I have had many exchanges with various friends about Merrick Garland, concerned that he’s not investigating those who planned the insurrection. While I felt their frustration completely, my response has always been that we have absolutely no idea what Merrick Garland and the DOJ is doing. Zero. The DOJ, when properly run, simply does not announce anything what it’s doing. Nothing. And while there often are hints, there not have to be. And while there is an exception where the DOJ can announce what they’re doing, the Attorney General is under no obligation to use the exception. So, there is no basis to say that the Justice Department “is not doing anything.”
My assumption has long been that, of course, the DOJ is investigating those at the top who planned the insurrection, that it’s near-impossible to think they aren’t – but because the person at the very top is the former president of the United States, Merrick Garland knows that if and when he does bring any indictments against either Trump or anyone in the inner circle, he has to be able to have an airtight case and prove it beyond even a scintilla of doubt. Because I think most juries in the United States, while living up to their oath to be open-minded and fair, would rather not convict the President of the United States, whoever he may be, and would look to find the slightest crack that allows them not to. And so, it would be irresponsible of him to ignore that larger reality that he is dealing with the president and his administration. He has to be rock solid, in every sense of the word. I could be wrong about that. But it’s my sense of the situation here. And as someone noted on social media noted before his speech yesterday, it’s who Merrick Garland always has been. The person wrote – “This is your reminder that Merrick Garland’s investigation of Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and the Unabomber had zero leaks before indictments,100% convictions and no turnovers on appeal. Sometimes you have to have a little faith in the process.” There's another factor to keep in mind, as well. Though the insurrection took place a year ago, Merrick Garland hasn't had the DOJ investigation it for a year. He wasn't confirmed until March. And it took him several months get through the DOJ mess that Trump left and get his team in place. So, he's basically been investigating for about half a year. So, I was tuned in to watch Merrick Garland’s speech yesterday that he gave to members of his Department of Justice. I won’t get into the entirety of the speech, since there were passages that meant the most, by bar. And I’ll just quote single short one. While he didn’t say anything specific about the planners of the insurrection (nor did I expect him to), what he did say – and very bluntly – was: “The actions we have taken so far will not be our last. The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators at any level accountable under law, whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. We will follow the facts wherever they lead. How long will the investigation last? As long as it takes for justice to be done.” From this and other very-detailed, specific things he said have been done in their investigation and arrests – giving numbers on things like 715 arrests so far, 150 guilty pleas going through 300,000 tips and watching massive hours of video footage, along with noting cooperation agreements that have allowed attorney to trace evidence -- and saying flat out that violence against the government is not acceptable and from his tone (and, to be clear, he said a great deal more than just all this), it seemed that he was making very clear that he is investigating Trump and everyone in his circle who helped plan January 6, and that no one should think for a moment he isn't. The takeaway I got from his speech is that as disappointed as some or many will be by him not being more specific (and he even acknowledged that in his speech), it seemed definitive to me (and to the MSNBC analysts I watched afterwards) that he was saying they are investigating everyone. Including the White House. But that there is still more information to get, some of which is even encrypted which they’re working on to be able to read. Among those analysts, former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuaid pointed out that though Merrick Garland was ostensibly just giving a speech to members of the Department of Justice, by laying out meticulously how the DOJ works, he wasn’t telling the DOJ there in the audience how the process works since they all know, but rather he was speaking directly to the American public. She said that he was saying to the public, “We start small and build from there, and we are following the evidence to the highest level.” And former FBI official Chuck Rosenberg said that Garland was saying to people, “We’re on it, be patient, it’s working. It was a good speech, and it was exactly what I expected from the Attorney General.” And it was what I expected, as well. I wish he said more. I wish he was blunt and specific. I wish he even announced new indictments for some of those at the top in Trump’s inner circle. But I didn’t expect it. But I think he said a lot, without using those words. It is frustrating. I wish there was much more. But he made clear that he was investigating everyone – everyone – who was “criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.” Not just responsible, but criminally responsible." Including that one word should not be overlooked. The investigation will just, unfortunately, take time. “As long as it takes for justice to be done.” Later in the day, I heard from one of my wary friends who asked what I thought about Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid's sour reaction to Merrick Garland's speech, that they were so concerned by Garland not mentioning other events involved in the attempted coup that weren't directly related to events on January 6. He rightly said it would be so shocking, so unthinkable that Garland would ignore all that. What I replied was I think it’s understandable to question what’s being done by the DOJ, but not reasonable to think the Department of Justice is ignoring an attempt to overthrow the government. That it would indeed be shocking, unthinkable that he’d walk away from that. So, since it’s unthinkable, I don’t think that. I think that when Merrick Garland said “The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators at any level accountable under law, whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. We will follow the facts wherever they lead” – he meant it. And he knows that saying “January 6” does not merely mean only what happened on January 6 any more than saying “Watergate” only means the break-in. I think the phrase “January 6” now stands for what we refer to as the attempted coup in its entirety. I could be wrong, but that’s what I think. And the only reason I wasn’t surprised by Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid’s "sour reaction" is because that’s been their attitude from the beginning, so unless Merrick Garland said what they wanted to hear – which wasn’t going to happen – they’d be sour. But I was bothered by their reaction. Especially because neither had the kind of guests on who were objective enough to properly analyze his speech. Rachel Maddow had Dan Goldman who I like but was on record having written a wary column beforehand (though last night said that while he couldn’t tell what Garland was investigating, it was a better speech than he expected and was hopeful) and Chuck Schumer. That’s it. And Joy Reid had two guests, as well: Elie Mystal, who has been repeatedly calling for the Trump Administration to be arrested and convicted for the past year, relentlessly outraged that they haven’t yet been, and also Al Franken. Mystal said what he always says – but Franken responded, “I disagree with you, Joy.” She sort of mumbled a reply and then quickly said, “Well, let’s look at this other part of his speech.” As I noted, earlier in the day right after the speech MSNBC had their team of legal analysts, and all were very supportive of the speech. Again, I don’t know what the DOJ is doing. But no one does outside of the DOJ. But I think Merrick Garland gave a more pointed, blunt speech than people expected, considering how historically tight-lipped he is. And while it’s absolutely possible his investigation is limited in scope – I too think it would be shocking and unthinkable that he’d walk away from investigating the fullness of those he called “criminally responsible” who he said were “at any level.” Also, it's clear the House Select Committee is investigating all the events leading up to January 6, and will be holding public hearings and issuing at least two reports on their findings. So, especially given what we already know they have, it would be...well, shocking and unthinkable for the Justice Department to not act once that is all very public. Especially since I'm sure they have all or most of the same information the the Select Committee has -- either from their own investigations or from it being shared with them by the committee. And so, I think they are investigating. Certainly, I hope I'm right. Those are the reasons I think I am.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|