Why Merrick Garland Is "Going Slow"...Or Not Going At All
--A Dialogue Between Facebook Friends Addressing Michael Stern's New York Daily News Op-Ed, What AG Garland Might Be Thinking, The Future Of The Rule Of Law, And The Legacy Of FBI/DOJ Corruption---
For those of us who are furious that there appears to be no intention of indicting Trump by Merrick Garland, this New York Daily News article is important background.
The Op-Ed by former Federal prosecutor Michael Stern spells out a variety of problems. (link here)
His argument starts and ends with his sense of certainty that there is virtually zero chance at a conviction as long as there is one Trump supporter on the jury who can block a guilty verdict. He makes the case that a trial of Trump would backfire in many ways, that Trump would walk, and the Justice System itself would be drastically weakened.
Read it for yourself, then take 10 minutes to calm down, then think about it.
[The following are the comments of a Facebook friend who is very knowledgeable and who read the Stern article]
"I can understand the perspective of the writer. Unfortunately, we have failed to prosecute enough senior people who have committed crimes to make a prosecution of Trump look unusual. Why wasn’t Clinton punished for violating security regulations? How about all the Wall Street investment bankers who knew that the securities they were structuring were a house of cards, and could defraud the buyers? It is more plainly apparent that with the widening gap between the wealthiest 2% and the rest of us that the wealthiest will be able to avoid prosecution for crimes that 98% of us would be convicted and jailed for. Even as we seem to be winning the struggle to hold rogue cops and racist vigilantes accountable for their crimes, we cannot point to any similar success with prosecution of the highest classes of politicians and wealthy. This is part of the double standard which fuels chants of ‘lock her up’, and would ignite a furious response by the Trump base. The last US Senator to serve time in prison was convicted for bribery in 1981 (Abscam). That’s more than 40 years ago. Trump’s cabinet had 5 secretaries who were referred to the DoJ for criminal prosecution. DoJ declined to pursue any of these cases. There’s a pretty solid track record of senior politicians avoiding prosecution since Nixon was pardoned. What may have had good intentions (concern with politically-motivated prosecutions) has grown into a de facto free pass on misbehavior."
[And this was my response, unedited]
"_________, these are all valid examples of what has been wrong with the Justice system for many years. It's funny that you mentioned Abscam. The Senator in question was Harrison Wlliams, and he was a friend of ours. We ran the political/public side of his defense, because of all the people targetted and swept up in it, he was the one who was innocent. It was a sting, and the Senator was clearly and visibly heard refusing the bribe offered by the phoney Sheikh on video. He said NO four times. The judge instructed the jury to convict if "he sounded like he might have wanted to accept it".
Good friends of ours at the time from our outfit were literally running his Senate office when all of his aides had quit. Williams was targetted with this sting as were others because of their ties to Labor. It was a political prosecution, one of thousands going back to the old days of J. Edgar, who proved the wise old adage, "Hoover sucks".
Martha and I have some stories to tell about our experiences with DOJ and political prosecutions. The main thing in addition to what you are saying is that the FBI has abused its power since its inception. The FBI is a historically corrupt agency which was used to destroy people for racist, financial and political reasons, especially after WW2 through Hoover up until the end of Nixon. Only after Watergate was there some "sunshine". Hoover had blackmail files on everyone. It's why JFK appointed Bobby as AG, to protect himself from Hoover. And JFK had a lot of blackmail leverage against him.
So, because of that legacy of corruption, abuse of power, and political prosecutions, a whole generation and more of legal/political figures were determined to never see a repeat after Watergate. And they swung in the opposite direction of "hands off" political leaders whenever possible, especially Presidents. (Excepting the GOP/Gingrich use of a Special Prosecutor against Clinton) That practice remained in force until Hoover/Nixon admirer and beneficiary Trump was installed as President by the "Chekist" Vladimir Putin.
I'm not making excuses for Garland, but this is a part of his hesitation. He is trying to undo Trump's damage, while restoring DOJ's post Watergate traditional practices.. Also I addressed his personal history in a two part Blog series, (he having prosecuted McVeigh and Militias) the difficulty in getting a conviction for Sedition.
I must say however that Stern in his article was deliberately vague about the reliance of DOJ on guilty pleas. They need to plea bargain with the lower tier crooks, the "footsoldiers," offering deals of all sorts to turn them, to go up the ladder after the big guys at the top. That has become a cover for corrupt practices, for example the way Rudy Giuliani built his career as a Federal prosecutor going after Gotti in order to elevate the new Bosses of the NYC crime families. He was the agent of Mafia "Regime Change", not a crusader against crime. His devotion to Trump and involvement in Treason shows what he was all along.
So, "going up the ladder" is what they are trying with Trump. But what worked with the Mafia isn't working here, because he is a former President who is head of a cult, and has used pardons or the promise of pardons on his return as President to buy the silence of any who could incriminate him. (Or anyone in the future who breaks the law on his behalf) That is why his first act as President was to fire Comey as FBI Director when he wouldn't swear a loyalty oath.
And finally is that Biden and Garland are in my view concerned that an indictment and conviction will start a Civil War. I believe they are hoping, relying on the public revelations of the Jan 6 Committee to break off and demoralize a big chunk of Trump's base before even thinking about a prosecution. Plus the next elections have become a factor in their calculus of what is possible. Now that the New York DA is crapping out, the Feds may be all that are left to do it. Unfortunately there are so many layers of complication here that it is hard to even know what to do or say.
I still have to write part 2 on Hitler's Munich Putsch trial to show how the whole thing backfired because he used his case to build, consolidate, strengthen the Nazi movement. People want simple answers and immediate results because as a friend of mine said, "thinking is hard, which is why we avoid it". You my friend are one of the exceptions, and for that I thank you. Stay in touch!
[And this was my friend's response to my comment]
"Lance Rosen, thanks for the insight on the Abscam case. You’re right about fearing that a trial would simply become a great platform to double down on victimhood. Especially since TFG can point to a lack of any adverse consequences for other high-profile political leader misconduct. And we know that the instincts of Trump and Putin are to create chaos because their call for law and order is welcomed by too many people who don’t understand the consequences".
None of this is definitive, they are thoughts and insights which stand on their own, subject to correction, criticism, disagreement, and further discussion.
I agree with those who are disdainful of enraged Memes which are more bluster than substance.
