They're mostly symbolic, but still important: They create an important historical record, especially if the Special Counsel doesn't end up charging Trump with some or all of the referred crimes.
I’m old enough to have watched the Watergate hearings, and before Nixon resigned, he was informed by the bipartisan Congress that they had more than enough votes to impeach and remove him from office for what was like a parking ticket in comparison with Trump’s long list of crimes. Fast forward almost 50 years, and we have a Republican Party whose majority not only condone’s Trump’s serious crimes, but considers him their leading candidate in 2024!! Therefore, I have little confidence the final report of the January 6 committee will have any more impact than the Mueller report, even with the DOJ now led by a Democrat, AG Garland. But I agree the most important indictment would be one preventing Trump from ever holding office again, and I hope my pessimism about potential DOJ charges against Trump is proven wrong.
Interesting. Considering those charges are the easiest prove. I understand your opinion but still think Garland won’t want to be remembered in history as the AG who left American democracy undefended.
I think all who want to see Trump pay for his federal crimes are divided in two main camps:
1. Those who feel confident Garland will charge and prosecute
2. Those who feel Garland is never going to charge and prosecute
And then we have a 3rd group, who, like Mr. Garrett, think he'll be charged and prosecuted and convicted.... and then get slap on the wrist.
People in group 1 point to previous investigations like Watergate and how long it took before charges were filed. They cite the complexity of the current investigation and now the appointment of the Special Prosecutor as evidence of their confidence charges will be brought.
People in group 2 seem (to me) to be just frustrated and angry that Garland hasn't yet brought charges and cite various reasons why they believe he never will. Including that he's under threat, or that he's too much of an institutionalist to charge a former President.
IMHO, with respect to the 3rd group - however large or small - I can't see Garland going through with a trial where Trump is found guilty of 2383 only to get a little fine. But I understand Mr. Garrett is referring only to the classified docs case. He may be right. I guess we'll see...
Also, excuse my ignorance on this, but isn't it the JUDGE who would decide the sentence and not the AG? Meaning that if he were convicted would Garland have anything to do with the sentence?
In any case, again speaking for myself, the critical judgement would be that he would be forever prohibited from holding office. Apparently the only conviction where that would apply would be 2383.
I agree that charges surrounding Jan. 6 (especially insurrection) are going to require a lot of cojones...but I feel pretty certain that there will be an indictment on the Mar-a-Lago front.
I wish George Soros would act more like the (evil to them) colossus the right believes he is. There are things that a few billion dollars could do, such as finance that would make sane news sources as free to access as Fox and Breitbart.
Good Day Professor, IMHO I seem to think the DOJ and Mr. Smith have most of the facts and evidence that the Committee has discovered, perhaps the Committee has put finer points on the facts that have been uncovered. As you have said, the DOJ does not need a referral from the Committee to begin the indictment process, however the final report due Monday should receive a greater amount of publicity of the crimes perpetrated by TFG, which in turn will turn up the heat on the perpetrator, possibly pushing him over the edge…at least I hope so.
Thanks for the information. My only hope is that the referrals themselves don't hamper the DOJ in terms of politicking anything the do choose to do. My worry is always the Tim ing aspect. Let's hope they charge soon because the legal wrangling back and forth, and the trial, if there ever even IS one are going to probably drag into a new administration. HOPEFULLY a Democratic one, but who knows. I'm just antsy to get this guy prosecuted already.
Thanks for posting and welcome to SD! If you are still in town Sunday evening hope you get to enjoy the boat parade of holiday lights in the harbor.
What are the thorny 1st amendment issues that might give the SC pause in indicting for 18 USC 2383?
I imagine his public tweets before Jan 6 and speech on the Ellipse can be seen as "just talking" and therefore protected speech. But any coordination and planning for actions leading to the Jan 6 violence that the SC may have evidence for; that type of communication would not be protected speech, would it?
Wow. I would imagine that the special prosecutor has incriminating evidence in addition to the 1/6 committee’s, further bolstering the argument to indict. Many twists and turns ahead, but it would be an important statement to would-be-insurrectionists that they, too, can be indicted.
Thank you for the post. Hopefully, something, ANYTHING will happen to alleviate this unending roller coaster ride with Trump. He should not be able to ever hold office in this country again.
I’m watching these videos and taking a preview of this class (yay for 7-day trials for us lowly college students on break) about a year after these things have happened. I love this class so far and hope that I can continue taking it after the free trial is over while I’m off for winter break. Thank you for taking the time to put this Substack together for us who are interested in learning about all things disinformation.
I tend to agree that little will come of this. However, Trump has lost favor with much of the GOP after the midterms. This could be a very convenient way to put him on the back burner and stoke their ongoing world hatred by blaming it on the democrats.
Thanks for the information. My only hope is that the referrals themselves don't hamper the DOJ in terms of politicking anything the do choose to do. My worry is always the Tim ing aspect. Let's hope they charge soon because the legal wrangling back and forth, and the trial, if there ever even IS one are going to probably drag into a new administration. HOPEFULLY a Democratic one, but who knows. I'm just antsy to get this guy prosecuted already.
I’m old enough to have watched the Watergate hearings, and before Nixon resigned, he was informed by the bipartisan Congress that they had more than enough votes to impeach and remove him from office for what was like a parking ticket in comparison with Trump’s long list of crimes. Fast forward almost 50 years, and we have a Republican Party whose majority not only condone’s Trump’s serious crimes, but considers him their leading candidate in 2024!! Therefore, I have little confidence the final report of the January 6 committee will have any more impact than the Mueller report, even with the DOJ now led by a Democrat, AG Garland. But I agree the most important indictment would be one preventing Trump from ever holding office again, and I hope my pessimism about potential DOJ charges against Trump is proven wrong.
Thanks for the update! 2383 would appropriate but I appreciate it’s a heavy lift.
Interesting. Considering those charges are the easiest prove. I understand your opinion but still think Garland won’t want to be remembered in history as the AG who left American democracy undefended.
Don’t forget that it will be Jack Smith making the call (and if he decides to indict I strongly believe Garland will not overrule him)
I think all who want to see Trump pay for his federal crimes are divided in two main camps:
1. Those who feel confident Garland will charge and prosecute
2. Those who feel Garland is never going to charge and prosecute
And then we have a 3rd group, who, like Mr. Garrett, think he'll be charged and prosecuted and convicted.... and then get slap on the wrist.
People in group 1 point to previous investigations like Watergate and how long it took before charges were filed. They cite the complexity of the current investigation and now the appointment of the Special Prosecutor as evidence of their confidence charges will be brought.
People in group 2 seem (to me) to be just frustrated and angry that Garland hasn't yet brought charges and cite various reasons why they believe he never will. Including that he's under threat, or that he's too much of an institutionalist to charge a former President.
IMHO, with respect to the 3rd group - however large or small - I can't see Garland going through with a trial where Trump is found guilty of 2383 only to get a little fine. But I understand Mr. Garrett is referring only to the classified docs case. He may be right. I guess we'll see...
Also, excuse my ignorance on this, but isn't it the JUDGE who would decide the sentence and not the AG? Meaning that if he were convicted would Garland have anything to do with the sentence?
In any case, again speaking for myself, the critical judgement would be that he would be forever prohibited from holding office. Apparently the only conviction where that would apply would be 2383.
And a 4th group: People who know that they don't know.
More than that, everything about how the prosecutor presents the case affects the outcome.
I agree that charges surrounding Jan. 6 (especially insurrection) are going to require a lot of cojones...but I feel pretty certain that there will be an indictment on the Mar-a-Lago front.
I think Garland has been threatened and is scared out of his wits, and doesn't care how he will be remembered.
lulz.
I wish George Soros would act more like the (evil to them) colossus the right believes he is. There are things that a few billion dollars could do, such as finance that would make sane news sources as free to access as Fox and Breitbart.
Good Day Professor, IMHO I seem to think the DOJ and Mr. Smith have most of the facts and evidence that the Committee has discovered, perhaps the Committee has put finer points on the facts that have been uncovered. As you have said, the DOJ does not need a referral from the Committee to begin the indictment process, however the final report due Monday should receive a greater amount of publicity of the crimes perpetrated by TFG, which in turn will turn up the heat on the perpetrator, possibly pushing him over the edge…at least I hope so.
Thanks for the information. My only hope is that the referrals themselves don't hamper the DOJ in terms of politicking anything the do choose to do. My worry is always the Tim ing aspect. Let's hope they charge soon because the legal wrangling back and forth, and the trial, if there ever even IS one are going to probably drag into a new administration. HOPEFULLY a Democratic one, but who knows. I'm just antsy to get this guy prosecuted already.
Thanks for posting and welcome to SD! If you are still in town Sunday evening hope you get to enjoy the boat parade of holiday lights in the harbor.
What are the thorny 1st amendment issues that might give the SC pause in indicting for 18 USC 2383?
I imagine his public tweets before Jan 6 and speech on the Ellipse can be seen as "just talking" and therefore protected speech. But any coordination and planning for actions leading to the Jan 6 violence that the SC may have evidence for; that type of communication would not be protected speech, would it?
Wow. I would imagine that the special prosecutor has incriminating evidence in addition to the 1/6 committee’s, further bolstering the argument to indict. Many twists and turns ahead, but it would be an important statement to would-be-insurrectionists that they, too, can be indicted.
Thank you for the post. Hopefully, something, ANYTHING will happen to alleviate this unending roller coaster ride with Trump. He should not be able to ever hold office in this country again.
I’m watching these videos and taking a preview of this class (yay for 7-day trials for us lowly college students on break) about a year after these things have happened. I love this class so far and hope that I can continue taking it after the free trial is over while I’m off for winter break. Thank you for taking the time to put this Substack together for us who are interested in learning about all things disinformation.
Are office hours noon to 1 (Eastern time) today?
I don't understand how anyone can fail to see that Donald Trump is a criminal and should at least be imprisoned.
I tend to agree that little will come of this. However, Trump has lost favor with much of the GOP after the midterms. This could be a very convenient way to put him on the back burner and stoke their ongoing world hatred by blaming it on the democrats.
Thanks for the information. My only hope is that the referrals themselves don't hamper the DOJ in terms of politicking anything the do choose to do. My worry is always the Tim ing aspect. Let's hope they charge soon because the legal wrangling back and forth, and the trial, if there ever even IS one are going to probably drag into a new administration. HOPEFULLY a Democratic one, but who knows. I'm just antsy to get this guy prosecuted already.
🤞🤞🤞
Thanks for the heads up.