How about this for a scenario?

[jaxexpat]

Garland, knowing that any case he brings against Trump will most probably go before the USSC. That court is overbalanced with conserva-hypocrites and possibly 2-3 are rabidly and blindly servants of pro-Trump politics before justice. There is a REAL possibility that the USSC would, in a 5-4 decision, ignore the facts and decide for Trump or one, any or all of his minions. They'd justify their stance with some precedence or the other which they'd gladly ignore if the shoe were on the other foot. Hell, they may even cite the US senate twice unable to find Trump guilty of an impeachable, much less removeable offense. Hey, I know that flips logic on its head but remember this is the "August Body" that made W president.

If Garland truly anticipates a total judicial shutdown of the facts he presents, how could he proceed with the case? Why would he proceed? What is the following chapter to be if he proceeds and his case fails? What is it to be if he simply doesn't indict Trump but instead proceeds against one of the higher minions, intentionally omitting a case against Trump altogether? He might try that because he's afraid the country will explode if he goes after Trump but it would be a sham anyway since everybody knows it was Trump at the wheel.

The thing is, since Jan. 6th, 2021, the possibilities include the unthinkable, civil war. What sort of society will we have if Trump walks and 60% of the country knows he's guilty as hell while half the remainder is armed and itching to kill some "libruls"? That question is most important because that's where we are right now. Even before Garland makes his call.

If you dialed 911 and told them a bunch of white, Trump flag waving Republicans armed with AR15's were shooting up your neighborhood, would you expect your local LEO's to come to your aid? In time to save your life? And not take the Trumpist's side?

[in2herbs]

1. Maybe Garland is waiting for Biden to expand the court??? nt

[old guy]

2. The answers to your last 3 questions are no ,no and no.

I live in a 2nd Amendment sanctuary county in rural Wi.

[Firestorm49]

3. If the country "explodes", keep in mind

that his radical base has never gone beyond 35% and in the event of such an occurrence, many reasonably minded Republicans would still prefer democracy over fascism.
Given that, I’m quite confident that all of our three initial intel groups would have enough information by now to be able to quell a revolt of this nature. Yes, there would be some violence on the streets but in due course it would be shut down.

I believe an open revolt would shock most of us but I also believe that the militant radical right is well known to law enforcement at this point. The majority of Americans wouldn’t stand for it, as I said, including reasonable minded Republicans.

Let’s just hope that the local police and National Guard aren’t in on it.

[brush]

4. Regardless, no one is above the law and Garland...

must indict if findings indicate that there is criminal evidence against trump.

If SCOTUS takes on a case to decide whether trump can be tried, that's on them just as Roe is. If so, it seems an actively partisan court can be as dangerous to democracy as trump.

[jaxexpat]

8. That's two, separarte issues.

Trumps liability to be subject to trial and his actual trial. They could still allow the trial (not sure why they wouldn't) and then find him innocent. Travesty that, eh? And proof the court is corrupt.

[brush]

10. SCOTUS would not try him, but its arguable that they are corrupt.

[Ohio Joe]

5. The SC does not do criminal cases - nt

[former9thward]

6. I am afraid it does.

I am not sure why anyone would think it doesn't.

[Ohio Joe]

7. It could decide the legality of the case...

But the trial would not be held there.

[Mr.Bill]

9. Any prosecutor who bases a decision

on whether or not to prosecute someone on speculation about what a higher court would do should find another line of work.

[jaxexpat]

11. That seems very, profoundly true.

[Mr.Bill]

12. Once I was in a federal courtroom

when an attorney was threatening to appeal the case if the judge rules against him. The Judge told him "I have never made a decision based on threats."

[brooklynite]

13. Your scenario crashes and burns with in the first paragraph

This is a criminal case. The Court of Appeals and the USSC only take appeals on process; there's not likely to be a flaw sufficient to overturn a strong conviction, and the SC has already shown that its NOT beholden to Trump personally.