I had no idea that Garland was so reluctant to do the job he was nominated to. He seemed like someone who would understand the treachery of our times and go all out for stopping the Trump machine from doing any more damage. I clearly missed something.
Jun 15, 2022·edited Jun 15, 2022Liked by Robert Reich
Garland has stated that the DOJ will investigate and look into prosecuting the Jan 6th perpetrators to the law at Any level. So be patient, Merrick Garland is a tedious, and patient prosecutor, the best there is! (Remember the FBI building? He investigated across state lines, and eventually prosecuted them!) Don't buy into the evil doer's statements, that by now, there "should've been a prosecution, but there isn't, bc there isn't anything for them to prosecute"...(Which is false, and the DOJ is looking into it, with diligence; so stop buying into the drama: and choose to spread patience and love).
As this is regarding a former president, there must be a very carefully laid out, solid case, in order to arrest and prosecute any of these perps! The January 6th committee, is like any other committee, they are there to uncover facts, not to prosecute!!! . Merrick Garland and the DOJ are investigating; He said so on January 5th, the eve of remembrance, one year later... https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/588430-garland-vows-prosecutions-at-any-level-over-jan-6
And yesterday, he's following it with great interest, sure, we all are, but he's comparing notes... It doesn't say anything more than that, as a DOJ investigation is all behind the scenes, till it isn't... This is normal, and logical. Journalists and big media outlets shouldn't stir up so much drama, in order to sensationalize things that don't need it, in order to "keep and attract" more viewers.
Thank you for this. I have been saying the same thing, though not as eloquently as you have stated it! Garland will have one shot at this prosecution, and he has to get it right or he will go down in history as a failure if Trump and co. get away with their crimes.
I am totally with you on this. This country can never be put in this position again, having a completely lawless ex-POTUS having the country by the b*lls. I'm sorry but I have lost patience with this nightmare. Garland absolutely must prosecute-how could he not ?-or resign. I really don't know what concerned citizens can do other than what we are doing now ie. paying attention to these hearings, writing/calling our representatives, taking survey after survey and so on. Certainly Mr Garland is a meticulous student of the rule of law and therefore he has no other choice than to prosecute. He has to be aware of the sentiments of a large majority of the population. It is beyond incredulous that this has gone on this long.
Part of the reason for the long wait is looking for the evidence which the January 6 Committee is gathering, Attorney General Garland is too good a lawyer to jump to a Grand Jury for an indictment without absolute assurance of an indictment.
Yes, this is the way some prosecutors think. In New York, Cy Vance set up an investigation of Trump and then resigned, and his successor refused to prosecute. It makes me furious. No one should be guaranteed a win in our system of government, but that's no excuse for not executing the duties of the office.
What's the point of prosecuting if you lack the evidence o convince the Grand Jury to indict. Yes the law moves slowly, but if you are patient, the guilty usually pay the price.
That's not the way I read it. Prosecutors who worked on this case thought it was strong and were baffled that it didn't go forward. Unless he had some serious illness or personal problem, I felt Vance should have stayed the course and run again. And I wouldn't have voted for Bragg had I known he's walk away from it.
It seems that the least that could be done is to shut down the disinformation machine. Nobody should be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater! Nobody should be allowed to misinform millions of people like tRump has and convince them of lies and instigate murders and assaults, and convince people that they have a sacred right to shoot up the public or anyone else they perceive as 'other', while they are just going about their lives and harming no one. then the perps even make millions of dollars on their crimes!
I’m so with you here! I’m constantly baffled as to how we have a country and a system that allows people to flat out lie and reap rewards from all those lies whether it be money or votes. How on earth is that legal?? It’s bonkers that the people in positions of public trust have no obligation to tell the truth because nothing happens to them if they lie. Whereas if I lied nonstop at my job, I’d be fired. Yet these people not only keep their jobs, they get new ones and money on top of it! I keep saying that if we shut down the propaganda, we save our democracy. It’s that simple. If people can’t lie with implicitly when it comes to positions of public trust, watch all the swamp creatures go elsewhere, leaving behind the people who actually want to do the job they ran for. Of course taking the money out of politics along with the lies would undoubtedly save our democracy as those two things are completely destroying it.
Fay Reid ; The S.S. troops that went around would take non Jewish Germans to the work camps too, if they were not following the right 'script', or 'party line'. It is easy to judge those who lived in that time, but the reality is wrong speech or behavior could not only lead to being brutalized and killed, but your family, loved ones even children would pay horribly! This was terrorism of the worst kind. Something that Orange man is capable of if he is not stopped!
Definitely, Paula! that is the whole point of the ban on speech like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is not protected speech. Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment for a reason. Dangerous speech is not ok.
The problem is, in a free society, people are allowed to say whatever they want to say. And no one is allowed to shout 'Fire" in a crowded theater. When we had an apolitical, honest Supreme Court that law was codified, I believe by Justice Felix Frankfurter, if my memory serves me. That is why we have the First Amendment, which guarantees Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Press.
Fay Reid ; Until Reagan we had the 'fairness doctrine' which 'policed' the airwaves for factual information. The FCC had rules, maybe not codified, the same way the FEC and other 'guard rails' probably were not codified into law. 'Truth in advertising' was a phrase I grew up with.
The concept that shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is a hazard to safety, and therefore should not happen was because the ensuing stampede would cause harm or even death.
By the same token, tRump's lies are not legitimate speech protected by the First Amendment for the same reason. His lies have caused deaths and injuries and even threaten our very country. Putin uses lies to confuse, misinform and control his people. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is another misinterpretation of Constitutional law, similar to the bastardization of the second amendment. People who cannot see these obvious facts do not belong anywhere near government power. I have not studied law, but it seems plain to me.
I stand corrected, Laurie. The "Truth in Advertising" seems like centuries ago. Perhaps I have gotten so used to having to determine the truth for myself, I have forgotten that pre-Reagan, we were a decent, honorable Country.
Russian bots don't talk about how "democratic" our people are feeling. This article raises an excellent point about the environment in which Trump is allowed to thrive. It uses statistics of how Americans view our democratic freedoms to prove that the environment has been primed for corruption up to the highest level of our government. I hate to break it to everyone but we live in a full blown republic with the illusion of democracy, and this article confirms that for me.
read it and agree; Citizens United, out-of-control gerrymandering, a congress that has learned that power goes not to those who have the best ideas but rather those who use the rules most ruthlessly--all this and more have set the stage for Jan/6
I think Rachel Marsden is spot on. Thank you Cecelia for sharing. I haven't trusted our "system" much myself. I recently read about the "Global Summit" and was surprised at what I found. Look it up on Wikipedia. There are people trying to "fix" things. I really think our main problem is sorting out the bad apples from the good so the bad ones never get into office, and don't get involved in "fixing" things. They "gum up" the works. That's being nice. There really are people who like to destroy things and there are people who just cause problems (because they have problems), and so on. There are all sorts of people. We need to differentiate between the people creating positive change and the ones sabotaging things and remove them quickly. Our current legal system takes way to long. I think if you see something going wrong at least you need to be able to remove the person until you figure things out. Maybe they just need a better education, but just maybe they are in there screwing things up on purpose. Sometimes it's difficult to tell...at least initially. I like some of the concepts I read about in the Global Reset...about leadership, etc. It talks about the "stakeholders," which include regular people, along with specialists and leaders, etc. Sounds like a way to pull things together...something new being born. I haven't studied this yet. Just came across it while doing some research. I'm fascinated.
Dr. Reich is an excellent example of someone trying to fix our problems. So are Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jay Inslee, Rashida Tlaib, Pramila Jayapal, Andrew Yang, etc. They come up with good ideas how to fix our problems. Then giant corporations, billionaires, the Republican Party & the right-wing disinformational propaganda machine all team up to thwart these policies that would make our lives so much better.
Henry Wallace, F.D.R.'s Vice-President in 1944, toured the nation and warned that if the New Deal was not expanded, the U. S. might win the war and lose the peace. He saw that the war the U. S. was fighting (fascism) in Europe had a domestic variant growing rapidly in power--wealthy corporations and their allies in the media. If the New Deal was not expanded, he said that American fascists would use fear mongering, xenophobia, and racism to regain economic and political power. For this message, he was knocked off F.D.R.'s ticket by Democrat big-city bosses and Southern segregationists. See John Nichols book. "The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party: The Enduring Legacy of Henry Wallace's Antifascist, Antiracist Politics."
I trust Garland to be a man of moral character who will honor his oath of office. This is why President Obama chose him to be on the Supreme Court. I think Garland is right to let the Congressional investigation to proceed first, & then the stage is best set for criminal prosecutions at the top level of the conspiracy. My guess is Trump will be indicted before the elections, but will not be tried until after the midterms. I defer to the expertise, experience & judgment of our Attorney General. Criminal prosecution of a President is unprecedented, & outside my circle of competence.
Criminal prosecution of anyone should not be any different than that for a president. The law is the law. If anything, the more power a person can abuse, the more thoroughly and completely they should be held accountable and prosecuted.
Sad, disgusting, but all too true. What I don't understand, and I hope Dr. Reich will explain, Is why he can't be indicted for a crime while he is running for office. Is that orange ball of blubber correct when he said he could shoot a man in broad daylight and no one would do a thing about it?
It's true that a conviction, at least until it's overturned by the Not-so-supreme Court, would preclude him from running. And although I studied law, I am not a lawyer either. I still want to know why he cannot be indicted simply because he is a possible felon running for office. It seems logical to me that an indictment would be essential. Especially if he announces his intention to run his year so he can stack up even more money from his witless enthusiasts.
I think he can, Fay. In fact it may come to that. But his loud-mouthed supporters will say it’s politically motivated. OTOH they’d say that anyway. I just think that if Garland had done this last year it would have been a lot better.
To make that evidence undeniable and public. Just look how the retrumplicans distorted what any intelligent person could see with their own eyes. We need the legal, legitimate, in depth study of all facts leading up to and continuing since the treasonous attack. It's one thing to bring some ill educated country bumpkin to trial (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers for instance), quite another to bring wealthy, powerful persons with an army of lawyers. We need to prove guilt "Beyond a Shadow of Doubt"
I understand what you’re saying but these people wouldn’t accept it if they saw it with their own eyes. As long as they can continue to obfuscate and cause trouble they’re going to get their way.
Fortunately, "These people" are not those that would support an indictment. People who understand what the Constitution REALLY says will accept an indictment with relish.
Completely agree. I have wondered if because of the unique nature of the vicious and violent partisan/militia driven historical moment, that Garland needs the citizens behind him? Garland's actions should not be driven by fear or avoidance of the citizenry. He should not need a criminal referral. We have laws for criminals and these crimes. Also I am crazed that the DOJ should "watch television" and see this. Utterly absurd. I believe that for the DOJ taking out Trump is equivalent to a mob boss and a squid criminal entity of the Mafia. This requires the marshaling of massive reinforcements (investigators, lawyers, etc) top secret maneuvering ultimately not only capturing him in a no multi-pronged indictment but the arrest of hundreds of other accomplices. So, this is a huge undertaking never before done in our country or TO our country. This needs to be DONE before the 2022 midterms. The GOP itself is a constant, monstrous, danger to the American people's way of life, every single day, and they are backed by a ruling class they may well bury us all. In fact, my biggest worry is that if there is no real indictments and prosecutions it will be because the ruling class stopped it. I fear their power to fully take over our country, stop Garland.
Robert: With due respect to Representative Bennie Thompson, Chair of the January 6th Committee, I think that the Congressional Committee and the Attorney General need to work collaboratively in the campaign to expel Trump from any further participation in U.S. politics.
I have to agree with Cecelia Jernegan as I'm about to go read the article she posted. Trump is the illiterate puppet of the GOP. Trump is still doing what he does best...fleecing his supporters the only way he knows...lies. It is Trump's rule of law as a businessman and the GOP enabled him as long as he signed whatever was put in front of him. Ever notice how when the Democrats are in power they talk a lot about changing things, but its always something as in the filibuster or a couple of whining senators that prevents those changes. I may update this comment later.
She is absolutely correct in her assessment of the deficit of democracy in our country. The study she cites is hardly a product of Russian psi ops. Criticism is the highest form of patriotism.
There's no way to push an attorney general to prosecute a case, and in our legal system should not be. But I believe -- contrary to the chair of the January 6 select committee -- that when it completes its work the committee should make a formal criminal referral to the Justice Department that spells out its findings in the clearest possible terms. If the facts lead the committee to conclude that Trump likely committed crimes against the United States, the committee should say so explicitly.
It is traditional for congressional committees to make criminal referrals when they think a crime may have been committed. Although the Justice Department is under no obligation to pursue these referrals, a criminal referral signals that the legislative branch of government finds or suspects a crime – an important symbolic act.
There are three arguments against the committee making such a criminal referral:
(1) It could backfire. Decisions about whether to prosecute must be made independently of politics: Garland and the Justice Department won’t want to be seen as doing the committee’s bidding. And the district and appellate courts that would handle Trump’s prosecution would take a dim view of any intermingling of the work of the political branch with the work of federal prosecutors.
(2) It’s unnecessary. Attorney General Merrick Garland has repeatedly pledged to follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of politics, and he has said that he and his Jan. 6 prosecutors are closely watching the committee hearings.
(3) The committee has already, in effect, made a criminal referral to the Justice Department – arguing in a legal filing last fall (over whether it should be able to access emails from John Eastman, Trump’s attorney) that Trump broke multiple laws. In response, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued an opinion that said Trump “more likely than not” committed crimes to stay in power.
Notwithstanding these three considerations, public opinion is a crucial aspect of these proceedings. Trump attempted a coup while president of the United States, and as many Americans as possible should understand how dangerous and vile this act was. Yet a third of Americans (including some two-thirds of Republicans) still believe Trump’s big lie. For a bipartisan committee of Congress to conclude that Trump has likely committed such crimes is important for the historic record. A criminal referral would garner big headlines. It would almost certainly increase public pressure on Garland to prosecute Trump -- or at least make public his reasons for not doing so.
Bob -- I think you have misrepresented what Bennie said. He said he would not be making a referral to the Justice Department "until the committee has completed its work." That's way different from what you said! What gives?
Thank you. My question is, putting the historical value aside, would the January 6 Committee requesting pursuit of criminal indictment diminish the chance of such an indictment? If so then the Committee's finding should be to just lay out the evidence and let the DOJ take it from there, History will take car of itself.
Don't know what compelled Congressman Thompson to say anything about no criminal referral before completing the hearings and reaching a conclusion. Cheney is really steering this investigation towards a criminal referral which is the so what of this inquiry. If the AG does not indict Trump then we will cease to be a Democracy ruled by laws. The Democratic Party will collapse the Insurrection will have succeeded.
He''s from Mississippi - if he wants to be re-elected he has to pretend to kowtow to the trumpsters. While he obviously respects Vice-Chair Cheney, he certainly lacks her courage.
I would not question the "courage" of this black man from Mississippi. I have read "The 1619 Project" & "Called to Forgive" by Anthony Thompson about the Charleston Church shooting. Bennie Thompson has God's Word planted in "good soil" like Jesus taught in all 3 synoptic Gospels.
I think that Congressman Thompson feels that it is the job of his committee to investigate and lay out its findings. It is not the job of the committee to prosecute or even to suggest prosecution. Once the facts are known it is the job of the DOJ to prosecute and he can do so successfully only when all the facts are known. For him to suggest prosecution casts doubt on the impartiality of the committee's fact finding.
Since only one person commented on my responses I'll restate them.
What can we do?
File a writ of mandamus. A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. (See, e.g. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court For D.C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 (2004).
As I said yesterday, the easiest case to prove against Trump so far, is consumer fraud on his contributors, which is continuing and therefore he can't allege presidential immunity. He alleged he had a defense fund, which is nonexistent. If we know victims, report to the FBI. They will bring the case to the US Attorney, who will notify the attorney general's office.
Many of my questions haven't been answered. Thompson has a parallel civil rights case going. He is a plaintiff, and accuses Trump Giuliani, the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers of violating the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act by trying to interfere in Congress' certification of the Electoral College count.
I don't know this for a fact, but I assume he asked the Justice Department to intercede. I also don't know what the status of discovery is in that case. If I were Thompson, I'd depose Trump and ask those questions (as if on cross examination). I think he has an ethical problem in that a lawyer should not use the criminal law so seek a civil remedy and vice versa. I assume that the Justice Department has been evaluating the situation. He can get Trump on the record re the Green Bay sweep.
Consider also the False Claims Act. In a "qui tam" action, a private party called a relator brings an action on the government's behalf. The government, not the relator, is considered the real plaintiff. If the government succeeds, the relator receives a share of the award. Also called a popular action. Phony allegations were filed in 7 states alleging the big lie. Individuals in those states can sue. The Justice Department is required to take a position.
Thank you, Daniel for explaining the jurisprudence. One of the problems though is ALEC, trump's 'team' filed those suits in States where the legislature was put in place by ALEC and owned lock, stock, and barrel by the ALEC conglomeration of wealthy industrialists. Who, in those States, will file the necessary action? I assume they should be a resident of the State in which they file. Can a chapter of the ACLU file?
It's almost as though Democrats are trying hard to keep from being seen as witch-hunting. Republicans call everything that tries to identify the truth of a situation "witch-hunting." Republicans want to believe the term makes it sound like Democrats and any other truth-seekers are going after the innocent as witch-hunters in the past did. Well, Dems, this time Trump and his fans are not innocent as the impeachment trials showed and the current January 6th Committee hearings are proving. Democrats need to stop worrying so much about what Republicans and their strangely unamerican base might call us and step up with real demands for action by the Department of Justice and any other groups that can help. If we don't, January 6th will just have been the practice run for a future take-over by someone as morally bankrupt as Trump but smarter in the ways of manipulating public discourse and actions.
Exactly!!! I’m so sick and tired of Democrats being timid because they’re worried about blowback and worried they’ll be called witch hunters, communists, socialists and Marxists. They’ll be called those things regardless of what they do so why not actually do the right thing? The right thing for the country and our democracy. They’ve got to stop worrying about how they’re viewed on the other side and just do their jobs to the best of their ability. That’s what the country wants, at least the majority of it does.
I agree with you. A failed coup, like we have here, is merely a dress rehearsal for an actual coup. People can read, and watch, and talk, and do whatever, but if no action is taken, this will all become moot. And it will happen sooner rather than later.
To what email address did you write? Where did you find those petitions? Were they also fund-raising (which makes me suspicious)? I'm also looking for where to voice my opinions and requests for action.
We have been doing that for some time now. If we wait long enough, the coup that is continuing right in front of our eyes will be complete and we will be living in a fascist state. What exactly are you waiting for? The clock is ticking and time is NOT on our side.
I am a retired Legal Historian. I have faith in the system.
I am simply waiting for the legal system to work its work in a completely thorough manner.
I am now well into my 70s and continue astonished about how the most patient people tend to be those of us with the least time left.
Why don't you consider putting your energy into banning assault weapons or doing something about the imminent global warming disaster, or some other area where there is a genuine need to be in a hurry?
How very true. In my case my perspective is my post-graduate degree in history, and my work experience as a Legal Historian and Aboriginal Litigation Researcher, and several years of teaching spoken English and Intercultural Communication at Universities in China.
I hope you are correct. However it has been 16 months! How much time does Garland need? Keeping the pressure on Garland is not a bad idea however we can.
I don't agree. I think it is a bad idea, but we are both certainly entitled to our ideas. I think there will come a time when people will see there was never anything to worry about, simply because the more charges that are filed against Trump et al the better that will be for chances of conviction.
And obviously this is all Executive Branch. No cooperation whatsoever will be needed from tRumpists in Congress.
Interesting! I hadn't considered Hillary. I think you are right that she would get the job done and take no nonsense from anyone. I can't help but wonder what our nation and the world would be like now had she been president 5 years ago.
I still would have preferred Adam Schiff. I could be deluding myself but I still believe that more would have been accomplished by now with him in charge.
I think Adam Schiff would've done a great job as attorney general, but they (The Democractic establishment) needed to compensate Merrick Garland for not being able to get him the hearings for becoming a justice.
I don’t think they OWED Garland. He was someone that could be taken as not highly partisan and not a stooge of the president. Remember how much Trump was crossing the line with HIS Justice Department? Schiff would also seem very partisan. This is the logic associated with how Biden picked, I think.
I think it was the same kind of the logic of how MG was picked to be a justice, too. And voila, what a "wonderful" SCOUTS we have, now. IMHO the main criterion should've been but how efficient are in doing their job, and not how partisan they seem to be or not. Adam Schiff comes across as very firm, and efficient, "dura lex, sed lex" type...let's not forget that January 6th happen before Binden was sworn in, so they had all the time in the world to think of somebody who is a good fit for the job of saving the DEMOCRACY of our Republic...
Although a referral from the 1/6 Committee is not “necessary”, it is of paramount importance. Otherwise, why go through this hearing just to close the door?
I am not advocating closing the door. The DOJ can take this up without a referral, and I expect they will. If Liz Cheney has anything to say about it, there will be a referral anyway. The door will NOT be closed!
Todd, as I remember and understood it, at the outset, the reason for the 1/6 Committee was to find out what happened, how it happened and why people allowed or caused the attack on the seat of congress, so they could take steps to prevent it from happening again. I suspect the House will send all of the info to the DOJ whether they need it or not. I have not thought for one minute the DOJ hasn't been hard at work on the insurrection and it's treasonous instigators.
Here we go again. Timidly asking- "Oh please Mr Congressman sir, Your revered Mr Attorney General sir. This man has done bad , naughty things. He must be held responsible." I am reminded of a talk I heard with Michael Moore. He had an unrecorded conversation with Steve Bannon in which Bannon described it thus- Republicans enter the fray with a knife and go for the jugular; Democrats arrive with pillows. Kinda funny...NOT! I had described myself as a pessimistic optimist. Here is a 'take' on the hearings by the extremely knowledgable Chris Hedges. Read it at your risk and peril. It is rather sobering
The passivity of “the people” might well be driven by at least a half-century of the Party of Ressentiment- everything that Nietzsche took a stick to in bureaucratic Christianity. Play nice, play fair, winning’s just coincidental to playing. Cheney’s a refreshing counterexample. The ‘oh well’ Party finds a team captain like Charlie Brown, and smiles its way to a new ‘good effort’ game. When we had MLK, and unions, the Dems had some fire in the belly. Rev. MLK said ALL. HERE. NOW. Look that up. Listen to that speech. The Dems are an all-inclusive, mutually affirming, identity-neutral party of Uncle Toms in a rainbow shack.
Thank you! Look at the committee, Liz Cheney is more courageous than any democrat, who are supposed to be mindful of giving trupmsters another opportunity to destroy democracy.
Nina. Liza Cheney should be representing her constituents. She works for them! She is using the people of Wyoming back's to advance her political career to Washington D.C. Her dad did the same thing. In August this year, she will be voted out of office from the great state of Wyoming. Politicians tend to forget, they need to listen to the people in which the state they represent.
Cecelia, look at the Ripon link I posted and think of where Republicans came from. Maybe she DOES represent them, the best Americans can be. That used to be something that Republicans were especially proud of, honor and duty and not liking violence against the Capitol. Maybe all the honest ones are in Wyoming!?
Steve. I was born and raised in Wyoming. Lived there over 30 years. I know the great people of that great state. They work hard, take care of their families, believe in God, volunteer at local charity events and love the USA. They are like many citizens around the country and sick of all these committees. These committees waste time and our tax payer money. We spent too much time on Bill Clinton and his affair with Monica. Too much time on HRC server in her closet. Now we are focused on Hunter Biden lap top. January 6th was a dark day for the country. The real issue is why was their no protection set up on January 3rd, 4th and 5th. None of this would have happened had the people in charge (Including Trump and Pence) been focused on securing the Capital. That was the real crime. The democrats are using the committee for political theatrics. Biden and his team have made a bigger mess of the country with failed policies. This January 6th committee is to distract from what is hurting our citizens right now with inflations and gas prices. Absolutely nothing will come out of the committee except keep Trump in the headlines every. single. day. We need Trump to fade away. We need him to go back to running his businesses and stay out of politics. Cheney will lose her election in August in Wyoming. Mark my words.
Where are the Democrats who have the nature of Bill Barr to use the word ‘bullshit’ properly? AOC ain’t bad, and scares the Ripons, but should be a back-bencher in a big choir, not a soloist. Hillary didn’t speak the language. Bill and Barack were somewhat fluent. Who’s got fire in the belly? Liz Cheney.
When the Dems had the chance to stop the mediocre and empty-headed Reagan neocon hucksters, the served up WALTER MONDALE. Be afraid.
Ken in France. Thank you for sharing Chris Hedges thoughts. He hit the nail on the head. This committee appears to be like a Kangaroo court. All this going on while good, hard working citizens in the USA trying to figure out how to pay for gas, keep driving to their jobs so they can put food on the table for their families. So sad, it makes me want to scream!
There will be a time in the future when Merrick Garland is or can be a candidate for Supreme Court again.
If he does not perform his obligations and responsibilities now, there will be no public support for that future opportunity.
Mr. Garland needs to demonstrate why he was chosen in the first place, and any Republican who Truly supports the rule of law, will recognize in the future that this guy is the right candidate for SCOTUS.
The levers we have are the usual ones, messaging to those in power, eg. Attorney General Garland, our Congressional Representatives (including those on the committee), and demonstrating. We the people need to insist on action and truth.
The only precedent that exists is that former presidents do not get indicted. Levi didn't indict Nixon because Ford had pardoned Tricky Dick. Holder didn't indict GWB because Obama said "turn the page". Biden's call to mend fences, Dem leaders' insistence that we need a "strong Republican party", and the fact that no one wants to set the precedent that presidents can ever be held accountable, mean that Garland won't indict Trump. At least, not without specific direction from Biden, which will never come. The unwritten rule is that presidents, by definition, are above the law, something that ironically even the Jan. 6th Commission's star witness Bill Barr has argued.
Excuse me, Justin, but you're stretching the truth. Ford did pardon Nixon in advance for any crimes for which he might be indicted, But George W, Bush committed no crimes, He was guilty of stupidity and of listening to Cheney and Rumsfeld, but the declaration of war against was sanctioned by a greedy Congress. Bush didn't do anything that was impeachable. NO PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE US UNTIL "the trumpster" ever attacked our Nation. To say no President has ever been indicted overlooks the fact that no President has ever committed treason until trump. We shouldn't be second guessing what Attorney General Garland will do, or even what the January 6 Committee will say in its final findings. At least wait until it's over.
It is so hard to watch this set of hearings knowing Trump will not face any kind of accountability and may be able to run for president again, even though he did as little as he could as president. He certainly could tell other people what to do and with his corrupt crew, inflict a lot of damage. It seems to me that even if Trump is not indicted himself, the 14th Amendment of our Constitution should prohibit him from running for any office in the future.
But you don't know that Ruth, I have faith in the rule of law. The Democratic Congress did impeach trump twice, that is unprecedented. Only the weaklings in he Senate refused to find him guilty.
The reaction by Newsmax readers to that endorsement? They want another term of Trump (with DeSantis as VP), & then 8 years of DeSantis as President. Of course, the last vestiges of our democracy would be long gone by the end of that reign. Very likely most life on Earth as well. But I'm not even sure Trump would give up his throne by the end of his 4 years [remember in his mind he is "owed" another 4 years because in his first 4 years he was hassled by investigations ("witch hunts") & impeachment trials (for "hoaxes")]. Perhaps if he is assured of not being thrown into prison for further crimes against humanity & has a special palace built for him somewhere to which he can retire, he may reluctantly give up power to DeSantis, although he may insist on 1 of his progeny being VP.
Dear Jaime. Thank you for your response. In order to be a candidate for the Presidency of the United States here are the qualifications: According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years. We the people need to update Article II: Be at least 35 years old and under 70 years old. Once that is completed then Donald, Joe and Bernie could not run for the Presidency. Ron DeSantis with Tulsi Gabbard as his VP could be a dream ticket for the Republicans. I know the Democrats could come up with some great candidates under 70 years old too. We need candidates to spend time talking about the real issues facing the good citizens of the USA. Thank you for caring so much too. Hugs from Arizona.
Thanks for your friendly, thoughtful comment. I love this forum because of all the thoughtful comments & civil discussions. I don't necessarily agree with all the comments, but I appreciate the ideas put out by concerned citizens, most of which are worth consideration, such as yours. Thanks again!
Jaime. I agree with you. In the USA we must respect others ideas and thoughts. We don't have to agree. Civil discourse should be done without hate and violence. Sending you hugs from Arizona.
It's time for Joe Biden to publicly express his support for prosecuting the American Hitler - POLITICS BE DAMNED. #45 is a criminal, a threat to every decent American, and should have already been behind bars long before this!!
Prosecute or resign. Those are Garland’s only options. Otherwise he’s a hack.
I had no idea that Garland was so reluctant to do the job he was nominated to. He seemed like someone who would understand the treachery of our times and go all out for stopping the Trump machine from doing any more damage. I clearly missed something.
Garland has stated that the DOJ will investigate and look into prosecuting the Jan 6th perpetrators to the law at Any level. So be patient, Merrick Garland is a tedious, and patient prosecutor, the best there is! (Remember the FBI building? He investigated across state lines, and eventually prosecuted them!) Don't buy into the evil doer's statements, that by now, there "should've been a prosecution, but there isn't, bc there isn't anything for them to prosecute"...(Which is false, and the DOJ is looking into it, with diligence; so stop buying into the drama: and choose to spread patience and love).
As this is regarding a former president, there must be a very carefully laid out, solid case, in order to arrest and prosecute any of these perps! The January 6th committee, is like any other committee, they are there to uncover facts, not to prosecute!!! . Merrick Garland and the DOJ are investigating; He said so on January 5th, the eve of remembrance, one year later... https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/588430-garland-vows-prosecutions-at-any-level-over-jan-6
And yesterday, he's following it with great interest, sure, we all are, but he's comparing notes... It doesn't say anything more than that, as a DOJ investigation is all behind the scenes, till it isn't... This is normal, and logical. Journalists and big media outlets shouldn't stir up so much drama, in order to sensationalize things that don't need it, in order to "keep and attract" more viewers.
*Edited to fix spelling error*
Thank you for this. I have been saying the same thing, though not as eloquently as you have stated it! Garland will have one shot at this prosecution, and he has to get it right or he will go down in history as a failure if Trump and co. get away with their crimes.
Unfortunately you are correct
I sure hope you are correct, Link. I still have faith and him and the committee as of this morning.
Thank you. Your response is eloquent and succinct, and true.
I am totally with you on this. This country can never be put in this position again, having a completely lawless ex-POTUS having the country by the b*lls. I'm sorry but I have lost patience with this nightmare. Garland absolutely must prosecute-how could he not ?-or resign. I really don't know what concerned citizens can do other than what we are doing now ie. paying attention to these hearings, writing/calling our representatives, taking survey after survey and so on. Certainly Mr Garland is a meticulous student of the rule of law and therefore he has no other choice than to prosecute. He has to be aware of the sentiments of a large majority of the population. It is beyond incredulous that this has gone on this long.
Part of the reason for the long wait is looking for the evidence which the January 6 Committee is gathering, Attorney General Garland is too good a lawyer to jump to a Grand Jury for an indictment without absolute assurance of an indictment.
Yes, this is the way some prosecutors think. In New York, Cy Vance set up an investigation of Trump and then resigned, and his successor refused to prosecute. It makes me furious. No one should be guaranteed a win in our system of government, but that's no excuse for not executing the duties of the office.
What's the point of prosecuting if you lack the evidence o convince the Grand Jury to indict. Yes the law moves slowly, but if you are patient, the guilty usually pay the price.
That's not the way I read it. Prosecutors who worked on this case thought it was strong and were baffled that it didn't go forward. Unless he had some serious illness or personal problem, I felt Vance should have stayed the course and run again. And I wouldn't have voted for Bragg had I known he's walk away from it.
Not the rich connected ones.
Sad, but too often true.
The evidence is overwhelming & abundantly clear.
I misspoke. Cyrus Vance retired.
It seems that the least that could be done is to shut down the disinformation machine. Nobody should be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater! Nobody should be allowed to misinform millions of people like tRump has and convince them of lies and instigate murders and assaults, and convince people that they have a sacred right to shoot up the public or anyone else they perceive as 'other', while they are just going about their lives and harming no one. then the perps even make millions of dollars on their crimes!
I’m so with you here! I’m constantly baffled as to how we have a country and a system that allows people to flat out lie and reap rewards from all those lies whether it be money or votes. How on earth is that legal?? It’s bonkers that the people in positions of public trust have no obligation to tell the truth because nothing happens to them if they lie. Whereas if I lied nonstop at my job, I’d be fired. Yet these people not only keep their jobs, they get new ones and money on top of it! I keep saying that if we shut down the propaganda, we save our democracy. It’s that simple. If people can’t lie with implicitly when it comes to positions of public trust, watch all the swamp creatures go elsewhere, leaving behind the people who actually want to do the job they ran for. Of course taking the money out of politics along with the lies would undoubtedly save our democracy as those two things are completely destroying it.
And as we know, this is exactly how Hitler came to power and was allowed to do the things he did. He lied his head off and people fell for it. Enough.
Yes, BUT, the German people at that time allowed it. They too, wanted Daddy to tell them what to think.
Fay Reid ; The S.S. troops that went around would take non Jewish Germans to the work camps too, if they were not following the right 'script', or 'party line'. It is easy to judge those who lived in that time, but the reality is wrong speech or behavior could not only lead to being brutalized and killed, but your family, loved ones even children would pay horribly! This was terrorism of the worst kind. Something that Orange man is capable of if he is not stopped!
Just as the US media & government are allowing it now, the right-wing is promoting & propagating it, & the Republican base is cheering it on.
Because we have a Democracy and rule of Laws, or would you prefer Authoritarianism (like Russia where Putin absolutely control speech and press.
Danielle W ; Money and lies ; Birds of a feather!
Add Greed, and I'm with you all the way. It is our duty to resits though.
I was just thinking about this. There are things you just should not be able to say. The First Amendment is being abused.
Definitely, Paula! that is the whole point of the ban on speech like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is not protected speech. Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment for a reason. Dangerous speech is not ok.
Throw money in the mix and there is a trumpster fire!
The problem is, in a free society, people are allowed to say whatever they want to say. And no one is allowed to shout 'Fire" in a crowded theater. When we had an apolitical, honest Supreme Court that law was codified, I believe by Justice Felix Frankfurter, if my memory serves me. That is why we have the First Amendment, which guarantees Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Press.
Fay Reid ; Until Reagan we had the 'fairness doctrine' which 'policed' the airwaves for factual information. The FCC had rules, maybe not codified, the same way the FEC and other 'guard rails' probably were not codified into law. 'Truth in advertising' was a phrase I grew up with.
The concept that shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is a hazard to safety, and therefore should not happen was because the ensuing stampede would cause harm or even death.
By the same token, tRump's lies are not legitimate speech protected by the First Amendment for the same reason. His lies have caused deaths and injuries and even threaten our very country. Putin uses lies to confuse, misinform and control his people. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is another misinterpretation of Constitutional law, similar to the bastardization of the second amendment. People who cannot see these obvious facts do not belong anywhere near government power. I have not studied law, but it seems plain to me.
I stand corrected, Laurie. The "Truth in Advertising" seems like centuries ago. Perhaps I have gotten so used to having to determine the truth for myself, I have forgotten that pre-Reagan, we were a decent, honorable Country.
Fay Reid ; Yes, we did not worry about getting machine gunned in school, just because some fat greedhead wants to get richer either!
Please read this article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/rachel-marsden-washington-is-failing-to-address-the-root-cause-of-the-january-6th-capitol-riots/ar-AAYsfeN?ocid=U348DHP&li=BBnb7Kz
Sounds like a Russian bot.
Russian bots don't talk about how "democratic" our people are feeling. This article raises an excellent point about the environment in which Trump is allowed to thrive. It uses statistics of how Americans view our democratic freedoms to prove that the environment has been primed for corruption up to the highest level of our government. I hate to break it to everyone but we live in a full blown republic with the illusion of democracy, and this article confirms that for me.
read it and agree; Citizens United, out-of-control gerrymandering, a congress that has learned that power goes not to those who have the best ideas but rather those who use the rules most ruthlessly--all this and more have set the stage for Jan/6
We are a nation of law. 1/6 is a crime investigation. That's a false allegation. That's what Russian bots say.
I think Rachel Marsden is spot on. Thank you Cecelia for sharing. I haven't trusted our "system" much myself. I recently read about the "Global Summit" and was surprised at what I found. Look it up on Wikipedia. There are people trying to "fix" things. I really think our main problem is sorting out the bad apples from the good so the bad ones never get into office, and don't get involved in "fixing" things. They "gum up" the works. That's being nice. There really are people who like to destroy things and there are people who just cause problems (because they have problems), and so on. There are all sorts of people. We need to differentiate between the people creating positive change and the ones sabotaging things and remove them quickly. Our current legal system takes way to long. I think if you see something going wrong at least you need to be able to remove the person until you figure things out. Maybe they just need a better education, but just maybe they are in there screwing things up on purpose. Sometimes it's difficult to tell...at least initially. I like some of the concepts I read about in the Global Reset...about leadership, etc. It talks about the "stakeholders," which include regular people, along with specialists and leaders, etc. Sounds like a way to pull things together...something new being born. I haven't studied this yet. Just came across it while doing some research. I'm fascinated.
Dr. Reich is an excellent example of someone trying to fix our problems. So are Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jay Inslee, Rashida Tlaib, Pramila Jayapal, Andrew Yang, etc. They come up with good ideas how to fix our problems. Then giant corporations, billionaires, the Republican Party & the right-wing disinformational propaganda machine all team up to thwart these policies that would make our lives so much better.
Whattaboutism.
Shisa Russian bots will talk about anything that they want to.
Not a bot
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tribune-news-service/
Henry Wallace, F.D.R.'s Vice-President in 1944, toured the nation and warned that if the New Deal was not expanded, the U. S. might win the war and lose the peace. He saw that the war the U. S. was fighting (fascism) in Europe had a domestic variant growing rapidly in power--wealthy corporations and their allies in the media. If the New Deal was not expanded, he said that American fascists would use fear mongering, xenophobia, and racism to regain economic and political power. For this message, he was knocked off F.D.R.'s ticket by Democrat big-city bosses and Southern segregationists. See John Nichols book. "The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party: The Enduring Legacy of Henry Wallace's Antifascist, Antiracist Politics."
He was absolutely right. The proof is in front of us for all to see.
Denise Sils ; then a Russian or Russian sympathizer.
I don't get how you get that. Maybe I read something different. This publication is slightly to the left of center.
I fact-checked it. I can do another fact-check if you like.
I trust Garland to be a man of moral character who will honor his oath of office. This is why President Obama chose him to be on the Supreme Court. I think Garland is right to let the Congressional investigation to proceed first, & then the stage is best set for criminal prosecutions at the top level of the conspiracy. My guess is Trump will be indicted before the elections, but will not be tried until after the midterms. I defer to the expertise, experience & judgment of our Attorney General. Criminal prosecution of a President is unprecedented, & outside my circle of competence.
Criminal prosecution of anyone should not be any different than that for a president. The law is the law. If anything, the more power a person can abuse, the more thoroughly and completely they should be held accountable and prosecuted.
You've put it crudely, and in this case accurately. And for my part, I can't even figure our who he would be hacking for.
Yes, but he will only prosecute IF he sees sufficient evidence to secure an indictment.
Yes. And foresees a reasonable chance of conviction.
And that depends on the jury, right?
Sad, disgusting, but all too true. What I don't understand, and I hope Dr. Reich will explain, Is why he can't be indicted for a crime while he is running for office. Is that orange ball of blubber correct when he said he could shoot a man in broad daylight and no one would do a thing about it?
I’m not a lawyer but I suspect it’s not that he can’t be indicted, it’s that if he’d been convicted he couldn’t even run. The delay has consequences.
It's true that a conviction, at least until it's overturned by the Not-so-supreme Court, would preclude him from running. And although I studied law, I am not a lawyer either. I still want to know why he cannot be indicted simply because he is a possible felon running for office. It seems logical to me that an indictment would be essential. Especially if he announces his intention to run his year so he can stack up even more money from his witless enthusiasts.
I think he can, Fay. In fact it may come to that. But his loud-mouthed supporters will say it’s politically motivated. OTOH they’d say that anyway. I just think that if Garland had done this last year it would have been a lot better.
I understand what you’re saying, Fay, but good grief, there’s been evidence since before it happened. What more could anyone possibly want?
To make that evidence undeniable and public. Just look how the retrumplicans distorted what any intelligent person could see with their own eyes. We need the legal, legitimate, in depth study of all facts leading up to and continuing since the treasonous attack. It's one thing to bring some ill educated country bumpkin to trial (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers for instance), quite another to bring wealthy, powerful persons with an army of lawyers. We need to prove guilt "Beyond a Shadow of Doubt"
I understand what you’re saying but these people wouldn’t accept it if they saw it with their own eyes. As long as they can continue to obfuscate and cause trouble they’re going to get their way.
Fortunately, "These people" are not those that would support an indictment. People who understand what the Constitution REALLY says will accept an indictment with relish.
Paula B. ; An embarrassment of riches, as far as evidence!
There certainly IS enough evidence to justify an indictment. Are you watching the hearings?
I certainly am, and so far I'm very pleased with how honorably they are being conducted. There is minimal speechifying and maximum undeniable evidence
Completely agree. I have wondered if because of the unique nature of the vicious and violent partisan/militia driven historical moment, that Garland needs the citizens behind him? Garland's actions should not be driven by fear or avoidance of the citizenry. He should not need a criminal referral. We have laws for criminals and these crimes. Also I am crazed that the DOJ should "watch television" and see this. Utterly absurd. I believe that for the DOJ taking out Trump is equivalent to a mob boss and a squid criminal entity of the Mafia. This requires the marshaling of massive reinforcements (investigators, lawyers, etc) top secret maneuvering ultimately not only capturing him in a no multi-pronged indictment but the arrest of hundreds of other accomplices. So, this is a huge undertaking never before done in our country or TO our country. This needs to be DONE before the 2022 midterms. The GOP itself is a constant, monstrous, danger to the American people's way of life, every single day, and they are backed by a ruling class they may well bury us all. In fact, my biggest worry is that if there is no real indictments and prosecutions it will be because the ruling class stopped it. I fear their power to fully take over our country, stop Garland.
Which is what the DOJ has been quietly and responsibly doing since January 7, 2021.
Robert: With due respect to Representative Bennie Thompson, Chair of the January 6th Committee, I think that the Congressional Committee and the Attorney General need to work collaboratively in the campaign to expel Trump from any further participation in U.S. politics.
Would be great if that could work.
What you don't understand it is NOT Trump. It is a sick government. Please read this article. Educate yourself on the real issues in the USA. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/rachel-marsden-washington-is-failing-to-address-the-root-cause-of-the-january-6th-capitol-riots/ar-AAYsfeN?ocid=U348DHP&li=BBnb7Kz
I have to agree with Cecelia Jernegan as I'm about to go read the article she posted. Trump is the illiterate puppet of the GOP. Trump is still doing what he does best...fleecing his supporters the only way he knows...lies. It is Trump's rule of law as a businessman and the GOP enabled him as long as he signed whatever was put in front of him. Ever notice how when the Democrats are in power they talk a lot about changing things, but its always something as in the filibuster or a couple of whining senators that prevents those changes. I may update this comment later.
...but its always something as in the filibuster or a couple of whining senators, or in some cases even a parlamentarian::-)
Cecelia: Rachel Marsden sounds like a Russian bot.
She is absolutely correct in her assessment of the deficit of democracy in our country. The study she cites is hardly a product of Russian psi ops. Criticism is the highest form of patriotism.
Friends, my two cents:
There's no way to push an attorney general to prosecute a case, and in our legal system should not be. But I believe -- contrary to the chair of the January 6 select committee -- that when it completes its work the committee should make a formal criminal referral to the Justice Department that spells out its findings in the clearest possible terms. If the facts lead the committee to conclude that Trump likely committed crimes against the United States, the committee should say so explicitly.
It is traditional for congressional committees to make criminal referrals when they think a crime may have been committed. Although the Justice Department is under no obligation to pursue these referrals, a criminal referral signals that the legislative branch of government finds or suspects a crime – an important symbolic act.
There are three arguments against the committee making such a criminal referral:
(1) It could backfire. Decisions about whether to prosecute must be made independently of politics: Garland and the Justice Department won’t want to be seen as doing the committee’s bidding. And the district and appellate courts that would handle Trump’s prosecution would take a dim view of any intermingling of the work of the political branch with the work of federal prosecutors.
(2) It’s unnecessary. Attorney General Merrick Garland has repeatedly pledged to follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of politics, and he has said that he and his Jan. 6 prosecutors are closely watching the committee hearings.
(3) The committee has already, in effect, made a criminal referral to the Justice Department – arguing in a legal filing last fall (over whether it should be able to access emails from John Eastman, Trump’s attorney) that Trump broke multiple laws. In response, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued an opinion that said Trump “more likely than not” committed crimes to stay in power.
Notwithstanding these three considerations, public opinion is a crucial aspect of these proceedings. Trump attempted a coup while president of the United States, and as many Americans as possible should understand how dangerous and vile this act was. Yet a third of Americans (including some two-thirds of Republicans) still believe Trump’s big lie. For a bipartisan committee of Congress to conclude that Trump has likely committed such crimes is important for the historic record. A criminal referral would garner big headlines. It would almost certainly increase public pressure on Garland to prosecute Trump -- or at least make public his reasons for not doing so.
And if the committee doesn’t make a referral? What do you see happening then?
Bob -- I think you have misrepresented what Bennie said. He said he would not be making a referral to the Justice Department "until the committee has completed its work." That's way different from what you said! What gives?
Thank you. My question is, putting the historical value aside, would the January 6 Committee requesting pursuit of criminal indictment diminish the chance of such an indictment? If so then the Committee's finding should be to just lay out the evidence and let the DOJ take it from there, History will take car of itself.
Don't know what compelled Congressman Thompson to say anything about no criminal referral before completing the hearings and reaching a conclusion. Cheney is really steering this investigation towards a criminal referral which is the so what of this inquiry. If the AG does not indict Trump then we will cease to be a Democracy ruled by laws. The Democratic Party will collapse the Insurrection will have succeeded.
He''s from Mississippi - if he wants to be re-elected he has to pretend to kowtow to the trumpsters. While he obviously respects Vice-Chair Cheney, he certainly lacks her courage.
But Fay ; Just the fact that he is Black and actually chairing the committee shows a considerable amount of courage.
Agree. It probably irritates Trump no end that he is being held to account by a Black person. Who incidentally is doing an excellent job.
I would not question the "courage" of this black man from Mississippi. I have read "The 1619 Project" & "Called to Forgive" by Anthony Thompson about the Charleston Church shooting. Bennie Thompson has God's Word planted in "good soil" like Jesus taught in all 3 synoptic Gospels.
I think that Congressman Thompson feels that it is the job of his committee to investigate and lay out its findings. It is not the job of the committee to prosecute or even to suggest prosecution. Once the facts are known it is the job of the DOJ to prosecute and he can do so successfully only when all the facts are known. For him to suggest prosecution casts doubt on the impartiality of the committee's fact finding.
See my response re his civil rights case.
Since only one person commented on my responses I'll restate them.
What can we do?
File a writ of mandamus. A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. (See, e.g. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court For D.C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 (2004).
As I said yesterday, the easiest case to prove against Trump so far, is consumer fraud on his contributors, which is continuing and therefore he can't allege presidential immunity. He alleged he had a defense fund, which is nonexistent. If we know victims, report to the FBI. They will bring the case to the US Attorney, who will notify the attorney general's office.
Many of my questions haven't been answered. Thompson has a parallel civil rights case going. He is a plaintiff, and accuses Trump Giuliani, the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers of violating the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act by trying to interfere in Congress' certification of the Electoral College count.
I don't know this for a fact, but I assume he asked the Justice Department to intercede. I also don't know what the status of discovery is in that case. If I were Thompson, I'd depose Trump and ask those questions (as if on cross examination). I think he has an ethical problem in that a lawyer should not use the criminal law so seek a civil remedy and vice versa. I assume that the Justice Department has been evaluating the situation. He can get Trump on the record re the Green Bay sweep.
Consider also the False Claims Act. In a "qui tam" action, a private party called a relator brings an action on the government's behalf. The government, not the relator, is considered the real plaintiff. If the government succeeds, the relator receives a share of the award. Also called a popular action. Phony allegations were filed in 7 states alleging the big lie. Individuals in those states can sue. The Justice Department is required to take a position.
https://www.justice.gov/civil/false-claims-act
Thank you, Daniel for explaining the jurisprudence. One of the problems though is ALEC, trump's 'team' filed those suits in States where the legislature was put in place by ALEC and owned lock, stock, and barrel by the ALEC conglomeration of wealthy industrialists. Who, in those States, will file the necessary action? I assume they should be a resident of the State in which they file. Can a chapter of the ACLU file?
Individuals.
Thanks!
I don’t agree that he has to kowtow to Trumpsters. I mean, he’s losing their vote already big-time. But there’s SOME reason he’s not doing it…
It's almost as though Democrats are trying hard to keep from being seen as witch-hunting. Republicans call everything that tries to identify the truth of a situation "witch-hunting." Republicans want to believe the term makes it sound like Democrats and any other truth-seekers are going after the innocent as witch-hunters in the past did. Well, Dems, this time Trump and his fans are not innocent as the impeachment trials showed and the current January 6th Committee hearings are proving. Democrats need to stop worrying so much about what Republicans and their strangely unamerican base might call us and step up with real demands for action by the Department of Justice and any other groups that can help. If we don't, January 6th will just have been the practice run for a future take-over by someone as morally bankrupt as Trump but smarter in the ways of manipulating public discourse and actions.
Exactly!!! I’m so sick and tired of Democrats being timid because they’re worried about blowback and worried they’ll be called witch hunters, communists, socialists and Marxists. They’ll be called those things regardless of what they do so why not actually do the right thing? The right thing for the country and our democracy. They’ve got to stop worrying about how they’re viewed on the other side and just do their jobs to the best of their ability. That’s what the country wants, at least the majority of it does.
I agree with you. A failed coup, like we have here, is merely a dress rehearsal for an actual coup. People can read, and watch, and talk, and do whatever, but if no action is taken, this will all become moot. And it will happen sooner rather than later.
If Trump can’t be held accountable for trying to overthrow the US government, then there is no justice in the United States.
If there is no criminal indictment, we have no rule of law for the "tops" in this land!
I absolutely agree with you, regardless of the outcome, there has to be some penalty for treason.
I have emailed Garland’s office demanding that he prosecute trump. I have signed petitions demanding the same. I don’t know what else to do.
To what email address did you write? Where did you find those petitions? Were they also fund-raising (which makes me suspicious)? I'm also looking for where to voice my opinions and requests for action.
https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice
Me as well. Thanks!
Dennis Raube: see my responses above.
How about waiting patiently for a while?
We have been doing that for some time now. If we wait long enough, the coup that is continuing right in front of our eyes will be complete and we will be living in a fascist state. What exactly are you waiting for? The clock is ticking and time is NOT on our side.
I am a retired Legal Historian. I have faith in the system.
I am simply waiting for the legal system to work its work in a completely thorough manner.
I am now well into my 70s and continue astonished about how the most patient people tend to be those of us with the least time left.
Why don't you consider putting your energy into banning assault weapons or doing something about the imminent global warming disaster, or some other area where there is a genuine need to be in a hurry?
Older people tend to have more perspective.
How very true. In my case my perspective is my post-graduate degree in history, and my work experience as a Legal Historian and Aboriginal Litigation Researcher, and several years of teaching spoken English and Intercultural Communication at Universities in China.
You’ve had a fascinating life!
I hope you are correct. However it has been 16 months! How much time does Garland need? Keeping the pressure on Garland is not a bad idea however we can.
I don't agree. I think it is a bad idea, but we are both certainly entitled to our ideas. I think there will come a time when people will see there was never anything to worry about, simply because the more charges that are filed against Trump et al the better that will be for chances of conviction.
And obviously this is all Executive Branch. No cooperation whatsoever will be needed from tRumpists in Congress.
What's his email address? Snail mail address for that matter?
https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice
Can't we replace Garland with Hillary? I know she would get the job done!
Interesting! I hadn't considered Hillary. I think you are right that she would get the job done and take no nonsense from anyone. I can't help but wonder what our nation and the world would be like now had she been president 5 years ago.
Biden rightly cares about the reputation of the DOJ. Hillary would tank its reputation, it would be seen as impossibly partisan.
I still would have preferred Adam Schiff. I could be deluding myself but I still believe that more would have been accomplished by now with him in charge.
I agree. Schiff would have been great.
I think Adam Schiff would've done a great job as attorney general, but they (The Democractic establishment) needed to compensate Merrick Garland for not being able to get him the hearings for becoming a justice.
I don’t think they OWED Garland. He was someone that could be taken as not highly partisan and not a stooge of the president. Remember how much Trump was crossing the line with HIS Justice Department? Schiff would also seem very partisan. This is the logic associated with how Biden picked, I think.
I think it was the same kind of the logic of how MG was picked to be a justice, too. And voila, what a "wonderful" SCOUTS we have, now. IMHO the main criterion should've been but how efficient are in doing their job, and not how partisan they seem to be or not. Adam Schiff comes across as very firm, and efficient, "dura lex, sed lex" type...let's not forget that January 6th happen before Binden was sworn in, so they had all the time in the world to think of somebody who is a good fit for the job of saving the DEMOCRACY of our Republic...
There are many ethical people in government. Merrick hasn’t given me any reason to believe he isn’t one of them
A referral is not necessary for the DOJ to act.
Although a referral from the 1/6 Committee is not “necessary”, it is of paramount importance. Otherwise, why go through this hearing just to close the door?
I am not advocating closing the door. The DOJ can take this up without a referral, and I expect they will. If Liz Cheney has anything to say about it, there will be a referral anyway. The door will NOT be closed!
Bravo, Laurie!
Todd, as I remember and understood it, at the outset, the reason for the 1/6 Committee was to find out what happened, how it happened and why people allowed or caused the attack on the seat of congress, so they could take steps to prevent it from happening again. I suspect the House will send all of the info to the DOJ whether they need it or not. I have not thought for one minute the DOJ hasn't been hard at work on the insurrection and it's treasonous instigators.
Here we go again. Timidly asking- "Oh please Mr Congressman sir, Your revered Mr Attorney General sir. This man has done bad , naughty things. He must be held responsible." I am reminded of a talk I heard with Michael Moore. He had an unrecorded conversation with Steve Bannon in which Bannon described it thus- Republicans enter the fray with a knife and go for the jugular; Democrats arrive with pillows. Kinda funny...NOT! I had described myself as a pessimistic optimist. Here is a 'take' on the hearings by the extremely knowledgable Chris Hedges. Read it at your risk and peril. It is rather sobering
https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/society-of-spectacle?utm_source=email&s=r
Peace.
The passivity of “the people” might well be driven by at least a half-century of the Party of Ressentiment- everything that Nietzsche took a stick to in bureaucratic Christianity. Play nice, play fair, winning’s just coincidental to playing. Cheney’s a refreshing counterexample. The ‘oh well’ Party finds a team captain like Charlie Brown, and smiles its way to a new ‘good effort’ game. When we had MLK, and unions, the Dems had some fire in the belly. Rev. MLK said ALL. HERE. NOW. Look that up. Listen to that speech. The Dems are an all-inclusive, mutually affirming, identity-neutral party of Uncle Toms in a rainbow shack.
Thank you! Look at the committee, Liz Cheney is more courageous than any democrat, who are supposed to be mindful of giving trupmsters another opportunity to destroy democracy.
Nina. Liza Cheney should be representing her constituents. She works for them! She is using the people of Wyoming back's to advance her political career to Washington D.C. Her dad did the same thing. In August this year, she will be voted out of office from the great state of Wyoming. Politicians tend to forget, they need to listen to the people in which the state they represent.
Cecelia, look at the Ripon link I posted and think of where Republicans came from. Maybe she DOES represent them, the best Americans can be. That used to be something that Republicans were especially proud of, honor and duty and not liking violence against the Capitol. Maybe all the honest ones are in Wyoming!?
Steve. Thank you for caring to respond.
Steve. I was born and raised in Wyoming. Lived there over 30 years. I know the great people of that great state. They work hard, take care of their families, believe in God, volunteer at local charity events and love the USA. They are like many citizens around the country and sick of all these committees. These committees waste time and our tax payer money. We spent too much time on Bill Clinton and his affair with Monica. Too much time on HRC server in her closet. Now we are focused on Hunter Biden lap top. January 6th was a dark day for the country. The real issue is why was their no protection set up on January 3rd, 4th and 5th. None of this would have happened had the people in charge (Including Trump and Pence) been focused on securing the Capital. That was the real crime. The democrats are using the committee for political theatrics. Biden and his team have made a bigger mess of the country with failed policies. This January 6th committee is to distract from what is hurting our citizens right now with inflations and gas prices. Absolutely nothing will come out of the committee except keep Trump in the headlines every. single. day. We need Trump to fade away. We need him to go back to running his businesses and stay out of politics. Cheney will lose her election in August in Wyoming. Mark my words.
Where are the Democrats who have the nature of Bill Barr to use the word ‘bullshit’ properly? AOC ain’t bad, and scares the Ripons, but should be a back-bencher in a big choir, not a soloist. Hillary didn’t speak the language. Bill and Barack were somewhat fluent. Who’s got fire in the belly? Liz Cheney.
When the Dems had the chance to stop the mediocre and empty-headed Reagan neocon hucksters, the served up WALTER MONDALE. Be afraid.
Sorry, ain’t no more Ripons no more. Read what the Republicans once might have become, and a prophecy about today. https://riponsociety.org/history/
Yep! Dems need to stop bring pillows and spoons to the republicon knife fights.
Ken in France. Thank you for sharing Chris Hedges thoughts. He hit the nail on the head. This committee appears to be like a Kangaroo court. All this going on while good, hard working citizens in the USA trying to figure out how to pay for gas, keep driving to their jobs so they can put food on the table for their families. So sad, it makes me want to scream!
There will be a time in the future when Merrick Garland is or can be a candidate for Supreme Court again.
If he does not perform his obligations and responsibilities now, there will be no public support for that future opportunity.
Mr. Garland needs to demonstrate why he was chosen in the first place, and any Republican who Truly supports the rule of law, will recognize in the future that this guy is the right candidate for SCOTUS.
The levers we have are the usual ones, messaging to those in power, eg. Attorney General Garland, our Congressional Representatives (including those on the committee), and demonstrating. We the people need to insist on action and truth.
The only precedent that exists is that former presidents do not get indicted. Levi didn't indict Nixon because Ford had pardoned Tricky Dick. Holder didn't indict GWB because Obama said "turn the page". Biden's call to mend fences, Dem leaders' insistence that we need a "strong Republican party", and the fact that no one wants to set the precedent that presidents can ever be held accountable, mean that Garland won't indict Trump. At least, not without specific direction from Biden, which will never come. The unwritten rule is that presidents, by definition, are above the law, something that ironically even the Jan. 6th Commission's star witness Bill Barr has argued.
Excuse me, Justin, but you're stretching the truth. Ford did pardon Nixon in advance for any crimes for which he might be indicted, But George W, Bush committed no crimes, He was guilty of stupidity and of listening to Cheney and Rumsfeld, but the declaration of war against was sanctioned by a greedy Congress. Bush didn't do anything that was impeachable. NO PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE US UNTIL "the trumpster" ever attacked our Nation. To say no President has ever been indicted overlooks the fact that no President has ever committed treason until trump. We shouldn't be second guessing what Attorney General Garland will do, or even what the January 6 Committee will say in its final findings. At least wait until it's over.
"George W, Bush committed no crimes." Yeah, *I'm* stretching the truth.
It is so hard to watch this set of hearings knowing Trump will not face any kind of accountability and may be able to run for president again, even though he did as little as he could as president. He certainly could tell other people what to do and with his corrupt crew, inflict a lot of damage. It seems to me that even if Trump is not indicted himself, the 14th Amendment of our Constitution should prohibit him from running for any office in the future.
But you don't know that Ruth, I have faith in the rule of law. The Democratic Congress did impeach trump twice, that is unprecedented. Only the weaklings in he Senate refused to find him guilty.
Ruth. Never fear. Trump won't run for President. Elon Musk just endorsed Ron DeSantis. Game over for Trump.
The reaction by Newsmax readers to that endorsement? They want another term of Trump (with DeSantis as VP), & then 8 years of DeSantis as President. Of course, the last vestiges of our democracy would be long gone by the end of that reign. Very likely most life on Earth as well. But I'm not even sure Trump would give up his throne by the end of his 4 years [remember in his mind he is "owed" another 4 years because in his first 4 years he was hassled by investigations ("witch hunts") & impeachment trials (for "hoaxes")]. Perhaps if he is assured of not being thrown into prison for further crimes against humanity & has a special palace built for him somewhere to which he can retire, he may reluctantly give up power to DeSantis, although he may insist on 1 of his progeny being VP.
Dear Jaime. Thank you for your response. In order to be a candidate for the Presidency of the United States here are the qualifications: According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years. We the people need to update Article II: Be at least 35 years old and under 70 years old. Once that is completed then Donald, Joe and Bernie could not run for the Presidency. Ron DeSantis with Tulsi Gabbard as his VP could be a dream ticket for the Republicans. I know the Democrats could come up with some great candidates under 70 years old too. We need candidates to spend time talking about the real issues facing the good citizens of the USA. Thank you for caring so much too. Hugs from Arizona.
Hi, Cecelia!
Thanks for your friendly, thoughtful comment. I love this forum because of all the thoughtful comments & civil discussions. I don't necessarily agree with all the comments, but I appreciate the ideas put out by concerned citizens, most of which are worth consideration, such as yours. Thanks again!
Jaime. I agree with you. In the USA we must respect others ideas and thoughts. We don't have to agree. Civil discourse should be done without hate and violence. Sending you hugs from Arizona.
It's time for Joe Biden to publicly express his support for prosecuting the American Hitler - POLITICS BE DAMNED. #45 is a criminal, a threat to every decent American, and should have already been behind bars long before this!!