For months now, Trump has been teasing another run for the White House, holding campaign-style rallies to talk about his “policies” (such as they are) while speaking to close aides constantly about the subject.
I do not buy the “politicizing” the DOJ argument at all. Declining to investigate a crime - when there is clear and convincing evidence that one has been committed simply b/c the perpetrator is a politician IS politicizing the DOJ. The DOJs memo may not have much practical effect but the message it sends- political candidates and their staff are above the law- is beyond troubling. Aside from the degradation of the principle that no one is above the law, what incentive do these people have to comply with the law??
You know they have to be damn sure they can prove intent. This is a major reason for delay. Charging Trump and him being acquitted could spell disaster in 2024.
If every prosecutor only brought cases they were 100% sure they could win- where in the world would we be?? I completely disagree that an acquittal is in some way MORE damaging than not charging him at all- do you not think MAGA- world will point to lack of investigation & prosecution as undeniable proof of innocence? as proof of their ridiculous “J6 comm. is a witch hunt” claims?? And honestly I think most people will see it that way- if there’s been no investigation & no charges the person must be innocent. At least with an investigation & prosecution- the DOJ is on record as saying there is sufficient reason (and the world gets to hear the evidence) to believe a crime was committed- if a jury chooses to acquit despite the facts or believes that the gov’t has not met it’s burden of proof then so be it - but the public is well acquainted with the concept of jury nullification.
We’ll agree to disagree on this one. It’s hard enough getting a conviction on a public figure. All ducks in a row is the proper strategy in my mind. Have everything you need in your toolbox to make your best case
where it only takes one juror to hang the jury. You know if it is hung they won’t re-try him.
I completely agree in a perfect world one wants lots of time to make a bullet proof case- but they’re not operating in a perfect world. It’s been 18 months & what many, many voters (fairly or not) see as DOJs failure to hold Trump or really anyone in his administration or campaign accountable for any of their crimes (including those investigated & set out in the Mueller Report) only serves to demoralize & disincentivize Democratic voters and emboldens wrongdoers. If D’s don’t maintain a majority in Congress I think we all know there will never be accountability for any of it.
Sidney, I want him and his cohorts held accountable as much as anybody. The issue to me (I am an attorney if that counts for anything) is when I go to trial, it is with the confidence that I have everything that I need to win. That doesn’t mean things can’t go wrong in the trial. Every juror, whether they admit or not, has preconceived bias. Then there are judges who like to be the “star” of the trial and can screw up your case. Given all that, I want to know, as much as one can, that i can convince a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Going after a man who got 74 million votes is a tall task. I am willing to give the DOJ some slack and a few more months.
I understand your point. But as an attorney myself, I also understand that attorneys are often called upon to do the best job they can in a finite period of time. More often than not an attorney must work with the facts, information, witnesses, etc. that they have within a set time constraint (be they statute of limitations or court dictated deadlines) and in any case, there are almost always things they wish they had time to bring to their case. But even if they make the best case imaginable there will always be factors beyond their control - jurors, judges, etc. - and often no amount of time or mountain of of evidence (or facts) will change those. My point is that - whether we like it or not- we’ve ALL (including DOJ) known that there was a very real possibility that the ability to investigate & prosecute could end with midterms if Rs gain a majority in Congress. And honestly, Garland’s a smart guy- it’s difficult for me to believe he’s not aware of that fact. The decided lack of urgency on the part of the DOJ to use that time to investigate and to hold those accountable (whether real or merely public perception) leaves a large portion of an electorate that was energized & came out to vote in no small part b/c they believed that DOJ would dedicate itself to investigate and hold people accountable wondering why the DOJ didn’t try & if it was worth it to come out NOT something any of us want come November.
Jay: This is brilliant, point-by-point analysis, and beautifully nuanced about Garland and his strategy. I think many of my fellow progressives (like Rachel) are panicking, based upon Mueller’s failure to indict Trump and issue subpoenas during his investigation. I would have preferred Andrew Weissman’s approach in that investigation, which was much tougher. I put too much trust in Mueller’s tenacity of pursuing John Gotti and other organized crime figures--he should have realized he wasn’t really with a “president” but simply another organized crime boss, which is what Weissman wanted. With that said, I believe many of us on the left tend to underestimate Garland’s toughness--especially knowing his tough record on the Oklahoma City bombing case. I, like you, believe he fully understands the gravity of the legal situation facing him, and the enormous consequences of the seismic indictments--including of Trump--the DOJ is about to hand down. If he fails, I agree he must step aside, and Biden should appoint Weissman as “Acting AG”--an old Trump trick to avoid Senate Confirmation. I’d like to believe that since Garland’s family was impacted by the Holocaust against the Jews that he understands lawlessness and fascism to the marrow of his bone. Progressives need to focus more of our fire, right now, on the real fascists among us, like the GOP candidate for Governor in PA, Doug “Mussolini” Mastriano. I know Josh Shapiro and he is a public servant of the highest integrity, and a true believer in the rule of law. You may have caught my piece on the madness of Mastriano earlier on Substack. If not, here’s the link. https://villano.substack.com/p/from-here-to-harrisburg-josh-shapiro In the meantime, keep writing these terrific and insightful pieces. Since you are a member of the Board of the Human Rights Campaign, I am eager to read a series of pieces from you--and to hear loud and clearly from HRC--on the continuing and growing threat from Christian Nationalists to Griswold, Obergfell, and all other privacy right cases. I think the two of us can craft a national campaign for HRC around the issue of the destruction of privacy rights under the Fascist rightwing in this country. Be well, and keep fighting. We need your voice more now than ever before.
One major problem with Garland waiting until after the midterms, is, it may be too late for Democrats to win the bigger majority we need in the Senate and keeping control of the House would be impossible. Democrats are, understandably, frustrated with so many things right now, starting with waiting months and months after 1/6 to even seat a committee to look into it. If Garland is going to wait on not just trump, but, the other higher ups involved, this will take the wind out of everything. If we see his higher ups finally held accountable, before the midterms, that might help, but, the media will have a field day with this and once trump announces, I fully expect the media to treat him exactly the same as they did in 2016. Never challenging him on anything, never calling out his lies, and "Hunter Biden" will be 2024's version of Hillary's emails. What a mess.
I have been saying the same thing about when it would be more likely for Trump to be charged. After the mid-terms make the most sense. Hopefully, Trump will, only concerned about himself, announce his candidacy pre-midterms which McConnell and McCarthy will hate. This may very well bring out more D voters in November and at least help keep and increase their margin of majority in the Senate. This should be interesting. Oh, and I hope Lindsey Graham gets his comeuppance in Georgia post mid-terms also.
Maybe Garland can somewhat avoid the stigma of politicization by *announcing* the investigation prior to the election to satisfy the critics and show that he has every intention of pursuing it - even as early as now? - but holding off on grand juries and prosecution until after the election to allow everyone to focus on that important business, while keeping it from tainting the election process. But if Garland has any reservations about pursuing prosecution, he should resign ASAP and let someone who has the guts and the track record do what needs to be done.
Hey Jay... your FB page has gone radio silent today. Ususally you post your substack posts there and so far nothing. And nothing new at all today. Just wanted to see if you were having issues with it.
Yes. See, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Also, specific Federal Statutes prohibit the guilty from holding office as well. See, for example, Title 18 Section 2383 states that "any" rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the US "or the laws thereof" prohibits the guilty from holding "any" office.
I personally think Merrick is baiting the hook intentionally. It's hard for me to believe that he's inept. He knows exactly what he's doing. It's supremely difficult to have patience and confidence in him at this point, but I'm forcing myself to wait it out, because I feel he has some aces up his sleeve. I may be naive and sound too optimistic, but I'm consciously choosing to keep faith in his ability to do a thorough job. After all, he has a pretty good track record so far of securing water tight convictions, e.g. OKC bombing, unibomber, etc.
Fingers crossed 🤞 he's going to surprise the American public following the midterms. 😁
You article seems to imply that there is not already an investigation into T that is ongoing as the memo says the top dog needs to approve the opening of investigations. It also does not say they cannot be opened under any circumstance, but that there needs to be executive level approval to ensure that it does not appear politically motivated in any way.
I do not buy the “politicizing” the DOJ argument at all. Declining to investigate a crime - when there is clear and convincing evidence that one has been committed simply b/c the perpetrator is a politician IS politicizing the DOJ. The DOJs memo may not have much practical effect but the message it sends- political candidates and their staff are above the law- is beyond troubling. Aside from the degradation of the principle that no one is above the law, what incentive do these people have to comply with the law??
You know they have to be damn sure they can prove intent. This is a major reason for delay. Charging Trump and him being acquitted could spell disaster in 2024.
If every prosecutor only brought cases they were 100% sure they could win- where in the world would we be?? I completely disagree that an acquittal is in some way MORE damaging than not charging him at all- do you not think MAGA- world will point to lack of investigation & prosecution as undeniable proof of innocence? as proof of their ridiculous “J6 comm. is a witch hunt” claims?? And honestly I think most people will see it that way- if there’s been no investigation & no charges the person must be innocent. At least with an investigation & prosecution- the DOJ is on record as saying there is sufficient reason (and the world gets to hear the evidence) to believe a crime was committed- if a jury chooses to acquit despite the facts or believes that the gov’t has not met it’s burden of proof then so be it - but the public is well acquainted with the concept of jury nullification.
We’ll agree to disagree on this one. It’s hard enough getting a conviction on a public figure. All ducks in a row is the proper strategy in my mind. Have everything you need in your toolbox to make your best case
where it only takes one juror to hang the jury. You know if it is hung they won’t re-try him.
I completely agree in a perfect world one wants lots of time to make a bullet proof case- but they’re not operating in a perfect world. It’s been 18 months & what many, many voters (fairly or not) see as DOJs failure to hold Trump or really anyone in his administration or campaign accountable for any of their crimes (including those investigated & set out in the Mueller Report) only serves to demoralize & disincentivize Democratic voters and emboldens wrongdoers. If D’s don’t maintain a majority in Congress I think we all know there will never be accountability for any of it.
Sidney, I want him and his cohorts held accountable as much as anybody. The issue to me (I am an attorney if that counts for anything) is when I go to trial, it is with the confidence that I have everything that I need to win. That doesn’t mean things can’t go wrong in the trial. Every juror, whether they admit or not, has preconceived bias. Then there are judges who like to be the “star” of the trial and can screw up your case. Given all that, I want to know, as much as one can, that i can convince a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Going after a man who got 74 million votes is a tall task. I am willing to give the DOJ some slack and a few more months.
I understand your point. But as an attorney myself, I also understand that attorneys are often called upon to do the best job they can in a finite period of time. More often than not an attorney must work with the facts, information, witnesses, etc. that they have within a set time constraint (be they statute of limitations or court dictated deadlines) and in any case, there are almost always things they wish they had time to bring to their case. But even if they make the best case imaginable there will always be factors beyond their control - jurors, judges, etc. - and often no amount of time or mountain of of evidence (or facts) will change those. My point is that - whether we like it or not- we’ve ALL (including DOJ) known that there was a very real possibility that the ability to investigate & prosecute could end with midterms if Rs gain a majority in Congress. And honestly, Garland’s a smart guy- it’s difficult for me to believe he’s not aware of that fact. The decided lack of urgency on the part of the DOJ to use that time to investigate and to hold those accountable (whether real or merely public perception) leaves a large portion of an electorate that was energized & came out to vote in no small part b/c they believed that DOJ would dedicate itself to investigate and hold people accountable wondering why the DOJ didn’t try & if it was worth it to come out NOT something any of us want come November.
Jay: This is brilliant, point-by-point analysis, and beautifully nuanced about Garland and his strategy. I think many of my fellow progressives (like Rachel) are panicking, based upon Mueller’s failure to indict Trump and issue subpoenas during his investigation. I would have preferred Andrew Weissman’s approach in that investigation, which was much tougher. I put too much trust in Mueller’s tenacity of pursuing John Gotti and other organized crime figures--he should have realized he wasn’t really with a “president” but simply another organized crime boss, which is what Weissman wanted. With that said, I believe many of us on the left tend to underestimate Garland’s toughness--especially knowing his tough record on the Oklahoma City bombing case. I, like you, believe he fully understands the gravity of the legal situation facing him, and the enormous consequences of the seismic indictments--including of Trump--the DOJ is about to hand down. If he fails, I agree he must step aside, and Biden should appoint Weissman as “Acting AG”--an old Trump trick to avoid Senate Confirmation. I’d like to believe that since Garland’s family was impacted by the Holocaust against the Jews that he understands lawlessness and fascism to the marrow of his bone. Progressives need to focus more of our fire, right now, on the real fascists among us, like the GOP candidate for Governor in PA, Doug “Mussolini” Mastriano. I know Josh Shapiro and he is a public servant of the highest integrity, and a true believer in the rule of law. You may have caught my piece on the madness of Mastriano earlier on Substack. If not, here’s the link. https://villano.substack.com/p/from-here-to-harrisburg-josh-shapiro In the meantime, keep writing these terrific and insightful pieces. Since you are a member of the Board of the Human Rights Campaign, I am eager to read a series of pieces from you--and to hear loud and clearly from HRC--on the continuing and growing threat from Christian Nationalists to Griswold, Obergfell, and all other privacy right cases. I think the two of us can craft a national campaign for HRC around the issue of the destruction of privacy rights under the Fascist rightwing in this country. Be well, and keep fighting. We need your voice more now than ever before.
One major problem with Garland waiting until after the midterms, is, it may be too late for Democrats to win the bigger majority we need in the Senate and keeping control of the House would be impossible. Democrats are, understandably, frustrated with so many things right now, starting with waiting months and months after 1/6 to even seat a committee to look into it. If Garland is going to wait on not just trump, but, the other higher ups involved, this will take the wind out of everything. If we see his higher ups finally held accountable, before the midterms, that might help, but, the media will have a field day with this and once trump announces, I fully expect the media to treat him exactly the same as they did in 2016. Never challenging him on anything, never calling out his lies, and "Hunter Biden" will be 2024's version of Hillary's emails. What a mess.
I have been saying the same thing about when it would be more likely for Trump to be charged. After the mid-terms make the most sense. Hopefully, Trump will, only concerned about himself, announce his candidacy pre-midterms which McConnell and McCarthy will hate. This may very well bring out more D voters in November and at least help keep and increase their margin of majority in the Senate. This should be interesting. Oh, and I hope Lindsey Graham gets his comeuppance in Georgia post mid-terms also.
I’m with you on this thinking. It’s a longer game. Our focus should be on winning the midterms if at all possible.
We need to win the midterms and no way in hell trump needs to make another run for President this country will be done if he wins another presidency
While I concur in your sentiment, Trump may be the one candidate they can beat in 2024. He is extremely polarizing which is what the Dems want.
Maybe Garland can somewhat avoid the stigma of politicization by *announcing* the investigation prior to the election to satisfy the critics and show that he has every intention of pursuing it - even as early as now? - but holding off on grand juries and prosecution until after the election to allow everyone to focus on that important business, while keeping it from tainting the election process. But if Garland has any reservations about pursuing prosecution, he should resign ASAP and let someone who has the guts and the track record do what needs to be done.
Prosecutors don’t announce investigations of someone. That would really smack of political motivation.
Hey Jay... your FB page has gone radio silent today. Ususally you post your substack posts there and so far nothing. And nothing new at all today. Just wanted to see if you were having issues with it.
Isn't there any charge that would prevent trump from running at all ...ever???!
Yes. See, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Also, specific Federal Statutes prohibit the guilty from holding office as well. See, for example, Title 18 Section 2383 states that "any" rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the US "or the laws thereof" prohibits the guilty from holding "any" office.
I personally think Merrick is baiting the hook intentionally. It's hard for me to believe that he's inept. He knows exactly what he's doing. It's supremely difficult to have patience and confidence in him at this point, but I'm forcing myself to wait it out, because I feel he has some aces up his sleeve. I may be naive and sound too optimistic, but I'm consciously choosing to keep faith in his ability to do a thorough job. After all, he has a pretty good track record so far of securing water tight convictions, e.g. OKC bombing, unibomber, etc.
Fingers crossed 🤞 he's going to surprise the American public following the midterms. 😁
You article seems to imply that there is not already an investigation into T that is ongoing as the memo says the top dog needs to approve the opening of investigations. It also does not say they cannot be opened under any circumstance, but that there needs to be executive level approval to ensure that it does not appear politically motivated in any way.