I moved to Mastodon.social
Since everyone is going to get all unglued about this, let's look at it carefully.
It tells us everything we knew all along but uses language that will distress people.
In fact, if we compare it to Merrick Garland's statements about how (and why) the DOJ adopted it's strategy, the article simply repeats what Garland said, changing his language.
Basically the article says that "instead of starting at the top, we started at the bottom."
1/
?? Humpleupagus ??
I moved to Mastodon.social
Quietly building up the evidence outside of the public view so as not to appear partisan and further damage democratic institutions does not seem to me to be a bad thing.
The article also makes clear that there were differences of opinion within the DOJ.
That means you will always have someone who thought the boss was doing it wrong.
That means you will always have someone willing to say, "The boss was doing it wrong."
10/
I moved to Mastodon.social
Starting from the bottom and working up allows the prosecutors to test legal theories. Some of these statutes have rarely been used.
They can build their court rulings.
Oh, and by the way, the Post said this:
We have evidence that prosecutors asked questions about Trump's inner circle in early January, 2022: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-jan-6-investigation-garland/2022/01/15/e55a3ca2-7555-11ec-b202-b9b92330d4fa_story.html
11/
I moved to Mastodon.social
As someone in the comments just said, the DOJ used the same tactics that it uses in taking down mafia kingpins.
The evidence against the guy at the top who insulates himself is hard to get.
If they started with Trump the evidence would have been even HARDER to get.
Imagine this scenario:
March 2021: Garland announces an investigation into Trump.
Getting the evidence requires piercing attorney-client privilege and getting prominent Republicans to testify against Trump. . .
8/
I moved to Mastodon.social
. . . it requires search warrants, seizing phones and analyzing the contents.
Then, 2 years later, Trump announces his bid for president and says, "They started 2 years ago and still they don't have anything on me."
Because these investigations can take two years.
Surely the strength of the indictment against Trump in the special master's case shows that you better have the evidence when you file an indictment.
9/
I moved to Mastodon.social
(1) Trump, if president, will appoint a DOJ who will set aside caution and go straight for Biden. So Garland should "fight fire with fire."
(2) Going straight for Trump would have "reassured" Trump critics.
(3) The insurrection was serious enough to risk starting with Trump.
All of these arguments are flawed (for the reasons I talked about in my FAQs.)
One thing the article doesn't mention as a factor . . .
5/
I moved to Mastodon.social
This is the question:
#1: What is the best way to gather the evidence? Is it better to start with the bottom and work up, building the case?
#2: Or is it better to start with the person you think is guilty (even though you don't have the evidence you need to prove it) and search for more evidence?
There are lots of problems with #2.
The first problem should be obvious given the way that Trump is currently using the prosecutions against him to solidify his hold on the GOP . . .
6/
I moved to Mastodon.social
It would be much harder to get witnesses to flip against him.
Another problem is that it smacks a bit of "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
Finally, making sure that an investigation doesn't appear partisan is not a bad thing.
"Appearing partisan" undermines the entire investigation in the public mind.
The DOJ (and prosecutors) has enormous power.
Using that power cautiously isn't a bad thing.
On the other hand, being like Trump is bad.
7/
I moved to Mastodon.social
Rephrased:
"If we launch investigation of Trump himself and we don't have enough evidence to convict, it could take years to get all of the evidence."
What then? An investigation against Trump himself drags out for years, in public.
Instead, work quietly up the ladder and gather the evidence.
Right. This doesn't "appear" partisan.
There are three arguments AGAINST Garland's approach. . .
4/
I moved to Mastodon.social
The FBI immediately had evidence that Trump was being the insurrection, but they worried that it wasn't ENOUGH evidence to open an investigation.
Trump this week said that the moment he is reelected, he will appoint a special counsel to "go after" the Bidens.
See how that looks?
Here is what Merrick Garland said on January 5, one year after the insurrection, when he explained what the department was doing:
2/
I moved to Mastodon.social
Read what Garland alongside the article.
The article offers these reasons for the tactic of starting at the bottom (or the rim) and working upward (or inward):
🔹 A wariness about appearing partisan
🔹institutional caution
🔹clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump
These three things basically say the same thing. I can phrase it another way. . .
3/
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.