspecking my life. I would rather have Garland, who is far busier and might not manage to find that minor imperfection in my otherwise perfect life.
You are correct. And Garland appointed a special prosecutor who has been out of the country for years and whose reputation is impeccable, because the MAGA crowd will try to claim otherwise.
I would rather see a slower and more meticulous investigation of Trump than a hasty one that inevitably will fail.
It’s been said that the best defense is a good offense. Trump does this in spades. He relentlessly pushes his narrative that DOJ can’t get away from. J6 prosecutions are important but look for Georgia to strike first against teflon Don.
It's so hard to wait and be patient when it's perfectly obvious to anyone with normal eyesight and hearing that Donald and his handlers and victims are guilty in various degrees of sedition and treason, to name just a couple of terribly embarrassing behaviours while in the office of President. However, Merrick Garland is being meticulously methodical and hopefully will net the fishy characters that swarm around the Mouth That Roared, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor. I'm hopeful that Bill Barr and Stephen Miller will end up catch of the day and maybe the whole Federalist Society, and that Fox (not) News will melt away like the wicked witch of the West. The oligarchs fantasy has finally begun to implode: fake bit coinage, big takeovers, the nation suddenly full of nouveau poor who lost their homes to climate disasters, gun crazy men who can only think of blaming and destroying. It will take a very determined and dedicated crew to get us out of this mess. God bless Garland and his associates and grant them the strength and courage to do the job.
I don't have normal eyesight. I could go on, but despite my crappy but more or less correctable eyesight I've managed to make my living mostly as an editor for many decades. What I've seen over the years of people of more or less my political persuasion who have "normal eyesight" does not inspire confidence.
Thank you Lucian, once again, for your calm, informed and detailed analysis of the situation!
It feels very reassuring to read your words without all the garble associated with the case.
Presiding over war crimes cases can be a tough and thankless job. As a senior judge In the International Court of Justice, Jack Smith must be doing something right; and his prior DOJ experience in heading up the Public Integrity section of the Justice Department tells us that this is not his first rodeo. Granted, the former president can clearly be described as the Corrupter in Chief during the four years that he was president. By work history and by temperament, the new Special Counsel is a world apart from that of Kenneth Starr and his prurience-drenched pursuit of Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky, stained blue dress at all.
As DOJ's Special Counsel tasked with handling two heretofore independent inquiries into former President Trump's history of official misconduct: the January 6 Insurrection and attack on the United States Capitol, and his mishandling and misappropriation of national security documents that he failed to turn over to the National Archives and Records Administration upon his leaving him office, both are fully within the capabilities of Judge Smith to oversee and manage.
As for the bitching and complaining about Attorney General Merrick Garland's slowness to act following the January 6 assault, the evidence tends to show that the plot to subvert and to overturn the 2020 presidential election was years in the making, and that it involved hundreds, if not thousands of disaffected individuals who were convinced by right wing media and domestic terrorist groups to participate in the attack. Taking the case to trial against individual defendants may have been the easiest part of the task. Gathering the evidence, sifting through the network of those involved, that kind of dogged investigative legwork is all in the background. Gathering the evidence derived from such investigation, and sifting through that evidence to find evidence meeting the standard of proof needed to convict an individual at trial is a very tough job, indeed. In fact, Judge Smith's experience in handling war crimes trials as a prosecutor may be just the kind of experience that he needed to have in order to go after American domestic terrorists.
No one has mentioned the January 6 Committee’s report. Smith will have that body of work, with sworn testimony, to use as evidence in addition to the Grand Juries’ investigations, trial testimony of those already convicted, TV footage, tweets, rants from Trump, Steve Bannon and Pillow Guy, Ginny’s correspondence with Eastman, and on and on.
Predicated, narrative, and factual, and the product of an official proceeding. Testimony taken under oath, and part of the public record. I would have no trouble admitting the findings and sworn testimony into evidence against Trump and his enablers in a criminal trial as prima facie evidence of their wrongdoing. Due process does not require the reinventing of the wheel. Witnessed can be recalled to submit to cross examination on their prior testimony, if need be. If the defendants choose to do so, they can compel witness testimony via trail subpoena, but be careful what you wish for.
That MF trump has tried to turn white to black and up to down,
truth to lies
Fuck him now and forever, and all those of his ilk.
Get it done, Merrick!
Love this. Thank you for a comprehensive, rational summary, Lucian. trump is a clown, but he is king of the clowns. And when you come at the king, you best not miss.
I'm sure Mr Garland is well aware of the principle, "that which is not forbidden is permitted." The stakes could not be higher for our democracy and for our country's future. I'm glad he is in charge.
Many thanks. Although I was hoping that TFG might get epic hemorrhoids or chronic shingles, there seems to be a possibility that he will be accountable for his actions in front of a jury. The thin skins are pretty frightened. The phrase “scared to death” is rolling in my brain! Oh...I wish.
My wish for him has always been unrelenting explosive diarrhea.....
On stage!
Do you think the fact that we are both from NJ, let people know we’re tough? We aren’t wishing too much ill will, are we? Never said a slow death, just an uncomfortable life.
Don't piss off a Jersey Girl! (laptop does not permit emojis)
When the DOJ finally pulls the trigger on the orange shitgibbon, the charges have got to stick. Full stop. That's what Garland and the DOJ are doing. Brick by brick, their wall has got to hold. Takes time.
I am not a sports fan, so the phrase "armchair quarterback" does not apply to me. I am, however, a reasonably sentient political activist who in the last few years has become ever more interested in the "rule of law." Having watched the Trump administration and the GOP more generally ignore it, I've become ever more aware of why it's important. So watching the "armchair prosecutor-judge-and-juries" in action is driving me nuts. Thank you for this column, Lucian, and thank you, commenters, for reminding me that sanity prevails in this small corner of the universe.
Merrick (1L when I was 3L at HLS) did not really NEED to appoint a Special Counsel, but it was probably the wiser course.
Your words are reassuring and reasonable. But we’re dealing with a kind of “crazy,” a kind of sociopathic “crazy” that normal folk like Merrick Garland don’t/can’t really understand. You can read the DSM and have an intellectual understanding of it, but it always surprises. Always catches normal folk, like Garland, like you, off guard. The world knows what Trump has done. He planned a coup. He sat back and watched it happen. He stole top secret documents. He also colluded and collaborated with the Russians. This is all proven. It’s all seditious. There was no need to appoint a special counsel. The “T”s were crossed. The “i’s” were dotted. We know it all. A proven criminal, a former President who attempted a coup against his own country’s government and constitution, is still a free man and is running for President, AGAIN. The Dems believe keeping Trump out there is good for them. Maybe. Maybe not. It’s tragic for the United States.
Every free day TFG has is a reminder of his SCOTUS travesty...it screams VOTE BLUE!!!
I hope McConnell, who orchestrated the SCOTUS takeover in ways that TFG was never capable of, can't sleep at night. I wonder if the right-wing crazies are sane enough to realize that McConnell's packing the Court contributed to their dismal midterm showing. Maybe a sculptor could redo "Laocoön and His Sons" with McConnell in the middle and, say, McCarthy and Jim Jordan also beset by serpents?
yeah, but then we'd have to see Mitch naked and uhhhh.....
Now I'm going to have a hard time sleeping . . . <g>
Very little of what you allege has actually been "proven." If you yourself had ever been on the wrong side of the law -- as lesbians and gay men of my age, and antiwar activists, and many, many others have been -- you might understand why many of us are more cautious about the rush to judgment.
And u r also mistaken: it has been proven. Very very proven. That’s the entire problem here.
Hmmm… it just so happens you’re talking to a gay man.
And you're talking to a lesbian who came out in the 1970s and isn't easily impressed by XY-chromosome people. Do you know what constitutes "proof"? As in "proof that might convince people who don't already agree with you"?