Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SoonerPride

(12,286 posts)
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 02:00 PM Jun 2022

And people wonder why we're skeptical about DOJ prosecuting trump et al. Ask James Clyburn:

Rep. Jim Clyburn on CNN: "People are concerned that the Department of Justice may have too many carryovers from the last administration and [is] not moving in order to do what's needed to protect this democracy."




?s=20&t=dp63tPh2bM_aXcmIGAHZkg
78 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
And people wonder why we're skeptical about DOJ prosecuting trump et al. Ask James Clyburn: (Original Post) SoonerPride Jun 2022 OP
Truth onecaliberal Jun 2022 #1
There it is. BlackSkimmer Jun 2022 #2
I'm not sure what that means. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #3
The DOJ's mission statement is not to "protect democracy." SoonerPride Jun 2022 #5
Not really an answer to my question. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #6
Because it is up to their discretion whether to prosecute or not. W_HAMILTON Jun 2022 #8
Merrick Garland makes such decisions, not Trump holdovers. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #9
Merrick Garland relies on the prosecutors working the individual cases. W_HAMILTON Jun 2022 #12
If you can't answer the question I asked, please don't respond. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #15
You've had the question answered for you multiple times now. W_HAMILTON Jun 2022 #22
I'm not naive at all. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #24
I recognize your frustration. Magoo48 Jun 2022 #43
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #39
Why wouldn't the tweet be accurate? It was a quote taken from his appearance on CNN. SoonerPride Jun 2022 #16
Ummmmm, not really. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #17
Clyburn's reasoning is that the DOJ has too many right wingers in it SoonerPride Jun 2022 #18
And does that hold up against the reports that most of the Trump era attorneys at DOJ are gone Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #19
Yes. It sure does. SoonerPride Jun 2022 #20
Which isn't an answer to a question. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #40
None of the Trump era holdovers have authority over the J6 investigations/prosecutions Fiendish Thingy Jun 2022 #50
Police don't have to protect people. DOJ doesn't have to defend democracy. JanMichael Jun 2022 #28
Look at history inthewind21 Jun 2022 #4
Excellent reality check. un-redacted Mueller report??? Evolve Dammit Jun 2022 #29
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #35
+2 nt Grasswire2 Jun 2022 #67
+1 leftstreet Jun 2022 #66
This isn't a case of hunkering down and trying to survive hard times. Solly Mack Jun 2022 #7
Yes indeed Evolve Dammit Jun 2022 #33
I'm anxious like all the rest. EndlessWire Jun 2022 #10
Yup. Joinfortmill Jun 2022 #36
Grand Juries return indictments on a simple-majority-rule basis. Justice matters. Jun 2022 #51
Barr didn't do shit when he was AG. milestogo Jun 2022 #11
So for a prosecution this big and this important Garland can't figure out if someone under him jalan48 Jun 2022 #13
ahhh... Our very own 'deep state' conspiracy... Ohio Joe Jun 2022 #14
Oh yah we are at each other because pwb Jun 2022 #27
They should have cleaned house and removed the Trump trash after inauguration dalton99a Jun 2022 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #41
Clyburns statement means nothing. fightforfreedom Jun 2022 #25
Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself. SoonerPride Jun 2022 #26
Clyburn presented no evidence in that statement. fightforfreedom Jun 2022 #31
Even if Rep. Cluburn presented evidence you would dismiss it anyway. SoonerPride Jun 2022 #37
Brilliant post. fightforfreedom Jun 2022 #42
It's interesting that Clyburn's lack of evidence is seen as fatal to his claims Orrex Jun 2022 #74
I think it means what it says. Doesn't appear too complicated. However... Joinfortmill Jun 2022 #32
Garland inherited a snake pit. Looking at you Bill 'nothing to see here/ Barr. Joinfortmill Jun 2022 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #34
Does anyone here have solid information about how many Trump hold-over attorneys Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #38
They don't have to have been appointed by trump/Barr to be a right winger SoonerPride Jun 2022 #44
So literally no answer to the question asked. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #53
No. Snarky comments and false insinuations of ulterior motives Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #55
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #57
"The approach?" Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #59
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #60
I thought this was a discussion forum Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #61
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #62
Apparently not. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #63
No, but according to the OP they are going to block the investigation into Trump. fightforfreedom Jun 2022 #46
I highly commend you and others for engaging the doom and gloom crowd here, MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2022 #64
This would all go away if we had any indication that DOJ is doing anything about Trump Orrex Jun 2022 #45
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #47
I know, Trump and his inner circle should have been indicted the moment Garland took office. fightforfreedom Jun 2022 #49
Prosecutors who follow the rule of law build cases before they go indicting people. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #52
I know, I was being sarcastic. fightforfreedom Jun 2022 #54
Sorry that I misinterpreted your post. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #56
No problem. fightforfreedom Jun 2022 #58
Interpreting someone else's comments without the full information is always fraught with the Lonestarblue Jun 2022 #71
Thank you for the substantive reply. Just A Box Of Rain Jun 2022 #72
Ha!!! MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2022 #65
Yeah, except that it's entirely nonsensical. Orrex Jun 2022 #69
Perhaps you can show me any place on the entire internet where I've made that assertion? Orrex Jun 2022 #68
More Concerned With Jury Composition Colbert Jun 2022 #70
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #75
The Big Difference Colbert Jun 2022 #77
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #78
It's not an either or. Prosecuting bad actors shows where the system weaknesses are meadowlander Jun 2022 #73
IMO DOJ has never been interested in imprisoning rich white politically-connected people pecosbob Jun 2022 #76
 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
3. I'm not sure what that means.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 02:44 PM
Jun 2022

Certainly the DOJ could have trusted teams on the case, right?

I'm not certain how one protects democracy by not moving forward?

I have nothing but the highest respect for James Clyburn, but I'm not understanding the reasoning here.

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
6. Not really an answer to my question.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 02:49 PM
Jun 2022

The DOJ's job is to prosecute crimes.

If crimes have been committed, how does the existence of "holdovers" have any bearing on whether TFG is prosecuted (or not)?

W_HAMILTON

(7,751 posts)
8. Because it is up to their discretion whether to prosecute or not.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:15 PM
Jun 2022

And if you think a Trump supporter will gladly prosecute other Trump supporting criminals, well, need anyone remind you of how these assholes treated Hillary and her emails back in the day? While at the same time withholding information on the existence of an investigation into Trump and his Russian ties?

Garland should have cleaned house, and if he was not up for the task, Biden should have found someone else who was.

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
9. Merrick Garland makes such decisions, not Trump holdovers.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:23 PM
Jun 2022

The "reminders" about how HRC may have been treated are simply not germane to the discussion at hand.

I asked about James Clyburn's reasoning here, which I'm failing to understand.

I feel like the Republic was spared from a terrible fate by the actions of Rep. Clyburn--and he has my undying gratitude for that--but if this Tweet is accurate (probably not a good assumption to make) I'd like to understand where he's coming from.

W_HAMILTON

(7,751 posts)
12. Merrick Garland relies on the prosecutors working the individual cases.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:37 PM
Jun 2022

it's not like Garland knows the ins and outs of every single case. It would be impossible. And if you trust Trump lackies to uphold the law fairly, you must have missed the past half-decade of them showing that they absolutely will not do so.

And how the same departments that we are now relying on to prosecute Trump-supporting criminals, how poorly they treated Hillary is very much germane to this discussion since you seem naive enough to think that what Clyburn and others like myself have told you is very much something to worry about. If they would be openly and flagrantly biased against Hillary and pull that shit they did in 2016, why in god's green Earth do you think they suddenly found their morals now when it comes to prosecuting Trump supporters? The same guy they shit on Hillary for to help win the election in 2016 to begin with?

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
15. If you can't answer the question I asked, please don't respond.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:44 PM
Jun 2022

I don't need the insults or the "education."

Trumpists don't run the DOJ. Merrick Garland is in charge.

I'm interested in James Clyburn's reasoning here (assuming the Tweet accurately reflects his position).

Good grief.

W_HAMILTON

(7,751 posts)
22. You've had the question answered for you multiple times now.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:02 PM
Jun 2022

If you refuse to accept the answer, just say that rather than playing naive in post after post.

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
24. I'm not naive at all.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:06 PM
Jun 2022

You just keep going with the baseless insults.

The DOJ is not dominated by Trumpists. Merrick Garland is in charge.



Magoo48

(4,630 posts)
43. I recognize your frustration.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:32 PM
Jun 2022

Garland decides. If he assigns someone to a task and they refuse to do that task responsibly, then he fires them and assigns the task to someone who will do it responsibly. Is this not the case? If not, then Garland is the problem and he needs to be fired and replaced with someone who will do the will of the majority.

Response to W_HAMILTON (Reply #22)

SoonerPride

(12,286 posts)
16. Why wouldn't the tweet be accurate? It was a quote taken from his appearance on CNN.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:45 PM
Jun 2022

Are you saying Mr. Clyburn didn't actually say it?

That's, ummmmmm, an interesting take.

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
17. Ummmmm, not really.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:49 PM
Jun 2022

I asked what Rep. Clyburns reasoning is here.

No one seems to want to try to flesh it out and I don't understand it myself.

I guess bickering and trying to divine ill-intent is earlier than reasoned discussions?

SoonerPride

(12,286 posts)
18. Clyburn's reasoning is that the DOJ has too many right wingers in it
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:50 PM
Jun 2022

and they are actively quashing pursuit of charges or slow walking the process so as to run out the clock.

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
19. And does that hold up against the reports that most of the Trump era attorneys at DOJ are gone
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:53 PM
Jun 2022

and that Merrick Garland is the current AG?





SoonerPride

(12,286 posts)
20. Yes. It sure does.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:55 PM
Jun 2022

Rep. Clyburn is much closer to the situation than you or I and if he voicing this concern it is justified.

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
21. Which isn't an answer to a question.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:58 PM
Jun 2022

The DOJ is not in the hands of Trumpists.

So I'm baffled by the argument, even when it is being made by a person I deeply admire.

Response to SoonerPride (Reply #18)

Fiendish Thingy

(15,051 posts)
50. None of the Trump era holdovers have authority over the J6 investigations/prosecutions
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:40 PM
Jun 2022

If you can name one, feel free to post it.

None of the top DOJ leadership are Trump era holdovers (Wray at FBI doesn’t count), and it was widely reported that investigators/prosecutors with special skills and expertise have been brought in from outside the DOJ for the J6 team. The US attorney for DC, Matthew Graves, is not a Trump lackey either, and he has primary authority over most of the investigations, IIRC.

JanMichael

(24,818 posts)
28. Police don't have to protect people. DOJ doesn't have to defend democracy.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:18 PM
Jun 2022

Why bother with civilization? At least firefighters put out fires and doctors have the Hippocratic oath. Paramedics will try to get your heart pumping and librarians will help you find a book I suppose.

 

inthewind21

(4,616 posts)
4. Look at history
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 02:44 PM
Jun 2022

Name me one time the DOJ held high officials accountable. Nixon was pardoned. They cut a sweet deal with Epstein. W walked on war crimes. Iran contra snagged a few underlings but no one at the top. The S&L scandals. And the list goes on. "holdovers" are the least of the problems with DOJ.

Response to Evolve Dammit (Reply #29)

Solly Mack

(90,705 posts)
7. This isn't a case of hunkering down and trying to survive hard times.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:12 PM
Jun 2022

Thinking you can simply weather authoritarian oppression until the good times come back around in however many years it takes for that to happen is some truly delusional thinking.

This isn't a case of two parties having differing views on how to achieve a shared goal for America.

There are no shared goals for America with people who would impose theocratic/authoritarian laws.

They tried to overthrow the government. They committed sedition. They engaged in insurrection. They attempted a coup - one that is still ongoing, as republican controlled states work to further those aims.

They are working overtime to suppress the vote and control election outcomes.

They are attacking black and brown people, women, and LGBT people both by eroding their rights and through actual physical assaults and murder.

They are creating laws based on their twisted religious beliefs.

They are denying and erasing history to boost the doctrine of white supremacy.

Free-market and don't regulate anything but the uterus Republicans are so determined to impose authoritarian rule they are even attacking corporations for not bowing down to their twisted thinking.

So, sure, go ahead, don't indict, don't prosecute, don't imprison - but also don't tell me how outraged/shocked/surprised/concerned you are by what happens next.

(And I'm not saying they won't - I'm saying the price for not doing so is deadly.)



















EndlessWire

(6,220 posts)
10. I'm anxious like all the rest.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:26 PM
Jun 2022

I have high doubts about a trial of the ex POTUS. We have a precedent of pardon.

But, I'm starting to think that he could get indicted. That's assuming that some Grand Jury agrees and is nonpartisan. I would like them to allow him to float away on some yacht parked down in that particular marina, just waiting for him. Just never let him ever dock at one of our ports again.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to see a perp walk. But, that should include all those guys who participated in the Georgia phone call, and some others. I don't think that we would have a problem trying them all for sedition.

I am encouraged because Garland took the time to announce that he is watching the J6 hearings. He seldom speaks, but did say that. The J6 hearings are not adversarial and can't be used for that, but they can be used by Garland. The testimonials are all under oath.

Justice matters.

(6,807 posts)
51. Grand Juries return indictments on a simple-majority-rule basis.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:41 PM
Jun 2022

That means half of the Grand Jurees plus one.

I doubt DC GJs would be partisan. They go through strict selection stages.

jalan48

(13,751 posts)
13. So for a prosecution this big and this important Garland can't figure out if someone under him
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:41 PM
Jun 2022

is undermining an investigation of Trump? This is THE investigation of the century.

Ohio Joe

(21,533 posts)
14. ahhh... Our very own 'deep state' conspiracy...
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 03:42 PM
Jun 2022

How nice

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/biden-s-justice-department-ask-nearly-all-trump-era-u-n1257100

The two that were allowed to stay, were limited to avoid giving repugs the opportunity to cry 'cover up'. A smart move.

pwb

(11,139 posts)
27. Oh yah we are at each other because
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:14 PM
Jun 2022

some people say? We caught it from the pukes. There is no vaccine. Reading and listening is the only cure.

Response to dalton99a (Reply #23)

 

fightforfreedom

(4,913 posts)
25. Clyburns statement means nothing.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:12 PM
Jun 2022

He says people are concerned, what people? He doesn't say he is concerned. He said, MAY have too many carryovers. He said, not doing what is needed to protect democracy. What does he mean by what is needed? It may be his way of putting pressure on the DOJ.

If he has serious concerns about the DOJ he should be more specific. Don't ya think.

SoonerPride

(12,286 posts)
26. Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:13 PM
Jun 2022

I will take Rep Clyburn's judgment over yours, to be honest.

But please do go on.

 

fightforfreedom

(4,913 posts)
31. Clyburn presented no evidence in that statement.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:23 PM
Jun 2022

You are the one making something out of nothing. If he has evidence the investigation is being blocked by Trump holdovers, he should present his evidence to The American people. When people say things like, some people and may have, that sounds more like an opinion, not a statement of fact.

Orrex

(62,995 posts)
74. It's interesting that Clyburn's lack of evidence is seen as fatal to his claims
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 08:50 PM
Jun 2022

While the DOJ cheerleaders among us assert as proof of progress the lack of any evidence that DOJ is doing anything at all.

To recap:

Clyburn presents no evidence, so we must disregard his statement.

and

There is no evidence that DOJ is acting against Trump, so we must not suggest that DOJ is not acting against Trump.



Got it.

Response to SoonerPride (Original post)

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
38. Does anyone here have solid information about how many Trump hold-over attorneys
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:27 PM
Jun 2022

work for the DOJ in Washington?

SoonerPride

(12,286 posts)
44. They don't have to have been appointed by trump/Barr to be a right winger
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:33 PM
Jun 2022

Unless Garland literally fired everyone at DOJ and started over with a clean slate then the entire DOJ is an amalgamation of prior staff hiring.

Response to Just A Box Of Rain (Reply #48)

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
55. No. Snarky comments and false insinuations of ulterior motives
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:45 PM
Jun 2022

instead of good faith explanations about what Rep. Clyburn's reasoning might be around this comment.

So sorry if I'm attempting to understand where a man I respect is coming from on this issue.

Is that too much to ask for?

Response to Just A Box Of Rain (Reply #55)

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
59. "The approach?"
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:52 PM
Jun 2022

I have a sincere question that I don't understand with respect to James Clyburn's reasoning here.

Since I have very great respect for the man I hope to gain further insight into his thinking.

If that's unreasonable, shoot me.

Response to Just A Box Of Rain (Reply #59)

Response to Just A Box Of Rain (Reply #61)

 

fightforfreedom

(4,913 posts)
46. No, but according to the OP they are going to block the investigation into Trump.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:35 PM
Jun 2022

The committee might as well cancel the rest of the hearings and Garland should down all the investigations into Jan 6th. What's the point if Trump hold overs are going to block everything.

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,004 posts)
64. I highly commend you and others for engaging the doom and gloom crowd here,
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 05:07 PM
Jun 2022

I've given up engaging them. it's, IMO, useless and I've got far better things to do.

Orrex

(62,995 posts)
45. This would all go away if we had any indication that DOJ is doing anything about Trump
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 04:33 PM
Jun 2022

The fact that Trump isn't lawyering up with a media campaign specifically attacking the DOJ is a pretty solid indication that he's not worried about any imminent DOJ action against him, so...

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to be concerned that DOJ is doing little or nothing, regardless of what the scolding cheerleaders among us have to say on the matter.

Response to Orrex (Reply #45)

Lonestarblue

(9,672 posts)
71. Interpreting someone else's comments without the full information is always fraught with the
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 06:00 PM
Jun 2022

possibility of misinterpretation. Like you, I don’t know what exactly Rep. Clyburn was hinting at, but I have made several comments here about the perceived slowness of the investigation. I have believed from the beginning that Garland should have appointed a Special Prosecutor to immediately investigate January 6 and the attempts by anyone to instigate the efforts to prevent Biden from taking office. That he didn’t and that we are sitting here a year and a half later does not inspire confidence that anything is being done other than prosecuting the people who were on video violently assaulting those trying to protect the Capitol and the building itself. Indeed, the suspicion is that Garland did not want to investigate the higher ups because of potential political fallout and only started to do so because of the revelations of the January 6 Committee. If so, that means many more months of investigation and testimony before anything will happen, at which point we could be running into a presidential election with Donald Trump as a candidate.

We now know that there is a grand jury because Peter Navarro was summoned to appear at the end of May, but he is the only one known to have been subpoenaed so far. One person who was not even the closest one to Trump. We do not know whether people much closer to Trump have also been summoned, such as Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pence, Ginni Thomas, White House aides, anyone who was regularly in the White House to January 6. That sort of information tends to leak because people talk, and it is Navarro who released his summons to the news media. Navarro refused to appear so his trial is not scheduled until several months from now. And there’s DOJ’s refusal to hold Mark Meadows in contempt for refusing to cooperate with the January 6 Committee, thus stymying part of its investigation.

There are so many questions to which we have no answers, such as who provided the inside information about which windows were vulnerable. We know some investigations are going on, and
I’m sure Rep. Clyburn knows far more about what is happening than I do, but I interpret his remarks to mean that the DOJ is moving at a snail’s pace and he wants to see some public progress. He’s questioning whether the DOJ has the right people on the job. Again, a Special Prosecutor would have been able to choose people outside the DOJ and thus outside the Trump orbit to do this investigation. That he didn’t lends credence to the suspicion that people inside the DOJ are slow walking the investigation because certainly all the Trump/Barr hires were not fired. Most of the US Attorneys were asked to resign, but most of the US Attorneys would have nothing to do with this investigation. I have long believed that members of the FBI are primarily Republican—again, just speculation on my part based on past actions like those of the NY FBI that fed negative information to Rudy about Clinton’s emails—but that is not evidence that they are hampering the investigation.

The apparent lack of progress by the DOJ causes a great deal of concern for many people, and I suspect Rep. Clyburn may simply be voicing his concern publicly because he too is frustrated and hopes to light a fire under Garland. Garland is certainly not a politician, but he is a top official in the Biden administration and the lack of any obvious progress in holding anyone other than the foot soldiers accountable for the very serious crime of insurrection can lead many people, myself included, to wonder whether Garland has the guts to investigate and possibly indict a former president. Garland’s lack of any indictments of the planners of January 6 has allowed Republicans the bullhorn for 18 months with no pushback other than various Democrats denying that the election was stolen. That, too, must gall Rep. Clyburn because he knows the likelihood of losses in the midterms and wants to see some progress before then. And then we have a presidential election where Trump could be the Republican candidate. Too many people fear that he will get a pass simply because it’s too difficult to prosecute a former president.

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
72. Thank you for the substantive reply.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 06:17 PM
Jun 2022

I too wonder if--given the nature of the investigation--whether naming a Special Prosecutor in the case wouldn't have been wise. Garland would be criticised either way, but I'd have leaned that way.

If, as you suggest (and what I have believed with admittedly little evidence to back it) most of the US Attorneys who were named by Trump are now gone, it still leaves me curious about Rep. Clyburn's comments here suggesting a slow-walking of the case.

If Clyburn is feeling frustrated by the lack of progress and how that might affect the midterms, he's not alone. I could not respect Jim Clyburn more. That's why I wanted to understand where he's coming from here.

Balanced against these frustrations, Garland has a big job to do and it is one he needs to get right. Prosecuting a former president will be hard. I'm convinced it is also something that needs to happen for the good of the Republic. A nation of laws, and all that.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Thank you again for your informative post.



Orrex

(62,995 posts)
69. Yeah, except that it's entirely nonsensical.
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 05:36 PM
Jun 2022

Well, not entirely. The subject line was pretty solid. After that? Not so much.

 

Colbert

(46 posts)
70. More Concerned With Jury Composition
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 05:38 PM
Jun 2022

Clyburn seems concerned about carryovers from the previous administration holding the prosecution up. Really, that's the concern? If I were the prosecutor I'd be more concerned about getting a conviction, otherwise why bother? All is takes is one juror holding out to keep a conviction from happening. If you have a truly representative jury, 47% of the jurors will be Trump supporters (who are idealistically rabid). And you might be thinking, "Well, DC is really anti-Trump (he only got 5.4% of the vote in 2020)" - but that's the same rationale any competent defense lawyer would use for a change of venue. Do you really need, or want, a show trial ending in a hung jury?

Response to Colbert (Reply #70)

 

Colbert

(46 posts)
77. The Big Difference
Tue Jun 21, 2022, 09:53 PM
Jun 2022

Realistically and pragmatically, there's a very big difference. The average juror doesn't recognize these names of the five that have been through jury trials:
Thomas Webster
Guy Reffitt
Thomas Robertson
Dustin Thompson
Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli
... all of whom were convicted on "lesser charges" (I hate putting it that way, but they're far short of sedition or insurrection) based on indisputable video/photo evidence of violent acts committed on the Capitol grounds, backed by eye witness testimony. They're nobodies without thousands, much less millions, of dollars to defend themselves in court.

Whereas, Donald Trump is someone who's name only the most clueless individuals would fail to recognize. He wasn't on the Capitol grounds on January 6th. He's beloved by his supporters, and if there's a single Trump supporter on the jury, it would take incontrovertible evidence that Trump directly ordered an overthrow of the government (and I have serious doubts that a Trump supporter would convict even under those circumstances). Plus Trump has almost a quarter billion dollars of fundraising to spend on his defense (more will come pouring in if he's charged).

I'm well aware that the latest polling shows that 3 in 5 Americans think he should be charged. The question is, "How are you planning to keep the other 2 in 5 off the jury?" ... and failing to convict only makes his influence stronger.

That's not to say he couldn't be tried on some lesser charge - like fundraising in bad faith ... but I don't see him ever being convicted of sedition/insurrection by a jury.

Response to Colbert (Reply #77)

meadowlander

(4,337 posts)
73. It's not an either or. Prosecuting bad actors shows where the system weaknesses are
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 06:23 PM
Jun 2022

and removes them, at least temporarily from the equation.

What's needed to protect this democracy is the prosecute the people who attacked it.

pecosbob

(7,431 posts)
76. IMO DOJ has never been interested in imprisoning rich white politically-connected people
Mon Jun 20, 2022, 10:57 PM
Jun 2022

Gotta call 'em like I see 'em. Their record shows it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»And people wonder why we'...