The Inevitable Indictment of Donald Trump

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Franklin Foer
@FranklinFoer
·
Follow
I spent months studying Merrick Garland. I interviewed him and other top DOJ officials. They didn't tip their hand, but here's why I convinced he will indict Trump.

theatlantic.com
The Inevitable Indictment of Donald Trump
It’s clear to me that Merrick Garland will bring charges against Donald Trump. It’s just a matter of when.
4:52 AM · Oct 11, 2022

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/10/merrick-garland-donald-trump-investigation-indictment/671683/

No paywall
https://archive.ph/UCZnw

As an appellate judge, Merrick Garland was known for constructing narrow decisions that achieved consensus without creating extraneous controversy. As a government attorney, he was known for his zealous adherence to the letter of the law. As a person, he is a smaller-than-life figure, a dry conversationalist, studious listener, something close to the opposite of a raconteur. As a driver, his friends say, he is maddeningly slow and almost comically fastidious.

And as the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, he is a hyper-prudential institutionalist who would like nothing more than to restore—quietly and deliberately—the Justice Department’s reputation for probity, process, and apolitical dispassion. Which is why it is so difficult for me to imagine him delighting in the choice he now faces: whether to become the first attorney general in American history to indict a former president.

But this is what I believe he is preparing himself to do.

I have been observing Garland closely for months. I’ve talked with his closest friends and most loyal former clerks and deputies. I’ve carefully studied his record. I’ve interviewed Garland himself. And I’ve reached the conclusion that his devotion to procedure, his belief in the rule of law, and in particular his reverence for the duties, responsibilities, and traditions of the U.S. Department of Justice will cause him to make the most monumental decision an attorney general can make.

Let me be absolutely clear: Garland did not tell me he was going to indict Donald Trump. In fact, he did not tip his hand to me in any way—he is far too cautious to signal his intentions to even his closest friends, much less a reporter. Nor did his top aides suggest the announcement of an indictment. When his department says that it doesn’t discuss ongoing cases, it means it—at least in this case.

*snip*

[claudette]

1. I wish I was

so sure

[Chainfire]

2. Me too.

[onecaliberal]

3. Timing is everything. If not before November why bother.

[Girard442]

7. Yup. If the Rs take the House, news will be all about Biden's impeachment.

I think that if Garland were going to indict, he would have done it already.

[CrispyQ]

9. Respect for election season is completely arbitrary, as Comey & McConnell have shown us. -nt

[onecaliberal]

11. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Respect is only for the criminals on the right.

People Refuse to see the writing on the wall.

[MissMillie]

14. So, TFG shouldn't be indicted at all unless

the indictment helps the Democrats with the midterms?

I want us to be better than that.

I'd like it to be before November too. I really would.

But what is more important to me is that TFG is held accountable. There's obviously a point to holding him accountable for his crimes.

And it's important that the case against him is as air-tight as the case Garland made against McVeigh. We don't get a second chance at this one.

[onecaliberal]

15. He won't be indicted by DOJ.

He has confessed in public a thousand times. If this is a nation of laws, that Orange piece of shit should be in jail just like I would be. Like reality winner and everyone else.

[MissMillie]

16. you could be right about the DOJ

but I'm not betting either way.

I do believe, as the posted article says, that the reason it hasn't happened yet is because it absolutely HAS to be perfect. I believe that's spot on.

Sure, it seems like he's taking too long. But that's because he's NOT investigating people like you and me.

Not because TFG is above the law, but because if there's the slightest ambiguity or error, TFG won't be held accountable. The end affect in that case will be that TFG is above the law.

[onecaliberal]

18. It's not rocket science. He has confessed to espionage basically.

[MissMillie]

20. Hell, this one is tougher than rocket science

for at least two reasons. One, because it will be scrutinized more heavily than any other indictment ever made. Two, because it will have political implications.

And let the professional basketball players remind us all--sometimes a slam-dunk isn't.

[onecaliberal]

22. The law is the law. The level of scrutiny doesn't matter. We are a nation of laws or we're not.

Appears to be the later.

[MissMillie]

26. The scrutiny of a jury will matter.

That's the law too.

[onecaliberal]

28. Letting him go on spouting his crap is only poising that jury pool more and more more.

[MissMillie]

29. That could be true

though I think his audience is a lot smaller these days.

[onecaliberal]

30. Nope. Saw a story about this today.

Last edited Tue Oct 11, 2022, 08:42 PM - Edit history (1)

It only takes one juror.

This is why I’m fucking sick of the excuses.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217243992#post1

[MissMillie]

31. What the hell did you just link to?????

I'd open the DU thread to link to a twitter thread that might link to a story about someone in Colorado, yadda yadda yadda. Then my older than dirt computer will crash because it's trying to load 4 windows (not to mention all the ads that come with them).

I'll say this: you're pretty much making my point for me.

The so-called "confessions" you've mentioned won't stand up in court. The defense will argue "political speech" (aka "The Tucker Carlson defense" ) which Carlson (and Maddow for that matter) have used in court and won with.

And Haberman's book isn't going to help either because that would require her to name her sources (and if she does that, she'll never get another source again).

The reason it's taking so long (IF IT HAPPENS AT ALL) is because a swing and a miss means GAME OVER for this one. (You'd think I was some sort of sports fanatic w/ all the metaphors I've used in this discussion.)

"Excuses" are worth considering if it means we get this one right.

A perp walk is meaningless unless he's convicted.

[onecaliberal]

32. It's a link to a DU story about a previous NSA employee who stole 1 page and is being held

Is in custody awaiting trial. So no, it doesn’t prove your point.

[claudette]

17. Agree

100%

[Hortensis]

4. Well, we'll see. Biden knew our democracy and people were in very grave danger.

He would only have appointed a person he believed totally committed and competent to restore the Department of Justice to what it must be and use it to protect our democracy. An institutionalist in the very best sense of the word.

It seems to me tRump's actions before and continuing, as well as those of the Republican Party, are creating one course for the man who Foer (as do many others) describes to follow. Unless Garland were to see prosecution as more likely than not prosecuting to lead to the destruction of the institution he is committed to saving? At best, it will likely take some years for our nation to stabilize out of danger.

I like the "smaller than life" in person description of Garland. That seems very apt for a man Obama believed was worthy of the high court and Biden believed the best choice for this key position in an existential battle, and a very unprepossessing one even when speaking to the nation from his position of great power.

[empedocles]

5. AG Garland has been aggressive against trump, in court, on the Mar-a-Kagi case,

" . . . It was just a few months ago that I saw a different version of the attorney general begin to emerge. While his investigation of January 6 continued at its slow pace, his sparring with Trump over the documents at Mar-a-Lago escalated quickly. The former president is no longer a figure on television, but his adversary in court. Garland approached him with an aggression that suggested he was prepared to do the very thing that critics said he didn’t have the guts to do. . . " - [from the article].


Atlantic Mag has invested in this extensive, fine, article. Good.

[onecaliberal]

12. They knew dump has top secret Intel for more than a year. So, no.

[captain queeg]

6. Just like the coming midterms deciding the future of America

Not indicting TFG will have similar impacts ultimately. Are we a nation of laws? Are we cowards? The first issue is applied flexibly but I think the second issue has been proven by history in the negative.

I don’t like the idea of waiting till after the election but there might be a advantage we aren’t considering. Just like indictment could motivate Trumpers, it might de-motivate some Dems to think I don’t need to vote now. Too many only vote in presidential election years.

[empedocles]

8. Does seeem precarious. Very likely, there will be eventful news, which

may have a significant effect.

I agree with the author, indictment will come after the Election.

[fightforfreedom]

10. I have been saying this for many months.

Make no mistake, Garland will indict Trump. Garlands entire life centers around the rule of law. Not indicting Trump would go against everything Garland believes and worked for his entire life.

I also believe Garland wishes he did not have to indict Trump or any politician. Trump and his merry band of traitors have left him no choice.

There is no way in hell Garland would indict a former president before an election. It would look political and that is something Garland will not do, ever.

I think Garland is the type of person who would not get mad if you insulted him. If you insult, mock, the rule of law, that would anger Garland.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

13. So on the one hand he has this amazing integrity and love for rule of law

But when it's inconvenient politically, even with the Nat'l Security of the USA at stake, and the former POTUS not even on the ballot in said election ... he's more worried about 'image', essentially.

Do you see the dichotomy in your argument?

[fightforfreedom]

19. The DA in Georgia is doing the same thing.

She is not going to indict Trump or anyone else right before the election. That's how it works whether people like it or not.

[usonian]

21. Now is the time for a reverse Comey.

You all know the damage he did.

Without lifting a finger, or accidentally putting two pieces of plutonium next to each other, he helped unleash major destruction.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/six-years-later-james-comeys-hillary-clinton-conference-still-stings-rcna36772
Six years later, James Comey's Clinton conference still stings
Six years ago, then-FBI director James Comey held a controversial press conference. It was a huge gift to Trump.
July 5, 2022, 1:34 PM PDT
By Ja'han Jones

Six years ago today, Comey held an infamous press conference at the height of the 2016 presidential election, in which he announced that although Hillary Clinton hadn’t committed any crimes in using a private email server as secretary of state, she’d still done things Comey personally thought were “extremely careless.”

Comey’s announcement may well have helped tank Clinton’s campaign.

Now, it's time to reverse the damage.

"Someone" has to drop the verbal hammer.

If it's any hint, the recovery of stolen documents from one location did not bring about a civil war, only further deranged speech.

Many connected crimes were committed, and I have zero inside knowledge, but what if some announcement were made regarding pipe bombs, or seditious activities of "certain elected representatives"?

[Paladin]

23. Why the hell is it "inevitable"?

It damn sure doesn't feel "inevitable" to me any longer; hasn't, for some time now.

[Bonx]

24. "inevitable" "we really want and expect this to happen"

[electric_blue68]

25. Ty for this article. Full of Garland's history, approaches, changes, pertanent details, etc.

It continues to make me think Garland just might indict drumphf if the case is tight enough, and because of some of tfg's latest statements.

Because Garland was so involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing horror where deep reactions to Mcveigh's case would emerge once a decision was reached - he's been through those rather fraught circumstance.
The fact that deep racism propelled McVeigh & Nichols to their actions; that improvements to the USA's Black citizens in many cases kept improving over time kept angering these racists.

Add in the fact that then later on underlying everything white voters said about why they voted for Trump most, if not all had an undercurrent of racism. And thus one of the main reasons MAGAT's wanted to keep him (since he brought racism out from under the rocks, and made it "acceptable", though other vunerable populations were also targets for demogogery) in the White House.

Justice as many people see it is to right wrongs including unwarranted restrictions, add ways to limit horrific actions; thus AG Garland has as part his actions in a grimly poetic way of "history doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes" has the opportunity to help stymie some of the actions of the the man who opened Pandora's Box of racism yet again by at least indicting former President Trump.

[Emile]

27. Garland needs a little more evidence

?