The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

In today's NYT, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe is telling his former pupil, AG Merrick Garland, that Trump must be prosecuted for inciting the January 6th attack on Congress.

Seems like a no brainer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html

Prosecuted, possibly, perhaps a bit of a fishing expedition. But convicted?

Wouldn't you like some evidence the 600-700 odd people arrested on Jan. 6 had some connections to Trump Administration people? 

Cell-phone calls, texts, e-mails, hand-written letters delivered by courier, anything? So far, not a single shred of evidence has emerged. Evidently, the federal government has been able to open even encrypted texts. 

Should there also be a fair and determined investigation to find out if federal assets instigated the scrum at the Capitol? The use of federal provocateurs and agitators is not unknown. 

And I still would like to know where were the 3,500 officers of the Capitol Police Department.  The Capitol officer in charge of civil disturbances response was home making meat loaf when troubles broke out (WaPo), on the afternoon of Jan. 6. How is that possible? 

This sure looks like a manufactured event.

The scrum participants as useful idiots? 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Benjamin Cole
typo

[Ron Bulman]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Prosecuted, possibly, perhaps a bit of a fishing expedition. But convicted?

Wouldn't you like some evidence the 600-700 odd people arrested on Jan. 6 had some connections to Trump Administration people? 

Cell-phone calls, texts, e-mails, hand-written letters delivered by courier, anything? So far, not a single shred of evidence has emerged. Evidently, the federal government has been able to open even encrypted texts. 

Should there also be a fair and determined investigation to find out of federal assets instigated the scrum at the Capitol? The use of federal provocateurs and agitators is not unknown. 

And I still would like to know where were the 3,500 officers of the Capitol Police Department.  The Capitol officer in charge of civil disturbances response was home making meat loaf when troubles broke out (WaPo), on the afternoon of Jan. 6. How is that possible? 

This sure looks like a manufactured event.

The scrum participants as useful idiots? 

Scrum dumb.  Tell me who called Lee Harvey Oswald a Useful Idiot.  Meatloaf?  Don't let your . . .  meatloaf indeed.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

19 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Scrum dumb.  Tell me who called Lee Harvey Oswald a Useful Idiot.  Meatloaf?  Don't let your . . .  meatloaf indeed.

 

Ron B.-

Touche!

We may disagree on some perceptions, but your sense of humor tops mine! 

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

W., is there a way to see this without creating an account for limited free articles or subscribing?

Here's today's NYT letter, Ron. 

Will Donald Trump Get Away With Inciting an Insurrection?
www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html

by Laurence Tribe, Donald Ayer, and Dennis Aftergut

December 23, 2021

In his nine months in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland has done a great deal to restore integrity and evenhanded enforcement of the law to an agency that was badly misused for political reasons under his predecessor. But his place in history will be assessed against the challenges that confronted him. And the overriding test that he and the rest of the government face is the threat to our democracy from people bent on destroying it.

Mr. Garland’s success depends on ensuring that the rule of law endures. That means dissuading future coup plotters by holding the leaders of the insurrection fully accountable for their attempt to overthrow the government. But he cannot do so without a robust criminal investigation of those at the top, from the people who planned, assisted or funded the attempt to overturn the Electoral College vote to those who organized or encouraged the mob attack on the Capitol. To begin with, he might focus on Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and even Donald Trump — all of whom were involved, in one way or another, in the events leading up to the attack.

Almost a year after the insurrection, we have yet to see any clear indicators that such an investigation is underway, raising the alarming possibility that this administration may never bring charges against those ultimately responsible for the attack.

While the Justice Department has filed charges against more than 700 people who participated in the violence, limiting the investigation to these foot soldiers would be a grave mistake: As Joanne Freeman, a Yale historian, wrote this month about the insurrection, “Accountability — the belief that political power holders are responsible for their actions and that blatant violations will be addressed — is the lifeblood of democracy. Without it, there can be no trust in government, and without trust, democratic governments have little power.”

The legal path to investigate the leaders of the coup attempt is clear. The criminal code prohibits inciting an insurrection or “giving aid or comfort” to those who do, as well as conspiracy to forcibly “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The code also makes it a crime to corruptly impede any official proceeding or deprive citizens of their constitutional right to vote.

Based purely on what we know today from news reports and the steady stream of revelations coming from the House select committee investigating the attack, the attorney general has a powerful justification for a robust and forceful investigation into the former president and his inner circle. As White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows was intimately involved in the effort to overturn the election. He traveled to Georgia last December, where he apparently laid the groundwork for the phone call in which the president pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes.” Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio reportedly promoted a scheme to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject duly certified Joe Biden electors. And from their war room at the Willard Hotel, several members of the president’s inner circle hatched the legal strategy to overturn the results of the election.

The president himself sat back for three hours while his chief of staff was barraged with messages from members of Congress and Fox News hosts pleading with him to have Mr. Trump call off the armed mob whose violent passion he had inflamed. That evidence, on its own, may not be enough to convict the former president, but it is certainly enough to require a criminal investigation.

And yet there are no signs, at least in media reports, that the attorney general is building a case against these individuals — no interviews with top administration officials, no reports of attempts to persuade the foot soldiers to turn on the people who incited them to violence. By this point in the Russia investigation, the special counsel Robert Mueller had indicted Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and secured the cooperation of George Papadopoulos after charging him with lying to the F.B.I. The media was reporting that the special counsel’s team had conducted or scheduled interviews with Mr. Trump’s aides Stephen Miller and Mr. Bannon, as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Of course, there is no way to know for sure whether Mr. Garland’s Department of Justice is investigating the leaders of the attack behind closed doors. Justice Department policy does not permit announcing investigations, absent exceptional circumstances. Mr. Garland, unlike his predecessor, plays by the book, keeping quiet about investigations until charges are filed. But the first of the rioters to plead guilty began cooperating with the Justice Department back in April. If prosecutors have been using their cooperation to investigate the top officials and operatives responsible for the siege of the Capitol and our democracy, there would likely be significant confirmation in the media by now.

It is possible that the department is deferring the decision about starting a full-blown investigative effort pending further work by the House select committee. It is even conceivable that the department is waiting for the committee’s final report so that federal prosecutors can review the documents, interviews and recommendations amassed by House investigators and can consider any potential referrals for criminal prosecution.

But such an approach would come at a very high cost. In the prosecution business, interviews need to happen as soon as possible after the events in question, to prevent both forgetfulness and witness coordination to conceal the truth. A comprehensive Department of Justice probe of the leadership is now more urgently needed than ever.

It is also imperative that Mr. Trump be included on the list of those being investigated. The media has widely reported his role in many of the relevant events, and there is no persuasive reason to exclude him.

First, he has no claim to constitutional immunity from prosecution. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has recognized such immunity only for sitting presidents because a criminal trial would prevent them from discharging the duties of their office. Mr. Trump no longer has those duties to discharge.

Nor is exclusion of the former president remotely justified by the precedent President Gerald Ford set in pardoning Richard Nixon to help the country “heal” from Watergate. Even our proud tradition of not mimicking banana republics by allowing political winners to retaliate against losers must give way in the wake of violence perpetrated to thwart the peaceful transition of power. Refusing to at least investigate those who plot to end democracy — and who would remain engaged in efforts to do so — would be beyond foolhardy.

Furthermore, the pending state and local investigations in New York and Atlanta will never be able to provide the kind of accountability the nation clearly needs. The New York case, which revolves around tax fraud, has nothing to do with the attack on our government. The Atlanta district attorney appears to be probing Mr. Trump’s now infamous call to Mr. Raffensperger. But that is just one chapter of the wrongdoing that led up to the attack on the Capitol.

Significantly, even if the Atlanta district attorney is able to convict Mr. Meadows and Mr. Trump for interfering in Georgia’s election, they could still run for office again. Only convicting them for participating in an insurrection would permanently disqualify them from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Some have expressed pessimism that the Department of Justice would be able to convict Mr. Trump. His guilt would ultimately be for a jury to decide, and some jurors might believe he deluded himself into believing his own big lie and thus genuinely thought he was saving, rather than sabotaging, the election. But concerns about a conviction are no reason to refrain from an investigation. If anything, a federal criminal investigation could unearth even more evidence and provide a firmer basis for deciding whether to indict.

To decline from the outset to investigate would be appeasement, pure and simple, and appeasing bullies and wrongdoers only encourages more of the same. Without forceful action to hold the wrongdoers to account, we will likely not resist what some retired generals see as a march to another insurrection in 2024 if Mr. Trump or another demagogue loses.

Throughout his public life, Mr. Garland has been a highly principled public servant focused on doing the right thing. But only by holding the leaders of the Jan. 6 insurrection — all of them — to account can he secure the future and teach the next generation that no one is above the law. If he has not done so already, we implore the attorney general to step up to that task.

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

"More than 75 journalists in the (Washington) Post newsroom contributed to The Attack (the three-part series on the Capitol scrum), including more than 25 reporters. The findings are based on interviews with more than 230 people and thousands of pages of court documents and internal law enforcement reports, along with hundreds of videos, photographs and audio recordings."-WaPo.

I do not know what the difference is between a "journalist" and a "reporter," but let that go. I guess the WaPo had two editors and opinion-writers involved for every reporter. 

So the WaPo devoted a small army of investigators to the The Attack.  I think it is fair to say the WaPo loathes, detests and reviles Don Trump, and that is their right. As a print publication, they are under no obligation to be fair, balanced, or even to tell the truth, as long as they do not libel anyone. 

In this large amount of investigation, did the WaPo unearth any communications between Trump Administration officials and the rioters at the Capitol on 1/6?

Any directives from Trumpers to enter the Capitol?

The federal government, which has subpoena powers, and the ability to read all texts, emails and to replay and listen to all cellphones calls, has produced no evidence. 

The record is this: As of now, there is no evidence the Trump Administration officials played a role in the Jan. 6 scrum. 

Some are conflating harebrained plans presented to the Trump Administration to have VP Pence somehow stall the vote, but using powers granted to him under the Constitution, with the 1/6 scrum.

Evidently, Pence either ignored or was never showed such plans. 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Benjamin Cole
typo

[Benjamin Cole]

8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Here's today's NYT letter, Ron. 

Will Donald Trump Get Away With Inciting an Insurrection?
www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html

by Laurence Tribe, Donald Ayer, and Dennis Aftergut

December 23, 2021

In his nine months in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland has done a great deal to restore integrity and evenhanded enforcement of the law to an agency that was badly misused for political reasons under his predecessor. But his place in history will be assessed against the challenges that confronted him. And the overriding test that he and the rest of the government face is the threat to our democracy from people bent on destroying it.

Mr. Garland’s success depends on ensuring that the rule of law endures. That means dissuading future coup plotters by holding the leaders of the insurrection fully accountable for their attempt to overthrow the government. But he cannot do so without a robust criminal investigation of those at the top, from the people who planned, assisted or funded the attempt to overturn the Electoral College vote to those who organized or encouraged the mob attack on the Capitol. To begin with, he might focus on Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and even Donald Trump — all of whom were involved, in one way or another, in the events leading up to the attack.

Almost a year after the insurrection, we have yet to see any clear indicators that such an investigation is underway, raising the alarming possibility that this administration may never bring charges against those ultimately responsible for the attack.

While the Justice Department has filed charges against more than 700 people who participated in the violence, limiting the investigation to these foot soldiers would be a grave mistake: As Joanne Freeman, a Yale historian, wrote this month about the insurrection, “Accountability — the belief that political power holders are responsible for their actions and that blatant violations will be addressed — is the lifeblood of democracy. Without it, there can be no trust in government, and without trust, democratic governments have little power.”

The legal path to investigate the leaders of the coup attempt is clear. The criminal code prohibits inciting an insurrection or “giving aid or comfort” to those who do, as well as conspiracy to forcibly “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The code also makes it a crime to corruptly impede any official proceeding or deprive citizens of their constitutional right to vote.

Based purely on what we know today from news reports and the steady stream of revelations coming from the House select committee investigating the attack, the attorney general has a powerful justification for a robust and forceful investigation into the former president and his inner circle. As White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows was intimately involved in the effort to overturn the election. He traveled to Georgia last December, where he apparently laid the groundwork for the phone call in which the president pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes.” Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio reportedly promoted a scheme to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject duly certified Joe Biden electors. And from their war room at the Willard Hotel, several members of the president’s inner circle hatched the legal strategy to overturn the results of the election.

The president himself sat back for three hours while his chief of staff was barraged with messages from members of Congress and Fox News hosts pleading with him to have Mr. Trump call off the armed mob whose violent passion he had inflamed. That evidence, on its own, may not be enough to convict the former president, but it is certainly enough to require a criminal investigation.

And yet there are no signs, at least in media reports, that the attorney general is building a case against these individuals — no interviews with top administration officials, no reports of attempts to persuade the foot soldiers to turn on the people who incited them to violence. By this point in the Russia investigation, the special counsel Robert Mueller had indicted Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and secured the cooperation of George Papadopoulos after charging him with lying to the F.B.I. The media was reporting that the special counsel’s team had conducted or scheduled interviews with Mr. Trump’s aides Stephen Miller and Mr. Bannon, as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Of course, there is no way to know for sure whether Mr. Garland’s Department of Justice is investigating the leaders of the attack behind closed doors. Justice Department policy does not permit announcing investigations, absent exceptional circumstances. Mr. Garland, unlike his predecessor, plays by the book, keeping quiet about investigations until charges are filed. But the first of the rioters to plead guilty began cooperating with the Justice Department back in April. If prosecutors have been using their cooperation to investigate the top officials and operatives responsible for the siege of the Capitol and our democracy, there would likely be significant confirmation in the media by now.

It is possible that the department is deferring the decision about starting a full-blown investigative effort pending further work by the House select committee. It is even conceivable that the department is waiting for the committee’s final report so that federal prosecutors can review the documents, interviews and recommendations amassed by House investigators and can consider any potential referrals for criminal prosecution.

But such an approach would come at a very high cost. In the prosecution business, interviews need to happen as soon as possible after the events in question, to prevent both forgetfulness and witness coordination to conceal the truth. A comprehensive Department of Justice probe of the leadership is now more urgently needed than ever.

It is also imperative that Mr. Trump be included on the list of those being investigated. The media has widely reported his role in many of the relevant events, and there is no persuasive reason to exclude him.

First, he has no claim to constitutional immunity from prosecution. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has recognized such immunity only for sitting presidents because a criminal trial would prevent them from discharging the duties of their office. Mr. Trump no longer has those duties to discharge.

Nor is exclusion of the former president remotely justified by the precedent President Gerald Ford set in pardoning Richard Nixon to help the country “heal” from Watergate. Even our proud tradition of not mimicking banana republics by allowing political winners to retaliate against losers must give way in the wake of violence perpetrated to thwart the peaceful transition of power. Refusing to at least investigate those who plot to end democracy — and who would remain engaged in efforts to do so — would be beyond foolhardy.

Furthermore, the pending state and local investigations in New York and Atlanta will never be able to provide the kind of accountability the nation clearly needs. The New York case, which revolves around tax fraud, has nothing to do with the attack on our government. The Atlanta district attorney appears to be probing Mr. Trump’s now infamous call to Mr. Raffensperger. But that is just one chapter of the wrongdoing that led up to the attack on the Capitol.

Significantly, even if the Atlanta district attorney is able to convict Mr. Meadows and Mr. Trump for interfering in Georgia’s election, they could still run for office again. Only convicting them for participating in an insurrection would permanently disqualify them from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Some have expressed pessimism that the Department of Justice would be able to convict Mr. Trump. His guilt would ultimately be for a jury to decide, and some jurors might believe he deluded himself into believing his own big lie and thus genuinely thought he was saving, rather than sabotaging, the election. But concerns about a conviction are no reason to refrain from an investigation. If anything, a federal criminal investigation could unearth even more evidence and provide a firmer basis for deciding whether to indict.

To decline from the outset to investigate would be appeasement, pure and simple, and appeasing bullies and wrongdoers only encourages more of the same. Without forceful action to hold the wrongdoers to account, we will likely not resist what some retired generals see as a march to another insurrection in 2024 if Mr. Trump or another demagogue loses.

Throughout his public life, Mr. Garland has been a highly principled public servant focused on doing the right thing. But only by holding the leaders of the Jan. 6 insurrection — all of them — to account can he secure the future and teach the next generation that no one is above the law. If he has not done so already, we implore the attorney general to step up to that task.

 

 

 

"Almost a year after the insurrection, we have yet to see any clear indicators that such an investigation is underway, raising the alarming possibility that this (Biden) administration may never bring charges against those ultimately responsible for the (1/6) attack.

While the Justice Department has filed charges against more than 700 people who participated in the violence, limiting the investigation to these foot soldiers would be a grave mistake"---NYT op-ed

This is a curious admission. If there has been no investigation even of Trump Administration officials, then where is the evidence that high-level Trumpers were involved in the 1/6 scrum?  It is an assumption. 

And why not call for an investigation into possible federal intel assets within the scrum? And why did the Capitol Police not show up in force, and then stand down? 

"The president himself sat back for three hours while his chief of staff was barraged with messages from members of Congress and Fox News hosts pleading with him to have Mr. Trump call off the armed mob whose violent passion he had inflamed. That evidence, on its own, may not be enough to convict the former president, but it is certainly enough to require a criminal investigation." NYT op-ed

This rests on the premise that Trump could "call off the armed mob."  (Also, only one member of the scrum carried a firearm, and that man was possibly  a federal asset, having been released on his own recognizance on 1/7, and never prosecuted.) 

If there were no connections between the scrum participants and Trump, he had no ability to "call off the armed mob."

In his speech on 1/6, Trump advised people to demonstrate peaceably. Evidently, the scrum started when Trump was still blabbering away on the mall. 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Here's today's NYT letter, Ron. 

Will Donald Trump Get Away With Inciting an Insurrection?
www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html

by Laurence Tribe, Donald Ayer, and Dennis Aftergut

December 23, 2021

In his nine months in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland has done a great deal to restore integrity and evenhanded enforcement of the law to an agency that was badly misused for political reasons under his predecessor. But his place in history will be assessed against the challenges that confronted him. And the overriding test that he and the rest of the government face is the threat to our democracy from people bent on destroying it.

Mr. Garland’s success depends on ensuring that the rule of law endures. That means dissuading future coup plotters by holding the leaders of the insurrection fully accountable for their attempt to overthrow the government. But he cannot do so without a robust criminal investigation of those at the top, from the people who planned, assisted or funded the attempt to overturn the Electoral College vote to those who organized or encouraged the mob attack on the Capitol. To begin with, he might focus on Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and even Donald Trump — all of whom were involved, in one way or another, in the events leading up to the attack.

Almost a year after the insurrection, we have yet to see any clear indicators that such an investigation is underway, raising the alarming possibility that this administration may never bring charges against those ultimately responsible for the attack.

While the Justice Department has filed charges against more than 700 people who participated in the violence, limiting the investigation to these foot soldiers would be a grave mistake: As Joanne Freeman, a Yale historian, wrote this month about the insurrection, “Accountability — the belief that political power holders are responsible for their actions and that blatant violations will be addressed — is the lifeblood of democracy. Without it, there can be no trust in government, and without trust, democratic governments have little power.”

The legal path to investigate the leaders of the coup attempt is clear. The criminal code prohibits inciting an insurrection or “giving aid or comfort” to those who do, as well as conspiracy to forcibly “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The code also makes it a crime to corruptly impede any official proceeding or deprive citizens of their constitutional right to vote.

Based purely on what we know today from news reports and the steady stream of revelations coming from the House select committee investigating the attack, the attorney general has a powerful justification for a robust and forceful investigation into the former president and his inner circle. As White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows was intimately involved in the effort to overturn the election. He traveled to Georgia last December, where he apparently laid the groundwork for the phone call in which the president pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes.” Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio reportedly promoted a scheme to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject duly certified Joe Biden electors. And from their war room at the Willard Hotel, several members of the president’s inner circle hatched the legal strategy to overturn the results of the election.

The president himself sat back for three hours while his chief of staff was barraged with messages from members of Congress and Fox News hosts pleading with him to have Mr. Trump call off the armed mob whose violent passion he had inflamed. That evidence, on its own, may not be enough to convict the former president, but it is certainly enough to require a criminal investigation.

And yet there are no signs, at least in media reports, that the attorney general is building a case against these individuals — no interviews with top administration officials, no reports of attempts to persuade the foot soldiers to turn on the people who incited them to violence. By this point in the Russia investigation, the special counsel Robert Mueller had indicted Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and secured the cooperation of George Papadopoulos after charging him with lying to the F.B.I. The media was reporting that the special counsel’s team had conducted or scheduled interviews with Mr. Trump’s aides Stephen Miller and Mr. Bannon, as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Of course, there is no way to know for sure whether Mr. Garland’s Department of Justice is investigating the leaders of the attack behind closed doors. Justice Department policy does not permit announcing investigations, absent exceptional circumstances. Mr. Garland, unlike his predecessor, plays by the book, keeping quiet about investigations until charges are filed. But the first of the rioters to plead guilty began cooperating with the Justice Department back in April. If prosecutors have been using their cooperation to investigate the top officials and operatives responsible for the siege of the Capitol and our democracy, there would likely be significant confirmation in the media by now.

It is possible that the department is deferring the decision about starting a full-blown investigative effort pending further work by the House select committee. It is even conceivable that the department is waiting for the committee’s final report so that federal prosecutors can review the documents, interviews and recommendations amassed by House investigators and can consider any potential referrals for criminal prosecution.

But such an approach would come at a very high cost. In the prosecution business, interviews need to happen as soon as possible after the events in question, to prevent both forgetfulness and witness coordination to conceal the truth. A comprehensive Department of Justice probe of the leadership is now more urgently needed than ever.

It is also imperative that Mr. Trump be included on the list of those being investigated. The media has widely reported his role in many of the relevant events, and there is no persuasive reason to exclude him.

First, he has no claim to constitutional immunity from prosecution. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has recognized such immunity only for sitting presidents because a criminal trial would prevent them from discharging the duties of their office. Mr. Trump no longer has those duties to discharge.

Nor is exclusion of the former president remotely justified by the precedent President Gerald Ford set in pardoning Richard Nixon to help the country “heal” from Watergate. Even our proud tradition of not mimicking banana republics by allowing political winners to retaliate against losers must give way in the wake of violence perpetrated to thwart the peaceful transition of power. Refusing to at least investigate those who plot to end democracy — and who would remain engaged in efforts to do so — would be beyond foolhardy.

Furthermore, the pending state and local investigations in New York and Atlanta will never be able to provide the kind of accountability the nation clearly needs. The New York case, which revolves around tax fraud, has nothing to do with the attack on our government. The Atlanta district attorney appears to be probing Mr. Trump’s now infamous call to Mr. Raffensperger. But that is just one chapter of the wrongdoing that led up to the attack on the Capitol.

Significantly, even if the Atlanta district attorney is able to convict Mr. Meadows and Mr. Trump for interfering in Georgia’s election, they could still run for office again. Only convicting them for participating in an insurrection would permanently disqualify them from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Some have expressed pessimism that the Department of Justice would be able to convict Mr. Trump. His guilt would ultimately be for a jury to decide, and some jurors might believe he deluded himself into believing his own big lie and thus genuinely thought he was saving, rather than sabotaging, the election. But concerns about a conviction are no reason to refrain from an investigation. If anything, a federal criminal investigation could unearth even more evidence and provide a firmer basis for deciding whether to indict.

To decline from the outset to investigate would be appeasement, pure and simple, and appeasing bullies and wrongdoers only encourages more of the same. Without forceful action to hold the wrongdoers to account, we will likely not resist what some retired generals see as a march to another insurrection in 2024 if Mr. Trump or another demagogue loses.

Throughout his public life, Mr. Garland has been a highly principled public servant focused on doing the right thing. But only by holding the leaders of the Jan. 6 insurrection — all of them — to account can he secure the future and teach the next generation that no one is above the law. If he has not done so already, we implore the attorney general to step up to that task.

 

 

 

Multiple important paragraphs in this detailing why in essence he asks his former student why he hasn't acted yet.  Everyone should take time to read this imho.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Ron Bulman

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

In this large amount of investigation, did the WaPo unearth any communications between Trump Administration officials and the rioters at the Capitol on 1/6?

Any directives from Trumpers to enter the Capitol?

The federal government, which has subpoena powers, and the ability to read all texts, emails and to replay and listen to all cellphones calls, has produced no evidence. 

 

Ben, why in the world do you think they would say if they did? Wapo has to have corroborating information and the DoJ and House Committee would be stupid to say anything publicly. Any information spilled at this point would only help possible targets to synchronize their stories. During the Mueller probe Trump, engaged in 37 different Mutual Defense Agreements with other people of interest including 6 or 7 convicted felons.

People here were trying to say that's "perfectly normal" except in that case one of the possible defendants could not be indicted AND could pardon any behavior of the others. Their attorneys coordinated as much of their stories as possible and dangled pardons when necessary. It was gross, unethical and undoubtedly illegal and felonious.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Ben, why in the world do you think they would say if they did? Wapo has to have corroborating information and the DoJ and House Committee would be stupid to say anything publicly. Any information spilled at this point would only help possible targets to synchronize their stories. During the Mueller probe Trump, engaged in 37 different Mutual Defense Agreements with other people of interest including 6 or 7 convicted felons.

People here were trying to say that's "perfectly normal" except in that case one of the possible defendants could not be indicted AND could pardon any behavior of the others. Their attorneys coordinated as much of their stories as possible and dangled pardons when necessary. It was gross, unethical and undoubtedly illegal and felonious.

Bob N.-

If the WaPo has concrete evidence of Trumpers instigating or coordinating the scrum on 1/6, (by my lights) they should print it immediately, no holds barred. 

Ideally, the WaPo (although they may have forgotten) is not an investigative body aligned with the state or a political party.  It is supposed to be a newspaper. 

That said, the WaPo operates a newspaper under the First Amendment, without any obligations to the state or the public, or to truth or balanced coverage.  

Under the First Amendment the WaPo can print what it wants, excepting libel, or a few other very extreme transgressions (clear and immediate danger to national security, or clearly and actively promoting violence of some sort).  

Perhaps you are right, and the WaPo is suppressing evidence. Well, that has happened before. 

[Bob Ness]

43 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Perhaps you are right, and the WaPo is suppressing evidence. Well, that has happened before. 

I don't know whether they have anything or not. They're not likely to go to print without corroborating sources unless the source itself is beyond reproach. That's all I'm saying. They may not have squat. But their silence isn't meaningful.

The idea the feds had something to do with it is ridiculous also. It's not unusual for the FBI or other LEOs to have sources inside radical domestic groups if those groups are considered dangerous. Par for the course. The hullabaloo about it is flak thrown up to redirect the conversation, a specialty of the current republican wing nuts. Jewish Space Lasers if you will.

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I don't know whether they have anything or not. They're not likely to go to print without corroborating sources unless the source itself is beyond reproach. That's all I'm saying. They may not have squat. But their silence isn't meaningful.

The idea the feds had something to do with it is ridiculous also. It's not unusual for the FBI or other LEOs to have sources inside radical domestic groups if those groups are considered dangerous. Par for the course. The hullabaloo about it is flak thrown up to redirect the conversation, a specialty of the current republican wing nuts. Jewish Space Lasers if you will.

https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/

Another perspective. I would keep an open mind on this one. 

[Steve Thomas]

Trump name officially removed from Vancouver hotel building

By Amy Judd Global News

Posted December 23, 2021

https://globalnews.ca/news/8471179/trump-hotel-vancouver/?utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=%40globalbc

“The Trump name has officially been removed from one of Vancouver’s tallest buildings.

Crews have now removed all the Trump branding on the outside of the 63-storey tower that was known as the Trump International Hotel & Tower Vancouver when it opened in 2017.

It was not a success and the hotel closed in 2020.”

 

This project was suspected to have been financed with money laundered out of Malaysia.

Steve Thomas

[Steve Thomas]

Michigan's GOP Senate majority leader has some bad news for Trump

Sky Palma

December 24, 2021

https://www.rawstory.com/michigan-candidates-endorsed-by-trump/

“Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R) says the influence of an endorsement from former President Donald Trump for candidates who are loyal to him is waning, The Detroit News reports.

"We shall let the results speak for themselves, but I will go on record right now predicting that most of the endorsements will fail," he told Jackson TV this Wednesday.

"We can play this back a year from now and find out what happened," Shirkey added.

As The Detroit News points out, Trump has endorsed several state House and Senate candidates as well as candidates for Michigan attorney general and secretary of state who have echoed his voter fraud conspiracy theories.

"Local clerks, both Republican and Democratic, conducted more than 250 audits of the 2020 election and affirmed President Joe Biden's 154,00 vote victory over Trump in Michigan. Countless court rulings also have upheld Biden's victory in Michigan," The Detroit News reports. "The GOP-led Senate Oversight Committee took more than 28 hours of committee testimony from about 90 people and reviewed thousands of subpoenaed documents before concluding there was no evidence of significant acts of fraud in the 2020 election."

In a statement, Shirkey and then-House Speaker Lee Chatfield said that they had "not yet been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan and, as legislative leaders, we will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan’s electors, just as we have said throughout this election."

Speaking to Jackson TV on Wednesday, Shirkey said there's "a lot of things that happened in that election that need to be tightened up but, in Michigan in particular, President Trump lost. He just simply lost."

Read more at The Detroit News.

 

Steve Thomas

[Joe Bauer]

On 12/24/2021 at 6:39 AM, Steve Thomas said:

Trump name officially removed from Vancouver hotel building

By Amy Judd Global News

Posted December 23, 2021

https://globalnews.ca/news/8471179/trump-hotel-vancouver/?utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=%40globalbc

“The Trump name has officially been removed from one of Vancouver’s tallest buildings.

Crews have now removed all the Trump branding on the outside of the 63-storey tower that was known as the Trump International Hotel & Tower Vancouver when it opened in 2017.

It was not a success and the hotel closed in 2020.”

 

This project was suspected to have been financed with money laundered out of Malaysia.

Steve Thomas

MAGA = "Make America Grift Again."

Trump is a totally corrupt man.

Just ask his former 10 year long, daily closest "Capo" confident/personal consigliere Michael Cohen to what degree.

Degrees that 98% of our MSM won't declare fully and honestly due to their fear of Trump supporter ( half the country ) retribution and backlash.

Trump gets away with it all because he obsessively shouts and promotes the raging angers, fears and frustrations of this massive 150 million strong support base.

He is their spokesperson who is finally getting their anger, frustration and fears message heard.

Black promotion movements, illegal and even legal mass migration into our country, other liberal agendas and #1 beyond this group's full understanding - the super aggressive promotion of our top 5% economic class interests over all others.

Like it has been said over and over for the last 5 years, Trump could run over a protester on Park Avenue and his base will not only ignore this ultimate serious act and pretend it means nothing, they would celebrate it like they are Kyle Rittenhouse's gunning down two protesters with his illegally obtained, illegally driven over state line with no license assault weapon.

Trump's support base is colluding with the most corrupt, amoral and immoral man ever to step foot into the White House in their blind rage zeal to get their anger frustrations out, heard and embraced along with the implementation of a super aggressive, proactive political action agenda to reverse the political power gains of those who they feel threatened by.

A deal with the ***** ?

And history always shows what happens when that course is taken.

Widespread national honoring and celebrating Kyle Rittenhouse as a brave American hero is truly one of the sickest and most shameful actions I have ever seen occur in this country in my lifetime.

Nationwide white frustration, fear and rage is clearly rearing it's ugly head in a fascist violence embracing way. And with the perfect sociopath figure head to incite and promote it all. 

I'm a JFK truth seeker in the most passionate way. For 58 of my 70 years now after seeing strip joint owner Jack Ruby whack Oswald in the Dallas PD building basement on live TV with 70 to 80 armed security packed into that crowd.

Yet, my concern about what is happening to this country under corrupt Trump's authoritarian spell seems even more important in my thoughts right now.

We are a country and society that is experiencing a full blown white frustration, fear and anger mob rage.

Reason and respect for our constitution, the law and even morality are being left behind in the cloud of dust this Trump incited and emboldened rage filled mob posse horse chase has left behind to go get "the bad guys." 

My take anyway.

 

Edited December 26, 2021 by Joe Bauer

[Sandy Larsen]

 

On 12/19/2021 at 5:35 AM, Bill Fite said:

You think those 600 half-wits who occupied the Capitol are the problem?  

No, I don't.  I think there are multiple causes of today's problems.

Expand  

 

On 12/19/2021 at 10:30 AM, Chris Barnard said:

I agree. They are the last of the ills we need to worry about.

It astounds me that some citizens believe this was the day the USA almost lost democracy. Nobody can explain how that rabble was to take over the army, navy, airforce, cia, fbi, national guard, nsa etc etc. It’s a fantasy that is born of fear and propaganda.

 

On January 6 Trump was still Commander in Chief. Who knows what kind of chaos he could have caused had he chosen to invoke his power.

I see 2016-2020 as a practice run and 2024 as the real thing should Trump be re-elected.