Merrick Garland's Ex-Law Prof Tells CNN Trump Headed for Indictment: 'Strong Evidence' DoJ Not Stopp

[Ohio Joe]

Merrick Garland’s Ex-Law Prof Tells CNN Trump Headed for Indictment: ‘Strong Evidence’ DoJ Not Stopping at ‘Foot Soldiers’

Laurence Tribe, Attorney General Merrick Garland‘s former law professor, said he thinks there is “strong evidence” Garland’s Justice Department will indict former President Donald Trump.

--snip--

BLITZER: So based on what we know now, Professor Tribe, do you believe the US Justice Department will try to bring an indictment against the former President related to these events of January 6th?

TRIBE: Well, I wish I knew, but Merrick Garland is a friend and a former student of mine. He is an honest man, he’s serious. He said, you go to the top, if that’s where the evidence points, and that’s certainly where it’s pointing now. And there’s indication, certainly from the searches and seizures of both John Eastman and of others, strong evidence that the Justice Department is not stopping with the foot soldiers, it’s going to the Generals.

And the biggest General of all, of course, is Donald Trump. I do think the odds are he will be indicted.

BLITZER: And so you think, Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States will indict the former President of the United States?

TRIBE: If I had to guess, that would be my guess.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/merrick-garland-s-ex-law-prof-tells-cnn-trump-headed-for-indictment-strong-evidence-doj-not-stopping-at-foot-soldiers/ar-AAZ7Hxq?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d9d05b1d04da460ebce62b0ea4cad9e8

I agree... Every indication I have seen is that the DOJ will follow this through and hold everyone involved accountable.

[Beachnutt]

1. Who of the "Generals" or even "lieutenants"

of the trump crime syndicate have been arrested so far with this overwhelming evidence ?

[wyn borkins]

2. Sadly, None (n/t)

[Ohio Joe]

4. None...

And you are not likely to see any until the PB/OK's who have flipped are sentenced in (currently slated for) Sept. That is when the DOJ has to reveal some of the meat of what they are giving the plea bargain for. Around that time is when indictments of the next level up can be expected to be seen.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Tom Barrack, Tina Peters, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro

All have been arrested and charged with various crimes, not all directly related to January 6, but all directly related to Trump.

Will you accept those arrests as a good first step, or will you move the goalposts?

[Hekate]

25. Goalposts moving as we speak

[Hortensis]

55. May be some memory loss involved; we do average older on this forum.

The goalpost movers never remember, or consider anew, that just obtaining evidentiary information, including electronic, takes a long time, months to years. That kind of reality means the searches for what's increasingly coming to light now started long ago.

[msfiddlestix]

30. Rudy Giuliani and the others you mentioned have been arrested? I missed that.

I knew Rudy's house was searched last year, but I guess I missed the report of his arrest. Same with these other names, in terms of arrests and charges.

[Mr.Bill]

46. Navarro was arrested,

Bannon turned himself in, was booked and released. I don't remember Giuliani being arrested, don't know about the others.

[msfiddlestix]

72. thanks...

I just did a skim through research of Guiliani, don't see anything about any charges, just that he was disbarred from NY and DC.

Peters was indicted by a Grand Jury in Colorado I believe, she turned herself in according to an article I just read, and she was relesed on Bond. I guess, she's still campaigning for Secretary of State of Colorado. ??

[Fiendish Thingy]

52. Giuliani is the subject of an investigation; the others have all been arrested and charged

Barrack: IIRC, campaign finance violations and fraud
Tina Peters: 7 felonies, including election tampering
Bannon: contempt of congress
Navarro: contempt of congress

[msfiddlestix]

70. I'm just getting started on searching for arrests articles on these named ..

went to Wiki to search for Tina Peters specifically any mentions of charges or indictments. the wiki page makes no mention of these incidents, so I googled the question and up comes an article from "News 11" in Colorado Springs.....

There it talks all about charges, that she turns herself in, is then released on bond. So is an asssitant clerk.

Anyway, as I read the summary at the top of the page, the report invites the reader to scroll on at the bottom to get more background and details. When I get there, suddenly I feel like I'm reading a report dictated from Tucker Carlson regarding all the criminality of Griswold omg. facepalm.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8UC6AnhP9Sf-dcxElXRwnc5sWOgqb5y67PPMTDgYUs/edit?usp=sharing

back to our discussion, it doesn't appear she was charged by the doj. maybe I'm misread or overlooked the pertaining facts.

Giuilani's wiki page finally mentions he was disbarred in NY and DC.. nothing on any charges that I could find. maybe I missed that too.

[Fiendish Thingy]

71. Looks like they were state charges

Unless she can provide significant evidence against co-conspirators, she’s going to prison for along time.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/09/1085452644/colorado-clerk-indicted-on-13-counts-of-election-tampering-and-misconduct

[msfiddlestix]

73. Righ... Just curious did you go there to the bottom of the article? omg

I'm like, really? Griswold is the criminal? effin. hell.

[comradebillyboy]

3. Glad to see Larry is waiting for Godot to arrive. Hope he

won't be disappointed.

I have to wonder why the J6 committee is keeping DOJ at arm's length. It couldn't be because the committee thinks DOJ would gum up the works and bury all the evidence of wrongdoing could it?

[Ohio Joe]

5. You think the DOJ is burying evidence?

The DOJ is firmly in tfg's pocket? Would that include President Biden who would have to be allowing that to happen?

[comradebillyboy]

7. I think the DOJ doesn't want to rock the boat. I'm not seeeing

any evidence to the contrary. I am also not operating under the illusion that the president personally oversees every detail of the government's operations.

The president's appointees are not infallible and some of them just aren't up to the job.

[Ohio Joe]

11. Interesting... So...

Garland could have spent four years going after the low level thugs at the Capitol, had a bunch of show trials and called it a career. This was what I feared most at first.

But... He did not stop there.

He went after and caught the next level up and now has 18, including 4 not at the Capitol, charged with seditious conspiracy. Again, he could have stopped there... Had the trials and called it a career. At this point, he probably would have even been made to look as if he had gone above and beyond. A lot of people never expected the investigation to go that far.

But... Again, he did not stop there.

He has now flipped three of the seditious conspirators (that we know of) and in the agreement said he plans to use him in the Grand Jury (we'll get to that). He could have stopped there, not wanted them in a Grand Jury, and had the show trials doubly nailing the 14 in even bigger fashion and bigger TV clip drama with their own on the stand pointing the finger.

But... Still he did not stop there.

He convened a 7th Grand Jury for 1/6. You do not do that unless you plan to go higher... And any higher is TFG's inner circle, in this case (with the flipper being Josua James) that mean Roger Stone. The same Roger Stone that currently is having a fairly public falling out with maga world. We also know that at this point there are at least eight of TFG's inner circle under investigation... They are:

TOM BARRACK
RUDY GIULIANI
ROBERT COSTELLO
SIDNEY POWELL
MARK MEADOWS
ALEX JONES
ROGER STONE
ERIK PRINCE

For more on Grand Juries for 1/6, see here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216589606#post12

We also know what is needed... What is nice to have... What is known to be had... What is still needed... And how what is needed might be gotten to go directly after TFG, see this previous post of mine:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216561245

So... Where and when do you think Garland stops? Does he throw the Grand Jury to let them off? What if they indict? My suspicion is that this Grand Jury is just to go after the inner circle and not TFG yet... I think that for a reason... He has gone after this from day 1 as though it were a mob case, it certainly appears to me to be a text book mob case. Once he has indictments against the inner circle, you have a different set of defendants than any before... Older men who tried for a coup and failed... Older men now facing dying in jail going up against someone they know has them nailed.

Just as importantly.... Why do you see none of this as evidence he plans to keep going?

[ancianita]

26. Thanks. You make a great case. Garland still has two more years to bring outcomes of this process,

at the very least. I hope the grand jury outcomes won't be too late. Our side is often too late smart in enforcing rule of law -- codifying pollution laws, Roe v Wade, the ERA, even codifying the proper use of pardons.

[reACTIONary]

66. If need be...

... a independent or special prosecutor could be appointed to keep the process going even if a new administration is elected in 2024.

[ancianita]

67. Hah.

Do you mean if Republicans win? I don't recall how that works. Can you give some idea?

[reACTIONary]

68. Yes, that is what I meant, but....

.... didn't want to say. Makes me a bit uncomfortable.

An example is the appointment of John Durham by Barr as special counsel to investigate and prosecute "wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia investigations". Because he is "special" his investigation kept going despite Biden's win and Garland's appointment.

He even prosecuted (and lost) Michael Sussmann.

https://wapo.st/3ycXZ9R

[ancianita]

69. Okay.

And thanks for the current history refresher. With so much happening, I'd forgotten.

[Hekate]

33. Thank you for collating all of this and for keeping track and for not falling for the whinging BS...

… that would have us believe that transparency means we have to keep the criminals apprised of every move that is being made to bring them to justice.

It’s nice to be reminded that progress is being made, though.

[Hortensis]

57. Yes, thanks for the summary and dose of reality, Ohio Joe. nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Your opinion is based on a lack of public evidence

“I’m not seeing any evidence to the contrary” only proves what you’re not seeing, not what doesn’t exist.

[SoCalDavidS]

9. President Biden Said He Was Taking Hands Off Approach With DOJ

So I think he will accept whatever Mr. Garland decides.

[BannonsLiver]

15. +1

The Godot reference is spot on.

[Pisces]

6. I'll believe it when I see it. Democrats like to play Charlie Brown to Lucy holding the football.

[Ohio Joe]

8. So... who is Lucy in your scenaio?

[SoCalDavidS]

10. America's Justice System? nt

[Ohio Joe]

12. So...

The DOJ is fooling us into thinking they are going after everyone. See post #11 above, I'd like to hear your answers as well.

[SoCalDavidS]

14. The Bottom Line For Me

I've spent the last 6 years listening to all the prognosticators say how THIS would be the thing that brings the almighty Asshole down.

Yet, each time, he manages to not only escape accountability, but he grows Bolder, and more determined to get his way. Trying to push the envelope a little bit more each time. And the lack of consequences for his actions are a driving force in that.

So, while I see the rationality and desire to think that FINALLY, THIS TIME Will Be Different. That he's crossed too big a boundary This Time, and he will be punished.

But honestly, until I see it happen, and until I see some significant charges, against significant involved individuals, I'll remain skeptical.

I'd love to experience the unbelievable joy in being proven wrong. But I'm not going through the anger and heartache that goes along with thinking he's going to be held accountable, only to be disappointed again.

[Ohio Joe]

17. I get that....

But it does not address that facts of what has been and is going on at DOJ.

[SoCalDavidS]

42. And I Hope You're Right

But the mere fact that there's seemingly lots going on at DOJ, does not necessarily mean anything will come of it.

There are plenty of so-called "investigations" in America's recent history, that ended up going nowhere, with nobody being held accountable.

If/When some higher level operatives begin getting charged and arrested, then perhaps I'll become more of a believer.

[cloudboy07]

38. think they might go after the ----

three clowns on the s.c. for perjury too ! lying to congress is not chicken feed law breaking ! they got them cold ! all in the timing !

[Hekate]

56. That was not and is not part of the DOJ's current (or possibly ever?) remit. It might be Congress's

Now, if you are tossing SCOTUS into the mix, it is an entirely separate case than the case of the 1-6 insurrection, and will have to be handled separately and differently.

[ancianita]

13. IMO, Laurence Tribe's 'guess' is The Tell -- the Repub-filled DOJ will indict tfg ONLY IF IT HAS TO.

"I wish I knew," "the odds are" "If I had to guess"

[Ohio Joe]

16. So... We have our own 'deep state'?

And President Biden and Garland are just letting them stop prosecutions? I've seen no evidence of that.

[ancianita]

21. No. We've inherited THEIR 'deep state.'

President Biden goes by Garland's history of prosecuting the OK City bombings and other accomplishments. Biden has used his best judgment; that doesn't mean that Biden is necessarily letting anything happen. He's trusting Garland to do the right thing.

I believe that we already recognize the political inertia to enforce rule of law that exists in law enforcement, from bottom to top, or we wouldn't have so thoroughly critiqued the entire failure of the security surrounding January 6. It's not a stretch to see a DOJ that's been filled with right wing lawyers, just as was the White House filled with Cipollones and Meadows, loyalists who'd taint the credibility of the Jan 6 Committee; e.g., witness tampering. In Congress, trying to install complicit Republicans on the J6 Committee.

You know this is true: we keep asking what's taken so long while at the same time claiming that the Right would not have taken even half this long if our side did any of this. That difference is explained by political inertia to honestly enforce rule of law. We also argue that the inertia is structural, too, until it just isn't; e.g., how justice simply ends in SCOTUS overturns; how states take over criminalizing behavior once backed by allegedly settled constitutional law.

How do you see evidence of "letting," anyway. You don't, except in hindsight.

[Ohio Joe]

23. See post #11

I’m curious what your reply to it is.

[ancianita]

31. Thanks. It is compelling.

I'm curious how you explain public lack of confidence in the DOJ's work. Has the Republican AG, Barr, lowered it? Has the Republican SCOTUS? Four years of Republican White House counsel?

If the DOJ does indict and bring Trump to a jury trial, what court would try it? The DC Bench?
How long would that court then allow the defense to defend? Would it take weeks? Months? Years?
I ask because it's never been done before.

[Ohio Joe]

58. So... I think there is a lot to it...

"I'm curious how you explain public lack of confidence in the DOJ's work. Has the Republican AG, Barr, lowered it? Has the Republican SCOTUS? Four years of Republican White House counsel?"

Absolutely, all this adds to it but... I think there is more to it right now. A lot is the media... Even media that is supposed to be on 'our side' reports very little of what happens regarding 1/6... And a lot has happened (I keep an eye on EmptyWheel.net for up to date information and analysis. It's run by reliable people who know their stuff). They even report non-sense so as to have controversy... Take for instance the idea that there is a lot of tension between the committee and the DOJ... I don't buy it. Loaded questions are asked with no follow up and innocuous statements are presented as though they are indicative of something... I think it's all non-sense. Both the committee and the DOJ are looking into the same event with different purpose and both of them have (rightfully) a lot at stake in their investigations. I think they are working pretty hard not to step on each others toes but the fact remains, this is like nothing else that either has ever had to investigate... A President has never before betrayed America.

"If the DOJ does indict and bring Trump to a jury trial, what court would try it? The DC Bench?"

Yes, just like the seditious conspiracy cases getting ready to start. They will try for a change of venue but the DOJ already has precedent on this investigation set through previous cases.... Grunts on the ground tried it, PB/OK's tried it, seditious conspirators tried it, Bannon tried it (and I expect Navarro will try) and they have all failed. Going forward, I expect future attempts will also fail.

"How long would that court then allow the defense to defend? Would it take weeks? Months? Years?"

I can only guess... For my best guess on how things will go forward, see here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216824291

[ancianita]

59. And I'm hoping for a lot "more to it" than that by November.

None of this will be pre-announced by the DOJ and I expect that as July passes and we go into August with pretty much no word from them, there will be many saying it is proof that the DOJ has no intention of going after anyone higher up.

Word has it that the only credibility that would eliminate the 'witch hunt' framing is the DOJ's indictments. Now we're in July.
I'll give the DOJ until October; otherwise nothing our side has done for the last two years will have a measurable effect in the 2022 Republican vote.

Even so, here's the "more to it" that we can reasonably hope: that enough of Americans are affected by the hearings alone.

And so numbers give me hope, regardless of the DOJ.

We can reasonably hope for the 81+ million returning so that the 7+million vote difference (between Biden/Trump) offsets all the gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts in battleground states. And that Americans are still pissed off enough to even get up and get out to vote. Even after almost 16,000,000 more Democrats voted in 2020 than in 2018 (also a blue wave year). (Many seem beaten down into spectator status. But that might just be venting on social media.)

TOTAL REGISTERED (213,799,467) WHO VOTED BUT DID NOT VOTE for Trump IN 2020 =
84,172,012 = 39% OF REGISTERED POPULATION = 34 % OF VOTING AGE POPULATION


Here's the latest updated on voter registration by state, but I haven't the patience to do the math.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/number-of-registered-voters-by-state

Thank you so much for your helpful grand jury information, OhioJoe.

[msfiddlestix]

35. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ n/t

That difference is explained by political inertia to honestly enforce rule of law. We also argue that the inertia is structural, too, until it just isn't; e.g., how justice simply ends in SCOTUS overturns; how states take over criminalizing behavior once backed by allegedly settled constitutional law.

[Marius25]

20. I'll believe it when the actual indictments are released

[Orrex]

28. Same

Until that day, it’s nothing but a bunch of people saying “trust me.”

[malaise]

22. The Slobfather is going to be prosecuted

Last edited Sat Jul 2, 2022, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Justice is coming and finally he will be held to account.
This despicable human being will pay.

[SoCalDavidS]

43. As An Aside

You said the same about Gaetz back in April 2021, and so far as I can tell, it hasn't happened, nor has he slowed his roll one bit.

[malaise]

44. So I wonder why he's asking for pardons

for everything.

[SoCalDavidS]

48. If There Was So Much Evidence, Enough To Indict, Back In April 2021

How come 15 Months later, he's still out there running his mouth off, campaigning for his inevitable re-election in a solid red district, seemingly without a care in the world?

If his buddy, Mr. Greenberg, was dishing so much about Gaetz, how come 15 months have passed, and still nothing? How much evidence is enough to indict?

You know that if it was you or I or ANYONE on DU, we'd long ago been arrested and charged with SOMETHING.

[shanti]

53. I live for that day

[FakeNoose]

24. This is why Chump cannot be allowed to run for another term

Even the Repukes can see this, am I right?

[ancianita]

37. Only a DOJ indictment won't "allow." Beyond that, anything not forbidden is doable by Repubs.

That's why Repubs see what they want to see, even their lawyers, AG, White House Counsel, Congressional accomplices, even SCOTUS.

Repuke voters only fall in line for the power they have wanted and now have. But they're only 23% of voters.

WE 81+ million who turned out last time still don't have to allow him another term, no matter what.

[Orrex]

27. When my great-grandkids visit me in the care home decades from now...

Maybe they’ll tell me about how the DoJ is finally starting to consider planning a move against the ringleaders.


I am not a person of faith. If the DoJ manages to get Trump convicted then I will willingly recant my pessimism, but until that day we’ve seen little to inspire confidence.

[Joinfortmill]

29. Not for nothing, but Tribe is coming late to the party..

Some of us always new Garland would follow the law wherever it led him. Just saying, people.

[Paladin]

32. I'll believe it when it happens. (nt)

[fightforfreedom]

34. Blah, blah, blah, nothing is going happen and then something happens.

After something happens again, some people here will say, nothing is going to happen, again. After someone in Trumps inner circle is indicted some people here will say, nothing is going to happen, Trump will never be charged. After Trump is is charged some people here will say, nothing is going to happen.

The Nothing is Going to Happen Club.

[Scrivener7]

45. On a subject where the outcome is not yet determined, it is SO important to denigrate

those whose opinion differs from ours on what that outcome will be. It's SO important to call them names and complain every time they state their opinion.

Otherwise all we are doing is stating our own opinion about the unknown outcome. And that doesn't do anything to feed baseless feelings of superiority. Calling people names is so much better. And so much more evolved.

[jaxexpat]

47. But you gotta admit, they've gotta point. Airtight is important.

This case, this airtight case will stand tall, turgid, near bursting with potency and undefeatable when it gets to a court of law and proud forever........................on the back shelf of a forgotten warehouse rented to the DOJ for storage/archives if 2022 goes to the Republicans and to a landfill if 2024 goes to them. The DOJ, the FBI, the judges, the courts, they're all political, all political and crippled by infighting.

[Scrivener7]

49. Jaxexpat, you are doing it wrong! You managed to say ALL of that without once

calling anyone a derogatory name!

But yes, I agree that the case is airtight. And I, too, will believe the top echelon will be punished when I see them punished.

[jaxexpat]

51. I know. I'll try harder in the future. Airtight pinky swear.

[Novara]

36. Thanks for this post

I stopped reading the replies. People are so damn wedded to being right about "nothing happening" that they can't see the fact that the DOJ is subpoenaing people closer and closer to the top. THIS is how you build an airtight case.

It seems a lot of people can't admit they may be wrong. I admitted I was wrong. I used to be SURE the DOJ wasn't doing a damned thing. But it's obvious that they are building a strong case and they're getting closer to the top. The evidence is there if we just look at it. Charging people - and getting guilty pleas - for seditious conspiracy, subpoenas of the top echelon people... it's obvious where the DOJ is headed.

I guess it's just taking too long for the DOJ to build a solid case that the naysayers just can't wait.

I dunno about others, but I'd rather have successful prosecutions than cases that fall apart because due diligence was not done. But maybe speed matters more than successful prosecutions to a lot of people here.

[fightforfreedom]

41. With just the public evidence it is clear Garland is going to indict the coup plotters.

How could he not.? They are guilty as hell. If Garland failed to do his job Biden would have to fire him.

The nothing is going to happen club are saying nothing is going to happen because of what we witnessed while Trump was in power. He used the power of the presidency to crush all investigations against him. Trump is no longer in power. There is a new AG who follows the rule of law. If Garland has the evidence, which he does, he is going to indict.

[Novara]

54. The Nothing is Going to Happen Club is impatient

We all are. But a solid, winnable case takes time to do right.

I think we all need to work on our patience. I'm old enough to remember life pre-microwave ovens! We actually had to COOK things in the oven or on top of the stove! Horrors!

[SouthBayDem]

39. The full transcript from CNN.com

Without all the on screen clutter from MSN: https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/acd/date/2022-07-01/segment/01

[Scrivener7]

40. Tribe has been saying this for months. And months. And months.

Hope someday he is right.

[H2O Man]

50. Recommended.

I am very confident that the DOJ will indict and convict Trump.

[wiggs]

60. You shouldn't indict for political purposes, you shouldn't NOT indict for same. nt

[Ohio Joe]

61. Do you think that is what is happening?

If so... What leads you to believe that?

[Tree Lady]

62. I agree its not political for a man

Who has committed hundreds of crimes to go to jail for it no matter who he is.

I am one of those that says if he is not punished we will get worse next time and more will do it.

[Ohio Joe]

63. I agree 100% - nt

[onenote]

64. Despite what some folks seem to think, Larry Tribe is not omniscient or infallible.

And while he's a leading constitutional law scholar, he's never held any position at the Department of Justice or ever prosecuted a criminal case.

As he himself admits, he is just "guessing" when he says Garland will indict Trump, which is way different from the spin the headline of the linked article puts on his statement.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

65. Laurence Tribe is a a national treasure !

we need more of him. He could be the AG and we would be waging war on the real criminals 24/7