Merrick Garland is an Honorable Person.

[gab13by13]

The select committee has proven criminal intent on Trump's part. Jeremy Bash stated on Nicolle's show that DOJ can indict Trump for at least one crime. He then said he believes that Merrick Garland has not decided yet whether he should prosecute a former president.

This is what I have been attacked for saying for months. Merrick Garland is an institutionalist, he has a huge decision to make. Merrick Garland may very well decide that prosecuting Trump would tear our country apart.

This is one big reason the select committee is holding these hearings, it wants to convince Garland that it will be worse to not prosecute Trump. The committee has the goods on Trump, what remains is for the American people to speak out and demand that DOJ hold the traitors accountable.

[brooklynite]

1. Other than your claim that he's an "institutionalist"...

...what actual evidence do you have that he'd look the other way if there was evidence of an actual crime?

[gldstwmn]

10. No former president has ever been charged with a crime.

Zero. Zip. Zilch. None.

[BlackSkimmer]

56. Yep.

I don't expect this time to be any different. Sadly.

[treestar]

119. The closest, Spiro Agnew was

Some of the prosecutors were disappointed he did not do jail time, the reason being, he was in office and Nixon was in trouble, so when he agreed to resign if he did no jail time, it averted the idea he, a known crook, could become POTUS. That gave him a power most ordinary citizens won't have, so he ended up a bit above the law.

Now that the Orange Disaster is out of office, he does not have that, however. And he's not "sitting."

[gab13by13]

16. It is common sense

and listening to former prosecutors, former judges, Constitutional scholars.

Think about what the Magats will do if Trump is indicted. Will the Magats start a Civil War? Merrick Garland is going to have to decide what the consequences will be to alienate 70 million armed Trump cultists.

[anarch]

28. it's what a lot of them think they want

I guess it would be forcing the issue for them...I don't know if that's entirely true though; we never really resolved the issues entirely after 1865, and it's just been an ongoing struggle with a certain sub-set of our society since then.

We're already in a cold civil war--would indicting (or more to the point, convicting) their current figurehead make it go hot? I don't know; they have lots of other options to keep pushing their fascist agenda.

but yeah I see your point, and I feel like that's been the "elephant in the room" the whole time, that we're tip-toeing around the feelings of a group of armed fanatics.

[brooklynite]

125. "Merrick Garland is going to have to decide what the consequences will be"

Merrick Garland is going to have to decide if he has enough evidence (the blogosphere's opinion notwithstanding) to indict and convict. If you believe he's going to decide on any other basis, I suggest you contact President Biden and inform him that Garland isn't doing his job and should be replaced.

[Pantagruel]

2. "prosecuting Trump would tear our country apart."

Too late!
Maybe re-instituting a believable rule of law is more important to finding consensus.

[cilla4progress]

3. I see it the same way.

I thought the same thing when I watched the fine presentation someone posted here of Amy Goodman from Free Speech TV on last night's hearing.

It was such a great distillation of the J6 video and the timeline..I thought I hope (and suspect) DOJ prosecutors watch it!!

I'm sure there are many other great summaries, as well.

And tho we think and wish politics didn't play into it - it is inherent when we conjecture that Garland has to weigh what a prosecution would (or wouldn't) do to the country. It's all politics.

Politics definition:

"the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power."

[gldstwmn]

12. I like Amy Goodman as well. I watch her show a lot.

[spooky3]

4. NOT prosecuting Trump would tear the country apart AND

would destroy democracy, imho.

[Irish_Dem]

6. I agree.

[Girard442]

7. Given what everyone knows about Trump and his continuing support of around 40%...

...I think you could make a pretty good argument that the country is already pretty torn.

[JanMichael]

67. My guess is about 15-20% of all adults in the US are Trumpets.

So a little less than half of the Repukes.

The brain dead armed ones mostly. They need to be introduced to drones.

[MyOwnPeace]

72. Correct..... and I ask.....

do we WANT to live in a country that is willing to cower to the threat of a MINORITY that probably does not have the b*lls to actually put themselves on the line for what they want?

We had 7 million more people vote against him - we've had tons of legislators and military leaders stand up and say what was 'correct, fair, and legal' - so now we're going to just say "Oh, you were SO bad - don't do it again......" - or more like our esteemed Senator from Maine would say: "I believe they've learned their lesson now......"

[gldstwmn]

14. That's what they said about Nixon.

[spooky3]

23. Nixon did not orchestrate a coup. Nt

[gldstwmn]

40. He secretly bombed Cambodia and a whole host of other crimes.

It's not sedition but do we really think Trump is going to be charged with that?

[spooky3]

45. Unfortunately, several Presidents did things similar to that

And being voted out of office seemed to suffice for many.

What Trump has done is simply not comparable to the activities of Nixon. Democracy was not at risk. And, Trump and his enablers have NOT been stopped. There is every reason to believe they are currently working to undermine elections. Nixon was condemned by people in his own party and had no power after leaving office.

[gldstwmn]

70. Well now you're making my point for me.

"Several presidents did thing similar to that." Refresh my memory? Whomever you are referring to, they were not prosecuted.
Nixon wasn't trying to undermine elections? Watergate started with a third rate burglary into the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in the Watergate Hotel and was planned by the guys who were working for the Committee to Reelect the President (Creep) ahead of the 1972 election.
Nixon was allowed to resign "for the good of the country."

[spooky3]

86. No, I'm not. Have a nice evening. Nt

[gldstwmn]

100. It doesn't do us any good to minimize Nixon's crimes.

I hope you have a nice weekend.

[treestar]

120. Nixon resigned, at least

TFG would not have. But he's out now.

Probably just thinking it would start happening every time, with the Republicans being so partisan. But Republicans maybe wouldn't have a charge that could really stick.

[Irish_Dem]

5. The decision to prosecute an ex-president and half of the US congress is above his pay grade.

To make a decision which could tear the country apart and cause outright rebellion is going to require input from others.

I think deals are being cut as we speak. This is how DC operates, the real decisions are made behind closed doors. Then the public gets the cleaned up reader's digest version.

IMHO.

[Girard442]

13. Ummmm....Garland is the AG. He reports to the POTUS.

Who is at the right pay grade? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[gldstwmn]

15. He is standing on precedent and tradition.

[gab13by13]

29. Shrub and Cheney

could have been prosecuted for war crimes.

[paleotn]

39. But not a violation of the US Code.

This is uncharted territory. I hope Garland is up to the challenge. If he's not, Biden should find someone who is.

[gldstwmn]

44. No former president has ever been charged with a crime.

[gldstwmn]

98. He also let the statute of limitations run out

On 10 crimes in the Mueller Report, the Russia investigation. It's not like those crimes can be prosecuted now.

[Autumn]

99. No other president has incited an overthrow of our elected government and encouraged his supporters

to take out a Vice President.

Sedition is a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force.

[treestar]

121. Have any of them committed a crime, that is, with enough evidence

Should Nixon have been tried after he left office? And did the country fall apart because Nixon wasn't prosecuted?

[Voltaire2]

128. No other president attempted to prevent

the orderly transfer of power. This situation is literally unprecedented.

[brooklynite]

126. He told you that, did he?

[anarch]

33. maybe he doesn't know he's in charge, kinda like that guy in Uvalde n/t

[paleotn]

41. End of the day, constitutionally it is Garland's decision.

[gldstwmn]

48. He won't act in a vacuum.

[paleotn]

68. No, but it is his call. The buck stops with him on this.

[gldstwmn]

71. I have to be honest, I do not think he will pull the trigger.

[paleotn]

75. Then the republic is finished.

because 2.0 will be led by someone far more capable than the orange menace. And why not? There would be no repercussions. I think, after the weeks of hearings are done, Garland will be able to do nothing BUT prosecute. The Constitution demands it. The rule of law demands it. This isn't Bush and Cheney's subtle violations of primarily international law. This is far, far worse violations of federal law and far easier to prosecute.

[gldstwmn]

97. I hope you are correct.

[Irish_Dem]

82. I don't think he will act in a vacuum either.

He can't.

Too much at stake.

[Irish_Dem]

79. I am just going by how other crises are handled inside the beltway.

Often quite different from what flyover country sees.

Think about who are the major power brokers in DC.

Think about them hammering out a deal.
Some heads will roll. Some heads stay intact.

But everyone gets something.

Then John Q. Public gets a bit of kabuki theater.

[Irish_Dem]

85. Think about how the major power brokers will negotiate the solution.

Think about what each of them want.
What is their bottom line.

For example Mitch McConnell may gladly give up Trump to save his senators who were involved in the insurrection.

Once DOJ gets all the facts and the law sorted out, the politicians may take over the final negotiations in secret.

That is how Washington DC has always operated.

[FakeNoose]

87. Yes I agree, this is something he has discussed with the President

I'm sure it has all been kept under wraps, but Biden and Garland must jointly agree on this. Otherwise Garland never would have gotten selected for the job of Attorney General. I wouldn't want it any other way. No Attorney General should ever have such a weighty decision to make on his/her own.

On the other hand we've never had a President who ever behaved in such obviously criminal ways as Chump has. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out

[BigmanPigman]

8. Would public pressure help to move him?

Should Biden replace him?

[Beachnutt]

9. So the American people have to speak out

in order to influence Mr Garland to do his job....hmmm
How do we do that ?
Marches, Protest ?

[gab13by13]

26. It isn't an easy decision

will the protests start a Civil War?

[paleotn]

42. We're already in a civil war for all practical purposes.

A little more ain't going to make much difference. Indict his fucking ass.

[gldstwmn]

49. Yes and look at the trend of the courts giving rights back to the states.

[treestar]

122. He is doing the job

"doing his job" doesn't mean following our desires necessarily.

[LizBeth]

11. I feel the same as your post and why I disagree with Garland. I think it does more harm to the

country. Just as I think moving forward instead of addressing Bushco criminality did more harm.

[gldstwmn]

17. You are absolutely right. But 9/11 happened and put a stop to anything that might have happened

there. They used that to let Scooter Libby fall on his sword later and then Trump pardoned him. That says a lot.

[LizBeth]

19. By 2008 a number of crimes had been committed and Obama said that we would be moving forward

and would not address the criminal behavior. But you are right. It was in 2000 also. We did not have a lot of control at that point.

[BannonsLiver]

30. It absolutely does more harm.

It’s an extension of minority rule that has already all but doomed the country. Americans want access to healthcare outside of insurance, they want gun control, they want safe access to abortion and they want a higher minimum wage. Exactly NONE of those things will happen in our lifetime because we are all held captive in a system that fosters minority rule wherein 35 percent of the population can hold the other 65 percent hostage.

Apparently the OP is just fine with the minority rule dynamic extending to the DOJ, given that most Americans want those responsible held accountable.

[MyOwnPeace]

76. Go 'way back'..........

Jerry Ford let Nixon walk 'for the good of the country.'

Nixon WAS good in so many ways - MY GAWD HE created the EPA!!!!! Today THAT would have had him thrown out of the GOP!
BUT.......

He broke a law - he was WRONG - he should have 'paid the price' and not been given a pat on the head.

It's been a downward spiral ever since.........

[LizBeth]

78. Nixon resigned and was done. He may not have gone to prison, but he did experience repercussions.

[MyOwnPeace]

90. And he ALSO came back as an 'honorable, elder statesman.......'

especially for 'foreign policy' issues (which WAS a strength of his).

Indeed, it is a shame to throw away something that has value, like, say, Nixon's 'world view' on diplomacy (which has proven so good in many ways) BUT, if you do something that IS AGAINST THE LAW - you should lose ALL rights to come out later unless you have 'paid for your crime.'

One might say he did 'pay for his crime' - and indeed he may have in 'shame' and loss of future earnings. However, the REAL people that paid for his crimes are the AMERICAN public - allowing ANYONE to commit crimes - and get away with them, especially because they were 'someone important.'

THAT is why we're in the mess we're in now.

NIXON should have been charged and punished. (Watergate)

REAGAN should have been charged and punished. (Iran-Contra)

BUSH/CHENEY should have been charged and punished. (WMD lies)

TRUMP -

[LizBeth]

91. (WMD lies), NSA/ATT, torture, invasion, contract hire. Lots there with Bushco. And yes.

[MyOwnPeace]

93. Didn't feel like 'flooding the webs'........

but yes, there was SO much there. Pick your 'target' - you're gonna' hit something!

Thank you, Liz - great to have good people on the 'good team!'

[LizBeth]

94. +1

[gldstwmn]

108. Ugh, Ronnie Raygun cut a deal with Iran for the hostages causing Jimmy Carter to lose the election.

And who was all wrapped up in that? Poppy Bush that's who.
It was also no accident that Cheney and Rumsfeld who were holdovers from the Nixon era wound up with W. There has been a lot of shady business in the last 50 years of our democracy.

[MyOwnPeace]

81. Chin, I sense that you are.......

'running short on patience!'

To be honest, I'm about 2 to 3 weeks behind at most. I continue to listen to what I believe to be sane, reasonable reasons for Garland's 'modest' approach to the situation - but, like you, I'm just about ready to say "F**K IT!!!! - NAIL THE BASTARD!!!!!!"

Again, I'm willing to give a 'little bit' more time - hope you 'survive' the wait - and REALLY hope we all get that correct and proper response to criminal activity - TRUE JUSTICE.

[BannonsLiver]

22. Our country has been "torn apart" for a very very long time

Americans hate each other that is a fact and has been a fact for at least the last 20 years. I’m not sure there’s a compelling case that this country has EVER been united on anything post 1945. So if that’s his reasoning it is horse shit reasoning. Full stop.

[gab13by13]

25. People need to change the channel here at DU.

The wait and see crowd v the lock him up crowd need to both rethink where our country is right now.

It is getting more obvious every day that Trump can be indicted for at least one crime, most likely two. We need to put ourselves in Garland's shoes. He needs to decide what will do the most harm to our country, prosecuting Trump or not.

There are 70 million armed Trump supporters waiting for a signal from Trump.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

35. I'm on both sides

I wanna wait for all the evidence, then lock him up

[gab13by13]

51. How would you get Trump to a grand jury?

Would you drag him there in shackles?

[Just_Vote_Dem]

57. Say "Please"?

I was actually trying to make a little joke to lighten the tension, should have used an emoticon. Nothing personal. I wish you well

[gab13by13]

66. Sorry, I'm slow,

I get it now.

[mnhtnbb]

37. There are not 70 million armed Trump supporters waiting for a signal from Trump.

Yes, 70 million people voted for him, but not all are armed and ready to put their lives on the line for him.

[gab13by13]

43. You and I agree on what we would do

sitting at home. I am just saying that Merrick Garland is not going to make a decision whether or not prosecute Trump based on evidence, Garland is going to make his decision based on what effect it will have on our country.

[mnhtnbb]

53. Rachel had an interesting show this past Monday.

She did a segment on how infrequently seditious conspiracy or sedition charges have been brought against anyone. She reviewed a couple of cases. She basically was reporting on the fact that it's extremely difficult to get a conviction on those charges, and that prosecutors take into account when trying to decide about bringing charges of any kind, whether they are likely to get a conviction.

I think Merrick Garland will make the decision whether or not to prosecute Trump based on the evidence and his belief that the prosecution will be able to get a conviction.

[gab13by13]

60. Trump can be more easily charged with 2 other crimes

if seditious conspiracy is too hard to prove.

[Tommymac]

104. IMO RICO Charges will be pressed against TFG at the least. Much easier to get a conviction.

Just sayin'.

[gldstwmn]

105. RICO would be awesome because it takes out an entire criminal organization. Woot!

[Tommymac]

111. 😈 😈 😈 nt

[gldstwmn]

52. The January 6 crowd would do it all again tomorrow.

That's why they're not interested in the hearings. They don't give a shit.

[paleotn]

54. 69,998,000 do well to get off their couch.

Outside of Facebook ranting, they aren't going to do a damn thing. The left is making up scaredy shit just like the reich. Drives me nuts.

"Oh! We can't let justice take its course. The prols might get upset and start shootin'!" Makes me want to puke.

[gldstwmn]

59. Make no mistake, I am all in favor of prosecution. I am just saying that historically that is not

what has happened.

[paleotn]

47. Oh, dear lord.

So we let the yahoos win because....gulp....we're skeered of them?

[Skittles]

65. um

making decisions based on what the FASCIST CULT would do would signal the end of America

[Notek]

27. JHC!

It's a no brainer. If trump walks free then all future presidents can commit whatever crime they want. How can not prosecuting him even be an option?

[BannonsLiver]

32. "But they might get mad and start a civil war!111"

[gab13by13]

38. I guarantee you that Garland is considering that.

[BannonsLiver]

46. Oh, I have ZERO DOUBTS about that.

[gldstwmn]

62. Private citizens in this country own 20,000,000 assault rifles. They are no match for our military

but they could mount an effort.

[uponit7771]

107. Only 15% of US citizens own all that armor, still a lot but not in vast majority of houses

[gldstwmn]

109. That makes it all the more unsettling.

[uponit7771]

124. Actually its 32% of US adults own some type of firearm ... that's scary

[BlackSkimmer]

69. I really doubt that's a consideration.

The Jan 6 thugs are chumps, losers...most with criminal convictions even before they performed their idiotic "stunts." Mama's boys, living in mommy's basement, or some such.

Morons, wannabes, and idiots. This is why they should be stepped on HARD, from the bottom to the top. That's all they understand.

Anyone giving them the power by being afraid of what they might do...not the way to go. Nope.

[BannonsLiver]

84. "Anyone giving them the power by being afraid of what they might do...not the way to go. Nope."

That's the OP's position, not mine. I guess the disgust/sarcasm in my response to him was not as easily detectable as I had hoped.

[BlackSkimmer]

117. Sorry my bad, I had a few drinks last night with an old friend.

Never a good idea when posting here lol. I was surprised at that coming from you. Swoooossshh, flew right over my head.

All apologies.

[gldstwmn]

101. Those folks are being prosecuted impressively.

[gab13by13]

36. I agree with you,

I feel that not prosecuting Trump will tear our country apart more so than prosecuting him.

I have been putting this possibility out there for many months that because Garland is a self-avowed institutionalist he is not going to make his decision on whether he has enough evidence to indict Trump, he is going to have to decide which decision will harm our nation the least, the most.

[Notek]

50. Well,

IMO, when guilt is proven, trump has already made that decision for Garland.

[gab13by13]

55. As I said above,

think this through. If Garland decides to indict Trump, how do they get him to a grand jury? Think of the optics. They would have to raid Mar-el-Loco and put Trump in shackles and haul him off to the courthouse.

[Notek]

61. Yeah, good point.

Although that is a great image.

[fightforfreedom]

92. I don't think they would have to raid Trumps resort.

If he was indicted he would go through the same process as everyone else. No doubt a lot of security would have to be put place. I imagine there would be negotiations with his lawyers on how best to proceed. It would be a media frenzy.

[gldstwmn]

103. If Trump was indicted there would be no need for a grand jury appearance.

He's the top banana so it's not like he's going to flip on someone and get immunity. He has a Secret Service detail who would be instructed to escort him to turn himself in is my guess.

[fightforfreedom]

73. I agree it will be part of his decision, the impact of indicting Trump.

However, with the overwhelming evidence the committee has already shown to the American people. How will he explain not indicting Trump. Trump is guilty but I will not indict him because it will tear the country apart. That would not go over well. Perhaps indicting all those around Trump would be enough. But how do you indict everyone around Trump without indicting him? An Un-indicted co-conspirator perhaps? We have seen that before, right? Whatever Garland decides, either way, it's going to have a big impact, right?

Garland is in a very tough position. We are witnessing an historic event that will change our country forever. I don't think anybody knows how this is all going to end.

The DA in Georgia doesn't seem too worried about indicting Trump. She is moving full steam ahead.

[gldstwmn]

58. That's what they said about Nixon.

[JanMichael]

63. Can an "institutionalist" be honorable if all loyalty is to The Institution?

Can you be both?

[gldstwmn]

106. Ask John Roberts.

Will he get rid of Clarence?

[JanMichael]

110. Nope.

[Skittles]

64. Trump ALREADY tore America apart

IS HE ABOVE THE LAW OR ISN'T HE?

[gldstwmn]

102. So far, yes.

[Emile]

74. Garland will be arresting Trump soon!

Judgment day for the Orange Traitor will soon be here!

[gab13by13]

80. He has to get him to the grand jury first.

[Voltaire2]

116. No he doesn't.

There is no requirement to have a suspect testify to a grand jury before indictment.

[bigtree]

77. Attorney General Merrick Garland's Jan. 5 commitment

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Jan. 5 commitment to hold “all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law — whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.”

"The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law, whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy," Attorney General Merrick Garland said Wednesday in remarks thanking department officials for their work on the riot cases. "We will follow the facts wherever they lead."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/garland-vows-hold-jan-6-perpetrators-any-level-accountable-n1287026

....calling him an 'institutionalist' doesn't make any of what you say you fear even remotely true. The evidence actually points the other way on all of that cynicism:

On Jan. 13, the Justice Department indicted 56-year-old Stewart Rhodes, head of the extremist group the Oath Keepers, and 10 others whom prosecutors say were the tip of the spear of the Capitol riot. The monumental lead count of the 17-count indictment alleges that he and his co-defendants, along with unnamed others, were part of a “seditious conspiracy.”

According to Harvard University law professor Laurence H. Tribe, the indictment of Rhodes and other Oath Keepers "confirms that the Justice Department believes the plotters of the Capitol siege specifically intended to overturn the election, prevent the lawful transition of power and shatter our democracy."

"In addition, the new conspiracy charge sends a message that the prosecutorial door to everyone involved in the seditious scheme has officially swung open," Tribe argues. "...it shows the Justice Department is indeed methodically working its way up the chain of command of what it believes to be an exquisitely organized, multipronged plot."

That crime is, in effect, treason’s sibling. Under 18 USC §2384, seditious conspiracy is an attempt “to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or... by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” It is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

This historic indictment creates an enormous incentive for the defendants to cooperate with the government and help fulfill Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Jan. 5 commitment to hold “all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law — whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.” Four other Oath Keepers (actually 10 to date) are already cooperating.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-indictment-puts-january-6-plotters-notice-ncna1287540

[gab13by13]

83. What happened with Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino?

[bigtree]

89. still facing potential felony charges

...

[MN2theMax]

88. This a really great conversation!

This is why I hang out on DU. Intelligent, thoughtful conversation. That said, I am in the “must prosecute and convict, come what may” camp. I believe if TDFG is let off the hook, worse will follow and our democracy is over.

[Scrivener7]

113. It is. It finally feels like adults are having the conversation.

[kentuck]

114. Trump would have skated away, with no questions asked...

...if he had not decided to incite an insurrection and attempt to overthrow our government.

Even after all the other crimes he had committed, he could have walked away unscathed. He may still?

But, how much can be ignored?

[Mysterian]

123. Reminds me of Marc Antony's speech about Brutus

Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–

[Voltaire2]

115. Lol. Would tear our country apart?

That already happened.

[kentuck]

118. The country is already torn apart the worst since the Civil War.

Merrick Garland could fix it or make it worse?

I do not think the application of justice would make it worse.

[Voltaire2]

127. No shit.

The absolute worst possibility, as it would end the republic as a representative democracy, would be to establish the precede that a president cannot be charged for attempting to overthrow the government to prevent the orderly transfer of power.

That would green light all future coups.

[Hotler]

129. So, do we honor the unwritten gentleman's/presidential agreement not to snitch on each other

or, do we take a stand for democracy and throw the whole lot in prison?

Being AG is hard.

During the presidential campaign we frequently heard, "Nobody is above the law." . Now, not so much.