Democrats see good chance of Garland prosecuting Trump
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Senate Democrats believe there is a good chance the Department of Justice will prosecute former President Trump for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election and inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, which would have major political reverberations ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
Democratic lawmakers say they don’t have any inside information on what might happen and describe Attorney General Merrick Garland as someone who would make sure to run any investigation strictly “by the book.”
But they also say the fact that Garland has provided little indication about whether or not the Department of Justice has its prosecutorial sights set on Trump doesn’t necessarily mean the former president isn’t likely to be charged.
Given the weight of public evidence, Democratic lawmakers think Trump committed federal crimes.
But Senate Democrats also warn that Garland needs to proceed cautiously. Any prosecution that fails to convict Trump risks becoming a disaster and could vindicate Trump, just as the inconclusive report by Robert Mueller ’s team was seized upon as by Trump and his allies to declare his exoneration on a separate series of allegations.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said “clearly what [Trump] did” in the days leading up and the day of the Jan. 6 attack on Congress “falls in the ambit of what’s being investigated and perhaps is criminal.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said it’s up to the prosecutors at the Justice Department whether to charge Trump, though he believes that the former president’s actions on and before Jan. 6 likely violate federal law.
“They have all of the evidence at their disposal,” he said.
Kaine believes federal prosecutors are looking seriously at charges against Trump although he doesn’t have any inside information about what they may be working on.
“My intuition is that they are” looking carefully at whether Trump broke the law, he said. “My sense is they’re looking [at] everything in a diligent way and they haven’t made a decision.”
“I believe there are federal statutes that are very much implicated” by Trump’s efforts to overturn President Biden ’s victory in the 2020 election, Kaine added.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said “I think anybody who it’s proven had a role in the planning of [the Jan. 6 attack] should be prosecuted, not just the people who broke in and smashed the window in my office and others.”
“I think anybody that’s shown to have had a role in its planning absolutely should be prosecuted,” he added. “I mean it was treason, it was trying to overturn an election through violent means.”
Asked whether Trump broke the law, Brown said “I’m not going to say he’s guilty before I see evidence,” but he also said there’s “a lot of evidence that he was complicit.”
Trump is facing threats at the state level.
Georgia’s local prosecutor, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Williams, told the Associated Press this past weekend that she is leaning toward asking a special grand jury to authorize subpoenas to advance her investigation of Trump’s conversation with Raffensperger.
She said a decision whether to bring criminal charges against Trump would likely be made in the next six months.
Trump is also under criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office and New York Attorney Letitia James for possible bank and insurance fraud.
Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill have their eyes on the legal fights, but are more keenly interested in whether the federal Department of Justice, which has considerably more resources, will also bring its legal firepower to bear on the former president.
Garland gave Democrats a tantalizing hint when he announced the day before the one-year anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack that he would prosecute those responsible “at any level” for what he called “the assault on our democracy.”
“The Justice Department remains committed to holding all Jan. 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law — whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible,” he said.
It was a potentially significant statement from an attorney general who otherwise keeps his cards close to the vest.
“Garland is a sort of by-the-book guy,” said Kaine. “You have prosecutors who will talk about things, kind of give you status reports along the way. But that’s not really the most professional things for prosecutors to do.
“What prosecutors usually do is they analyze all the evidence and then they either file an indictment or charge or they say nothing,” he said. “If they file an indictment or charge, they let that speak for itself and they don’t editorialize about it.”
A Democratic senator who requested anonymity to comment on what Democratic lawmakers expect from Garland said many Democrats believe Trump broke the law by trying to halt the certification of Biden’s victory.
But the lawmaker warned that it could be tough to win a conviction in court and that Trump will try to discredit any prosecution as a politically motivated witch hunt.
“It’s going to be a hard decision for them to make,” the senator said, referring to Garland and his team.
A second Democratic senator who requested anonymity to comment on the possibility of a federal prosecution of Trump warned that it would take only one pro-Trump juror to derail a conviction and that failure to win any case in court would have disastrous consequences.
“If you pull the trigger on this one, you have to make sure that you don’t miss because this is one if you miss it essentially validates the conduct,” the senator warned.
Legal experts are split over how strong a case Garland would have against Trump.
Randall Eliason, a law professor at George Washington University and a former federal prosecutor, last year said that it would be appropriate for prosecutors to investigate Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack and his efforts to halt Biden’s certification as president.
But Andrew Koppelman, a constitutional law expert at Northwestern University, told Bloomberg that Trump’s right to free speech would make any case against Trump difficult to prosecute.
“You can’t allow the government to lock up protest leaders whenever the protests produce violence,” he warned. “The Trump speech was full of lies, but that’s not a crime. He told them to ‘fight like hell,’ but that’s familiar political language that does not ordinarily produce violence.”
Tags
Who is online
60 visitors
Does anyone think that Garland wouldn't do this?
Andrew Koppelman is quite right morally, when he says “You can’t allow the government to lock up protest leaders whenever the protests produce violence.” However in actual practice there is now a two tiered justice system within the US. We saw all the examples with the violent riots of 2020 in which a dozen people were killed and few were ever prosecuted. In early 2021 a political prison was constructed in DC and the rioters of Jan 6th have languished there ever since. Just like impeaching President Trump every chance they got, they will pressure that pathetic ideologue now serving as US Attorney General to commit what is known as malicious prosecution.
Then there will be another form of consequence for democrats after the deed is done. Should I tell them? In 2024 any Republican will be elected to the Presidency.
Republicans need to let Garland know that after midterms he will be held accountable. That means full impeachment and removal from office.
Then they need to end the Jan 6th committee and censure everyone involved- including Pelosi. They can serve out the remainder of what ever their terms are w/o committees to serve on.
That will put the rest of the Biden administration, and Congressional Dems, on notice.
It is well past time for the Democrat shit show to end.
Oh Yes!
So, once again you are advocating a fully partisan action irregardless of legality. If they truly have cause for impeachment, do it, no reason to wait.
"But the lawmaker warned that it could be tough to win a conviction in court and that Trump will try to discredit any prosecution as a politically motivated witch hunt."
“You can’t allow the government to lock up protest leaders whenever the protests produce violence,” he warned. “The Trump speech was full of lies, but that’s not a crime. He told them to ‘fight like hell,’ but that’s familiar political language that does not ordinarily produce violence.”
Gonna be hard to convict in any case
In DC you can convict Trump of anything.
Twenty-three hours/day in solitary. Denied access to religious requests. Denied access to their lawyers. Cells riddled with black mold. Disgusting "food" that even a starving dog wouldn't eat. And the best ... one prisoner denied of his cancer medications that had been keeping his cancer in check. Because of this medical neglect, his cancer has progressed from a controlled STAGE ONE to STAGE THREE in less than one year.
Sounds like you were there.
Bound to be an investigation when Repub's regain control of Congress
Perhaps.
There have been clear indications that this would happen regarding many issues.
What would Alexandr Solzhenitsyn call it?
If Jasper had proof of anything, he'd provide a link.
Why would you feel that I should provide a link to social media people I don't know regarding my whereabouts and experiences? I deliberately made comment 1.3.3 ambiguous, because my personal life is private. It was a clear, polite none of your business message.
So you have no proof, no nothing. Got it!
I never said that, Tessy. It's merely your assumption. Please allow me to refresh your memory:
This quote comes to mind, but there are more ...
“Thus it is that no cruelty whatsoever passes by without impact. Thus it is that we always pay dearly for chasing after what is cheap.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
Ah yes...A great book and the answer was right there in the title!
Democrat presidents and politicians seem to have a penchant for incarcerating US citizens who they consider dangerous others by denying them their constitutional right to due process. FDR's shameful 1942 Executive Order 9066 comes to mind.
Proof?
I won't hold my breath.
Tell us who has been denied their constitutional right to due process by the Democrats?
There is no doubt about it, the senior political party has a long shameful history.
And it's sad that there are still some people who don't know how to find evidence of it.
You don't know about FDR's EO 9066? WOW! I learned about it in high school US History. You want proof? Here you go ... From the National Parks Service ...
BTW ... Canada and Mexico did the same despicable things to their innocent citizens of Japanese descent.
And this ...
I wasn't talking about what you already provided.
Provide proof of that besides FDR.
Try to find something much more recent than 1942. LOL!
Moving the goal posts again? Facts about FDR aren't good enough and are too old? Sorry, no dice.
I answered your comment 1.3.13 question with evidence of FDR's Japanese-American concentration camps ...
If you didn't like the evidence I provided, so be it. It's time for you to focus on another target. I played along for a while, but when it gets tiresome and off-topic, I know that it's time to stop.
Party members are leaving it. Just like they are fleeing CA and NY.
I'm not moving any goalposts.
So you have 0 proof except something that happened 80 years ago.
Sorry, no dice!
You have provided 0 proof of anything regarding my question "Tell us who has been denied their constitutional right to due process by the Democrats?"
Because you don't have the proof.
Just as I suspected.
Incorrect. I provided evidence with links to FDR's EO 9066. He was a Democrat who denied US citizens due process, stripped them of their property, and transported them to despicable concentration camps. It's another ugly period of modern US history.
Because you don't have the proof. Just as I suspected.
And you are still going on one instance that happened 80 years ago.
IMPASSE.
"...only one pro-Trump juror to derail a conviction and that failure to win..."
Two impeachments down the road and the dimwits haven't caught on - Trump gets oxygen and free advertising out of these circae. I'd like to see the guy 'spend more time with the family' while the lunatics from both sides keep him fully fueled.
I've said it before I'll say it again.. There was a reason President Nixon wasn't prosecuted, and yes they had the goods on him sufficient to convict...
This feels like a trial balloon to see how the pubic will react, cause I think they are going to charge no matter what evidence they do or do not think they have...
It makes no difference they need to charge him if anything to keep the crazies in line... All those people that chant nothing but get him, get him, get him, (7 years running now) We have a few of those on the board here too...
They are so desperate to get the attention off their complete lack of any plan to solve the nations problems... And the reversal of the previous administrations policies went a long way to getting us in this predicament...
They are just about willing to do anything...
I think people are going to be shocked at just how far they will go....
Donald Trump tried to overthrow his own government by subverting the election results and having his vice president reinstall him as president. Few if any other actions by a President in the history of this country has been this disgraceful. Now we have Trump's fans flunkies lackeys and supporters making endless excuses for him. Our country is in a degraded state right now.
Yes it is, by democrat policies and actions taken almost immediately upon assuming office... And I do not know how anyone with an honest brain can see it any other way...
[Deleted]
Yes there was a reason Nixon wasn't prosecuted...
Because Ford pardoned him...
ok pretty simple answer, then answer this one, WHY? And understand Ford had the agreement of every major political figure in the nation from both sides in pardoning Nixon including a very liberal Supreme Court..
So tell us WHY?
A simple answer yet the true answer...
The same reason they pardoned all his his cronies, to wit, Barr was a part of.
So you think any president, no matter what they do should never be prosecuted of anything....
They have complete immunity...
Don't try to shift the question to me... answer the question directly... WHY?
Or can't you?
I don't know why. I say because of protecting their own.
I also think that might have been part of a deal for him to resign.
No matter how you try to deflect about some Liberal SC, Ford was a republican that pardoned his predecessor of any crimes.
And now you think that should take precedent for some reason.
The SC was not liberal under Nixon. Nixon nominated 6 judges and 4 were appointed.
Thank you for the honesty
Nope
That was part of the discussion but not the real reason...
Well the deflection is yours, your taking a minor point and trying to make it the main point, then default back to the unknowing political position...
Like I said and the main point was all the political leaders of the day thought the pardon was the right thing to do... You wish to narrow the focus to find minor fault when you don't know and admit such...
Anyone else know the answer?
I find it hard to believe everyone thought it was the right thing to do...
That sounds like only your opinion, not backed up by anything.
Yeah it was when he took office, in '69 Chief justice Warren retired and was replaced by Burger, it was still a liberal court just 5/4 instead of 6/3... he then appointed Blackmun, nobody is going to call him a conservative, courts back to 6/3 liberal... He then appointed Powell leaned conservative but he was really a liberal swing vote 6/3 court still liberal although wishy washy... He then he appointed Rehnquist a solid conservative making a 5/4 liberal court...
The court was liberal during Nixon's entire term in office...
You aware that Nixon was never impeached?
Oh there is definitely an answer...
Because he resigned and was pardoned....
So what is your answer then? This should be good.
The presidential nominations and subsequent confirmations of Harry A. Blackmun (1970), Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (1971), and William Rehnquist (1971) replacing liberal justices shifted the Court's ideological composition to the conservative, a position it maintains to this day.
Harry Blackmun was not a conservative. Just because a Republican nominated them does not make them conservative. See David Souter, William Brennan for other examples.
gee, I guess that must explain why ford was re-elected in '76...
If Ford hadn't screwed his own pooch so many times he would have easily won re-election...
He didn't lose cause of the pardon if that is what your claiming... Carter got the nomination cause none of the democrat heavyweights really wanted it.... Ford started out with a 30+ point lead in the polls....
No one has an answer? I did mention this a couple of weeks ago and explained why, seems no one was paying attention...
Nixons pardon wasnt to protect Nixon or the GOP , both sides saw the need to protect the integrity and effectiveness of the OFFICE of the presidency , even if their protection was only forestalling the eventual belief in the office itself .
the move was intended to make it so that any future president entered office on even ground , but hyper partisanship did away with that .
One has to ask ones self just exactly how much does the person sitting in the WH affect their day to day lives ?
That answer for me , is not so much.
BINGO!!! WE have a winner!
Thanks Mark, I knew I wasn't the only one who knew....
And I agree with your take on it...
The closest they ever came to convicting a president of the United States was Andrew Johnson, they fell one vote shy of the 2/3rds needed...
You don't convict the opposition leaders cause you open the doors to yours being convicted as well... And it diminished the office of president...
The House can impeach any official of the US Government for anything it wants to, heck if the president decides to dye his pussy hairs electric yellow, the House can impeach him for it... An impeachment is a type of indictment and it doesn't have to be for anything criminal...
The senate requires a 2/3rds majority to convict....
Nixon was never impeached, his pardon was pre-emptive in nature cause he was never charges with anything... Which is allowed under the constitution and the reason they all agreed on it was to preserve the presidency...
But it looks like any idea of one nation has gone by the wayside politically in todays world...
personally i think he wasnt re elected based on 2 factors , one was his pardon of nixon , but of bigger importance , at least to my grandfathers and father and other family members was the fact he was appointed as both VP and president , no one got to vote for or against him , for him to take office , even when he got the nomination later , likely because he was the incumbant even if he got there by circumstantial accident.
same could be said about carter and his pardon of deserters and draft dodgers , that really didnt set well with many of that generation of voters . enough so , he lost after 1 term as well.
but that is simply my opinion as i remember it .
There was a lot of talk of that, but it was his political gaffes that really cost him... Like saying that eastern Europe wasn't under soviet domination.. That really cost him... And the fact that Reagan refused the offer of the vice president slot with him... That cost him a LOT of votes
As it was it was still a squeaker... But he lost fair and square... It was over by election night.. But it also set up Reagan's landslide in four years...
Of course I was fully involved in politics back then so I'm probably not a fair judge...
"76 " i was 14, so much of what i do remember is through listening to the "adults " in my life at the time , and paying heed to pay attention and try and understand what and why things were happening as they were, of course , all those adults also had a rule of the only stupid question is one that goes unasked , so i was encouraged to ask about things i didnt understand .
I voted in the 1976 election. One thing was certain, the American people were not going to vote for the nominee of a party whose last elected leader belonged in jail, and where many members of that leader's administration did, if fact, end up.
Yeah I voted back then as well, no not for Carter, but not for Ford either... I was a Reaganite.... We were still liberal kryptonite back then, our day was coming...
Nixon was bad enough (although he gets some credit for the EPA, opening to China, etc.), but when that "day" came is when things really started to go bad.
yep, his narcissistic paranoia got the better of him, and he picked some absolute horrible and down right criminal assistants and advisors... Nixon was always the one that thought he had to defend himself, no one could defend him better... The biggest mistake a sitting president could ever make...
Of course it is only his opinion, not backed up by anything, as usual.
At his speech at the ellipse on January 6th no more than an hour or two before the riot started , Trump was still calling on Mike Pence to follow the Eastman plan and install him Trump as president for the new term. In conjunction with that Trump also urged the crowd to go to the Capitol and fight like hell. In other words he wanted the mob to
influence Pence and Congress any way that they could. Of course Trump should be investigated for criminal activity in regards all this.
I am reminded of the case of the young woman that kept telling her boyfriend to kill himself.
After he did, she was trying to act like it was not her fault he went through with it...
These two bozos have apparently forgotten that Trump offered Pelosi (et al) 20,000 National Guard troops several days before January 6 but she (et al) refused his offer .
Details, details. The Jan 6th committee can't be concerned with little things like that. They have to get Trump; and the clock is tricking til midterms. After that they will all be facing the wrath of a new Republican majority.
Democrats don't care what they get Trump on; they just want to get Trump at all costs. If they have to break the law to do it; then so be it.
In reply to comment 5.1 ...
Pelosi has proven that she and her "committee" don't care about rules, procedures, or details.