Just a reminder; Prosecutors can give immunity to people who have committed minor crimes.

[fightforfreedom]

In order to compel them to testify against people who have committed bigger crimes. They can't take the 5th.

Garlands prosecutors will have lots of options when it comes to immunity. Trump and his inner circle are fucked.

[gab13by13]

1. It isn't about prosecutors can give immunity,

that is technically correct. DOJ needs to start calling people before grand juries where they get immunity but are not allowed to plead the 5th in return.

I wish the hell that Merrick Garland had not decided to dump the Mark Meadows criminal referral. There is no privileged conversation in the commission of a crime. Garland fucked up. As you have said, Meadows is the keystone in the coup attempt, he relayed messages between the Willard hotel and Trump, Meadows relayed all messages from Trump and to Trump. The institutionalist notion that conversations between a president and his Chief of Staff are sacred will bring down our democracy.

[fightforfreedom]

2. You will forget all about the Meadows criminal referral when he is indicted.

Do you have any doubt Garlands prosecutors are not going to subpoena people to testify in front of grand juries. It is highly likely some people will be given immunity in order to get them to testify.

People like Flynn and others will probably be subpoenaed and take the 5th about a hundred times in front of a grand jury. That will not make them look innocent.

[gab13by13]

3. Mark Meadows should be before a grand jury right now.

You keep looking at this through your eyes. Look at this through the eyes of an institutionalist which Merrick Garland is. An institutionalist may choose not to indict someone who he believes is guilty if doing so may damage an institution or damage the country.

I make no bones about the fact that Garland has tremendous pressure on him. He doesn't only have to decide whether he has enough evidence to indict and to get a conviction, he has to game it out. What happens if he gets a conviction but an appeals court overturns the verdict? You bet that Garland is considering that possibility because he was an Appeals court judge. Garland is not just looking at whether he has enough evidence to convict people before he acts, and people do not understand that.

[fightforfreedom]

4. You ignore the fact a Chief of Staff has been indicted and imprisoned in the past.

Last edited Wed Jun 29, 2022, 09:15 AM - Edit history (1)

There is nothing stopping a so called institutionalist from indicting Meadows if he has the evidence. Not indicting would harm the institutions more so.

Garland most likely has a good reason he did not indict Meadows for contempt and it is not because he is institutionalist. One reason may be because Meadows did cooperate with the committee at first. He did not completely refuse to cooperate like the people who did completely refuse. They were indicted.