Is Merrick Garland finally ready to indict Donald Trump Over the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol?

The Hill ^ | 03/15/2022 | James D. Zirin

[SeekAndFind]

The media have been quick to rubbish Attorney General Merrick Garland for his failure so far to indict former President Trump over the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. They have tarred him with epithets worthy of Trump himself, such as "Merrick the Mild" and "Merrick the Meek." And a host of former prosecutors and law professors have criticized his inaction, saying that Garland needs to indict Trump to vindicate the rule of law.

We don't know for certain, but it appears that Garland's Justice Department has yet to convene a grand jury to investigate the affair. Were they subpoenaing witnesses before the grand jury, we would have heard something about it from reporters hanging around the court house or from the witnesses' lawyers.

Justice appears to be riding the coattails of the House Select Committee, which has served a flurry of subpoenas, and has already referred two recalcitrant witnesses, Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, to Justice for criminal prosecution only to see Bannon indicted for a misdemeanor and Meadows so far uncharged some fourscore and seven days after the criminal reference.

The case against Meadows is a simple one, and the long delay is vexing. It is possible that Justice is using the time to investigate, but this seems unlikely in light of the Doric simplicity of the facts. Meadows refused to testify. Full stop. It is also possible that Justice had decided not to indict Meadows for contempt of Congress; but then, why the silence? If they had let Meadows know he was off the hook, he would have loudly told the press about how he was exonerated. Finally, it is possible that the government and Meadows are crafting a deal, some testimony in exchange for no indictment. Time will certainly tell us the answer.

[JimRed]

It’s a waste of time to indict someone who has committed no crime.

[jy8z]

It ain’t over till the fat lady sings is a Dan Cook creation. Not Yogi.

[Eagles6]

You’re right. A total POS!

[Equine1952]

Suits me.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

And this guy Sir in was a federal prosecutor? Sounds more like a leftist anti-Trump psychopath. Be glad he’s no longer in that position or we’d all be in a concentration camp for “thought crimes”, usually known as dreams.

[JustaTech]

...just in time for the 2024 election...

They face electoral disaster in just a few months. They might try a Trump indictment this year as a means of energizing their base for the mid-terms.

[DoughtyOne]

We have to read the bad with the good. It’s out there. Can’t hide our head in
the sand..

[Badboo]

They will not let Trump have a second term.

[nathanbedford]

Thank you for posting this.

By posting this you have rendered us a service. You bring us up to date of the state of play. You reveal the possible avenues of persecution of the president and his supporters in the wake of the January 6 protest. You give us the opportunity to see the shallowness of the allegations.

For those of us who believe our fellow conservatives are intelligent enough to read the news and draw our own conclusions and whose First Amendment liberties trump the urges of our conservative colleagues to censor us, bravo!

[ronnie raygun]

we need a hangin judge for these criminals in control

[MrRelevant]

And as usual it will be an overreach and these folks will embarrass themselves yet again. Haven’t they figured out that what doesn’t kill Trump only makes him stronger.

[americas.best.days...]

Stringing along the base, hoping to keep them fired up and engaged. In fairness, we all kept waiting... waiting...waiting for Trump do declassify info, Durham reports, our AG action, ANY action! Lol.

[Erik Latranyi]

We have hit Third World status where we prosecute political opponents.

[Erik Latranyi]

Yes, they will indict Trump if he actually announced he will run in 2024.

Then they can say he is “charged” with sedition, which makes him ineligible to be on the ballot.

It will give them a year plus to smear this into the minds of every voter.

[Elsie]

The case against Meadows is a simple one, and the long delay is vexing.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/right-to-a-speedy-trial/

[Elsie]

The Nuremberg trials, which lasted for several years, were not flawless. Serious jurists and public officials asked whether “victors’ justice” could be true justice, while others questioned the rectitude of indicting men for crimes that were not defined statutorily at the time they were committed.

That Soviet hack Andrey Vishinsky was a prosecutor at the first Nuremberg trial was nothing less than grotesque; Vishinsky had first come to international attention as a prosecutor in Stalin’s infamous Purge Trials, in which he urged the “court” to deal with his former Bolshevik comrades in these terms:

“Shoot these rabid dogs. . . . Let’s put an end once and for all to these miserable hybrids of foxes and pigs, these stinking corpses . . .”

[DoodleDawg]

Maybe, but he won’t.

[glimmerman70]

What happens if they try and the truth comes out. And people find out pelosi wasted millions in tax payers money on another bogus committee. It was a set up and she declined to turn over messages and emails and things she is asking from republicans. Whistleblowers are coming forward and the way they have arrested people and are holding them and treating them for no reason is unreal. Will there ever be a punishment for them doing this.

[SisterK]

yeah right
who’s gonna take him out?