Merrick Garland Agreed He Would Go after January 6 Kingpins, if Evidence Merits

There continue to be questions about how we’ll ever get accountability for January 6 without a January 6 commission to do that work.

In an exchange yesterday, for example, Bart Gellman asked what questions we’d most want a January 6 commission to answer, and I responded, “Why there’s such a broad belief that a criminal investigation won’t answer those questions.” In response, NYT’s Alan Feuer speculated that,

DOJ’s 500ish criminal cases will not ultimately touch the potential liability in 1/6 of political figures including but not restricted to the former president.

This prosecution writ large is (speculation alert) likely to be restricted to verifiable perpetrators, not possible instigators. The range of crimes (s.a.) are likely to include the known ambit: obstruction, assault, civil disorder, trespass etc. Sedition may not be charged.

Things can change. Evidence can emerge. But after five months, it seems unlikely (speculation alert) that DOJ is assuming the responsibility for searching out root causes as opposed to building demonstrably provable cases.

I think Feuer’s is a fair observation, though I disagree that holding “instigators” accountable is at all the same as “searching out root causes.”

In my opinion, it is way too premature to judge where a complex investigation will lead after only five months, which is an infancy in terms of such things (it took almost exactly a year from the time that FBI got the tip about George Papadopoulos until he was arrested, the first arrest of the Mueller investigation, which itself was lightning fast). And while it is true that the current universe of charges includes those crimes Feuer lays out — obstruction, assault, civil disorder, trespass — even that list leaves out conspiracy. The boilerplate description DOJ uses to describe the complexity of the investigation notes that such a list (which includes conspiracy) is non-exclusive.

The spectrum of crimes charged and under investigation in connection with the Capitol Attack includes (but is not limited to) trespass, engaging in disruptive or violent conduct in the Capitol or on Capitol grounds, destruction of government property, theft of government property, assaults on federal and local police officers, firearms offenses, civil disorder, obstruction of an official proceeding, possession and use of destructive devices, and conspiracy.

Importantly, if we believe Merrick Garland’s response to a Sheldon Whitehouse question in his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General is committed to let the investigation proceed wherever the evidence leads, specifically to include “funders, organizers, ring leaders” and even any kingpins to this insurrection.

Whitehouse: With respect to January 6, I’d like to make sure that you are willing to look upstream from the actual occupants who assaulted the building, in the same way that in a drug case, you would look upstream from the street dealers to try to find the kingpins, and that you will not rule out investigation of funders, organizers, ring leaders, or aiders and abettors who were not present in the Capitol on January 6. Fair question?

Garland: Fair question. And again, your law enforcement experience is the same as mine, investigations — investigations, you know, I began as a line Assistant US Attorney and was a supervisor, we begin with the people on the ground and we work our way up to those who were involved and further involved. And we will pursue these leads wherever they take us. That’s the job of a prosecution.

That’s why I wrote these three posts:

Together, those posts argue that if any kingpins will be held accountable, it will be through a conspiracy prosecution. I note that one of the conspiracies has already reached back to the Willard Hotel, where Roger Stone was staying and where the call patterns suggest possible consultation with people present at the hotel. And I suggest that not only will there will be further conspiracies (I’m pretty confident about that prediction) but there may be more complex prosecutions tied to people who were involved in the rallies rather than the riot or who were discussed explicitly with Rudy Giuliani (I’m far less confident about that possibility).

That doesn’t mean Donald Trump, or even Roger Stone or Rudy Giuliani, are going to prison. It’s not clear what kind of evidence is out there. It’s not clear how loyal these famously paranoid people will be without the constant dangle of pardons that Trump used to buy silence during the Mueller investigation.

But even in what we’ve seen, we’ve seen a focus on who paid for things (such as the payment to Joshua James’ wife tied to “protecting” Roger Stone), who organized buses (there are at least four defendants involved with such things) or otherwise funded transportation, as well as media promotion both before and media communications while at the insurrection worked. Thus far, Charles Donohoe is the primary person who was charged in an organizational role but who didn’t enter the Capitol, but the Proud Boys and Oath Keeper conspiracies seem pretty focused on Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes (I’m not sure how useful Rhodes would be to map out the larger conspiracy).

And that’s just what we’ve seen. We recently learned that the President’s own lawyer still doesn’t know that the investigation of Michael Cohen had started eight months before he got involved in an effort to dangle pardons, long after Mueller had already obtained Cohen’s Trump organization emails. We have no idea whose lives the FBI are unpacking with warrants that are not showing up in arrest affidavits. Certainly, the FBI and DOJ are getting far more thoughtful about what gets shared publicly when.

My point is assuredly not to promise that Roger Stone and Rudy Giuliani will go to prison. But the question of the possible scope of the January 6 investigation, as distinct from the likely one, is dictated primarily by the structure of the conspiracy uniting people who legitimately entered into an agreement with each other to achieve the goal that every currently charged conspiracy shares: to obstruct the certification of the vote count on January 6. If Trump’s associates entered into an agreement with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, if there’s evidence of them doing so, and if marginally credible witnesses are willing to trade cooperation for less time in prison, then some kind of accountability is possible, albeit still highly unlikely.

That probably does rule out some accountability, even assuming a best case scenario. For example, with a few possible exceptions, I see no way that the conduct of members of Congress would get beyond Speech and Debate protections. Similarly, I don’t see how any conspiracy investigation would work its way up from the crimes at the Capitol to incorporate anyone at DOD stalling the National Guard response.

But as I noted to Gellman, I want to know the basis for certainty about what the investigation might discover. Because the investigation is already just two degrees of separation from Donald Trump via both Rudy and Stone, and that’s just what we can see looking at what prosecutors have been willing to share.

61 replies
  1. Surfer2099 says:

    @Bmaz or @Marcy,

    i had read an article that since Biden was a party to the election and in office that one solution to getting to the bottom of Jan 6 was to have a special prosecutor appointed instead of a congressional commission.

    Thoughts on that?

    • emptywheel says:

      Well, huh. This comment is on an article laying out that the Attorney General has committed to letting the EXISTING investigation lead wherever the evidence takes it. What makes you think that a Special Prosecutor would have access to any evidence that the existing investigation does not?

      • Surfer2099 says:

        The question isn’t about access, but rather about conflict of interest and how the evidence will be treated or dislosed. Do you feel it is appropriate for a person who was a party to the insurrection to have their DOJ investigating their own dispute or crime?

        Yes, we all know that the DOJ would NEVER be used in such a partisan manner, but sometimes crimes are excused by authorities because the suspect was a former president. The DOJ is arleady defending Trump in the rape case being brought against him.

        I fear this DOJ will do all it can to minimize leadership roles in the insurrection in the name of bipartisanship. And that direction is coming from the top.

        • Bruce says:

          Wow. That’s really a bad take on the situation.
          There’s no conflict of interest because no one in the Biden administration is being investigated for taking part in an insurrection that tried to keep the Biden administration from coming into existence.
          There isn’t going to be a Special Counsel. One is not needed.

          [Welcome to emptywheel. Please use a more differentiated username when you comment next as we have several community members named ” Bruce” or a variant. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  2. Raven Eye says:

    “That probably does rule out some accountability, even assuming a best case scenario. For example, with a few possible exceptions, I see no way that the conduct of members of Congress would get beyond Speech and Debate protections.”

    Am I going too far afield to ponder that this may be one of the reasons that some Members of Congress were so set against the commission? Once convened, there is no assurance as to where a commission might go. Certain findings, intentional or coincidental, would be just as dangerous to individual Members from a political standpoint as anything that could have come out of a criminal investigation (that lead nowhere because of Speech and Debate protections). The 9/11 Commission wasn’t going to find active links between those terrorists and members of Congress, which makes direct comparison between the two commissions difficult in that one area.

    And if I’m allowed a further stretch, are some folks on the Hill concerned about possible communications with 1/6 actors which may be stored away in official email archives? Even if a Member has a really trusted a staffer look into that, would a search of those email archives be logged/flagged by the system? What will investigators and prosecutors do if, whilst searching 1/6 actor emails, they do find substantive communications with Members and/or staff? Very thin ice for investigators?

    • emptywheel says:

      The first part of this, no, that may be the case.

      If the comms with insurrectionists are on official archives, then at least one copy will be in the insurrectionist mailbox.

  3. Randy Baker says:

    My understanding of aiding and abetting is that conduct executed with the purpose facilitating the commission of a crime by another, and which in fact facilitates that other’s commission of a crime is guilty of aiding and abetting that crime. Seems to me anyone who acted to slow deployment of the national guard to protect the capitol so that the rioters could execute and or continue their assault on the capitol would fall into this category. Given much of this was shown in real time on television, I would think much of what is needed to prove guilty state of mind is already in the hands of DOJ.

    • bmaz says:

      Can you establish specific intent? Here, straight out of the DOJ Manual is the nut:

      The elements necessary to convict under aiding and abetting theory are

      1. That the accused had specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime by another;

      2. That the accused had the requisite intent of the underlying substantive offense;

      3. That the accused assisted or participated in the commission of the underlying substantive offense; and

      4. That someone committed the underlying offense.

      Don’t sleep on any of the intent references, not to mention intent as to the specific crimes committed. It will take a hell of a lot more than just being around.

      • Randy Baker says:

        Specific intent typically is proven by circumstantial evidence. [By the way, the crimes in issue would include trespass and interference with an official act of Congress/government] Off the top of my head — I am sure careful investigation and turning some defendants as prosecution witnesses would yield more — the circumstantial evidence of intent here is that the persons knew the capitol was being sacked, they knew stopping deployment of the national guard would facilitate the sacking, and they still intentionally obstructed the deployment of the guard. Let me add an additional circumstance, motive, to wit: the people deciding to obstruct the deployment [certainly most if not all] supported Trump staying in office. Stopping Congress from certifying the election would have advanced that purpose.
        Reasonable doubt means a reasonable explanation non-criminal explanation. What is the reasonable explanation for the intentional obstruction of the deployment that the defendants knew would have stopped the crimes? One I have heard is the concern about the bad look it would create of sending the guard in. That certainly is non-criminal explanation. Would jurors think that it is reasonable to believe that is what was in their heads? I think if I were defense counsel, I would seek a deal.

        • bmaz says:

          Thanks for the primer on intent and reasonable doubt. How would I possibly have ever understood what goes on in criminal jury trials? You are new here it seems, but welcome.

            • bmaz says:

              Same here as to decades (unfortunately am getting old), but most all on the trial side. Starting to wonder if will ever do one again after the pandemic. Trials were already getting rare, but then just stopped. Stopped for good reason of course, but stopped. Now that they know you can accomplish a lot easily by phone and video, not sure prosecutors and courts will really go back to where they were. Got close a few months ago, and magically a deal too good to refuse appeared and the court accepted it without even batting an eyelash.

                • bmaz says:

                  They “seem to be” here too. But that is on the surface to my eye. The plea I described earlier could easily have been a felony trial. And yet it went away as an innocuous misdemeanor. That would have been viewed with a jaundiced eye not that long ago, even by the court. Flew through!

                  And pre-trial and status conferences, even critical ones still mostly by phone or zoom. Frankly, I’m vaccinated and am happy to go to live court, still not doing much of that.

        • timbo says:

          I’ll hazard a guess as to what you’re getting at—the deployment of the National Guard being delayed, correct? Well, there’s plenty of reasonable explanations that might explain the delay… incompetence being one of the leading ones. Plenty of alleged aider and abetters no doubt have lawyers who just claim that their clients are incompetent and did not knowingly aid in the committing of the crime they are charged in abetting. And, in many cases, it’s more reasonable to assume incompetence rather than conspiracy. Bad luck luck, as in coincidence, is another reasonable argument. “The message was sent but somehow it slipped behind the coffeemaker”, that sort of stuff. Basically, a defense lawyer will try to sow as much doubt as possible so that “beyond a reasonable doubt” becomes a very high hill to climb before all the jurors will convict.

          • Randy Baker says:

            Well, I would be fascinated to learn about all the other occasions on which governors and municipal police chiefs were denied requests for deployment of the guard for hours due to incompetence.

            • Dutch Louis says:

              I am probably too preoccupied with those bombs that did not go off on 1/6 (‘the hole in the story’), so a disclaimer here right away. There is the joke or the rumor that at the morning in March 1978 when the Italian politician Aldo Moro, who was murdered and found back many weeks later, was abducted, an official hurried into the office of prime minister Andreotti and said: “Mr. Andreotti, mr. Andreotti… Aldo Moro has been abducted”. Whereupon Andreotti answered: “What? Is it nine o’clock already?”. So I see this picture before my eyes: “Do something, do something. You have to deploy the Guards!” “What? Why? Did the bombs finally explode?”

            • emptywheel says:

              The key act, IMO — and the one most easily address via evidence that bmaz hasn’t looked for — is the 36 minute delay between the order Christopher Miller gave to deploy the Guard and the time that order was delivered to General Walker. The other aspects of the Guard deployment could be attributed to the motive of not wanting to police DC with the military again. But not delaying an order to deploy for 36 minutes while the Capitol was still at risk and the Guard were loaded onto busses ready to leave. And given his recent sworn testimony, Miller actually doesn’t (or didn’t, when he testified) know this happened.

              • OmAli says:

                “ The other aspects of the Guard deployment could be attributed to the motive of not wanting to police DC with the military again.”

                I wonder if that indeed could have been a reason for delay, but not in a good way. It reeks of slow-walking the Guard deployment as a big, fat middle finger. As a “you libtards already gave us hell for using the Guard, so we will just let you hang out there for a while….. how do you like us NOW?”

              • Randy Baker says:

                You have been digging into the entrails of this stuff, which I have not. How credible is the story of concern about the bad look of the military policing D.C. ? What if a mob had been charging the White House or K street?

                • emptywheel says:

                  Quite credible, as far as A/SD Miller. But there are enough other people who were mucking things up that I think more was going on. There’s no excuse for the 36 minute delay in deploying the Guard, but it was a very key window for the insurrectionists on the ground.

                  • Randy Baker says:

                    What happened during those 36 minutes?
                    At the time Trump learned the Capitol had been breached, certainly no later than his chat with McCarthy, had he ordered the guard in, would that have sped things up?
                    Also, you may already have addressed this on a prior occasion, but do you know the reason the rioters were largely allowed to leave the capitol, rather than be arrested? I have heard there weren’t enough people to arrest them all, but it would seem hours into the festivities it should at least have been possible to assemble enough officers to wall off the area until all the rioters could be processed.
                    Sorry for all the questions, which more regular reading of your site likely would have answered.

                    • emptywheel says:

                      The cops were still badly outmanned. They didn’t start making arrests until after curfew, with few exceptions, most of which they had to let go.

                      During the 4-5 hour, the PB/OK militias were contemplating a second assault. Then they heard the Guard were coming and decided not to go. I’ve suggested they seemed to have a more timely understanding of the Guard’s movements than the Guard commander.

          • Mastedon says:

            Non-lawyer here…timbo’s list of reasonable explanations is why we need stronger laws to bring white collar crime into line with physical crimes – “yea, it was my gun but I did not fire it” versus “I never saw that e-mail “To” me regarding the request for military assistance”. Sheer incompetence (or more obvious and legitimate reasons) that results in life or property loss should be something that can result in a conviction, withstanding the plethora of lawyerly challenges and obfuscations. Seems only Madoff left a “white collar” paper trail long enough to be convicted.

            But to roll back up to the original question posed – if this Democracy is to continue with a renewed trust in the system of checks and balances, folks up the chain (of planning and participation) will need to be held accountable for treasonous behavior (broad and inclusive definition) even with a claim that separation of powers allows them a certain amount of secrecy from investigation.

            Don’t have recollection of the last trial for treason, but my guess is that was in the ’40s or ’50s. If political criminals are not held accountable for their part in the insurrection, those who voted for #45 because they feel their government has failed them will continue to be hardened in their beliefs, and others dissatisfied with the lack of accountability by “the law” will join. And that would not bode well for the happy future of our Democracy.

        • emptywheel says:

          The reasons I am doubtful this would get to a functional role I will describe as [Kash Patel] for ease of reference are not intent. It is undoubted that [Patel] wanted to prevent the vote count and he may actually have been ordered to do so.

          My caution arises instead from understanding how you get to him. DOJ is not going to, out of the blue, start subpoenaing [Patel’s] phone records and location data from the day (mind you, they may HAVE some of it for the reported leak investigation into him, but not PC that it has evidence of this crime). So to get to him you need to first get to whoever his liaison with the White House was, up to and including Trump, and get from there to [Patel.]

          Mind you, it’s possible that [Patel’s] liaison is someone who is not named Donald Trump. If it’s Rudy, then who knows? That stuff might be sitting in SDNY’s servers, again without PC established. But RUDY appears to have had real time update about the intents and plans of the insurrectionists, which would be really useful for the DOD CoS if he were slow-walking an order from the A/SD to the Guard Commander, as someone in fact did.

          • emptywheel says:

            Having just read the Senate report on Jan 6, it seems like Patel may not have been involved. Army Secretary McCarthy was responsible for much of the delay. Notably, the delay was purportedly cause in part by a search for a Federal partner, and DOJ was supposed to be the Federal partner.

            • timbo says:

              McCarthy says that is the case. What I would like to see is >all< the pertinent communications between McCarthy and up and down his food chain. I mean, Flynn's brother is in this mix, correct? There's also the White House and what was going on with communications between Miller, R. McCarthy, et al, and WH operatives… up to and including POTUS.

            • timbo says:

              Also something that I haven’t seen much concentrated on is what happened with the Supreme Court security during all of this. What had the Justices’ security details and the Court itself done to beef up security on Jan 6? Did they really beef up or not bother? If they did beef up more than normal then the question of why they did that while CPDC and DCNG got it so wrong might be more interesting…

      • emptywheel says:

        You think it would be hard to show that Trump (or even Kash Patel) had the specific intent of interfering with the vote certification?

        • bmaz says:

          Based on what we know at this point in time, yes, it might be. Also, strikes me that their discretion in exercising charging discretion would not favor charging higher ups without that being a lot more solid.

          Adding the facts to lock down intent may well come out.

          • emptywheel says:

            Sorry, what WE know, or what you know? Because you seem unfamiliar with a lot of these details.

            • bmaz says:

              What anybody publicly knows, that I have seen, including all your micro-analysis, knows would be extremely weak proof of intent. There is that better? Now, maybe DOJ knows it….we’ll see.

              • emptywheel says:

                Well, it’s just that of late, you make claims that seem to lack awareness of what you call my “microanalysis” and based on that lack of awareness you claim that vague claims about law trump actual known details. Perhaps if you engaged with *actual facts* rather than invoking law utterly divorced from those facts it might be more persuasive, or, frankly, less insulting.

                • bmaz says:

                  No, I will not engage with this haranguing holier than thou bunk. I know whatever I know, and I apply it as well as I can. As to the rest of it, LOL.

                  • emptywheel says:

                    LOL, to the fact that you’re routinely pissing on my work? Oh huh. That’s nice.

                    • bmaz says:

                      I have not done that in the least. What a load of complete shit. You and another asked a question, I tried to respond. And you went off on a tirade. If you, and only you, knew the answer not just factually, but legally, why even ask it of someone that has always dealt with you in good faith? I have not “pissed on your work”, but you seem eager to piss on me.

                    • Max404 says:

                      What a delicious spat.

                      I think my buddy Bmaz needs a hand.


                      “I’m just an old country lawyer, and I don’t know the finer ways to do it. I just have to do it my way.”

                      – Sam Ervin

          • Randy Baker says:

            I agree that charging higher ups, or anyone, without strong evidence would be a bad idea for lots of reasons. However, insofar as fearless leader’s state of mind is in issue, it would seem to me that the circumstantial evidence of his intent to obstruct Congress from counting the votes is enormous, and would include all the measures he took to overthrow the results of the election, including cajoling Georgia’s secretary of state into falsifying the vote tally, his lies about having won, his summoning supporters to the “wild” January 6, his urging them to march to the capitol to stop the steal, his agent Giuliani’s rallying them to engage in “trial by combat,” his negative response to Kevin McCarthy’s call for help during the riot, his lying that the rioters were peaceful, and his expression of “love” for them following the assault, among other circumstances, are pretty compelling proof of his intention. While each of these circumstances, and perhaps a couple taken together, might be susceptible of a reasonable non-criminal interpretation, I think in aggregate they render the proposition Trump lacked the intent to obstruct the vote count about as credible as the charge that Biden and Clinton seized a pizza parlor to engage in sex trafficking using minors.

  4. mainsailset says:

    This does make me wonder where the discussions about using the RICO law are inside DoJ that were first reported in Feb.

  5. Mike says:

    There are a whole bunch of questions having to do with what people associated with the DOD, WH or MOCs were doing the week before and on Jan. 6, in addition to possible dereliction of duty by some higher ups in the Capitol Police. It’s very unlikely that any DOJ criminal investigation would address those.

    • bmaz says:

      Why? The resources, and ability to use them effectively, are light years better as to DOJ than Congress.

  6. d4v1d says:

    If the evidence merits? Right now the evidence is that he’s circling the wagons around “the presidency,” which is what Wm Barr was doing. Did you see his Jean Carroll stunt?

  7. ApacheTrout says:

    I am feeling cynical this morning, and when shaded by this mood, I tend to file testimonial answers such as Barr’s “dangling pardons = obstruction of justice” and Garland’s “pursing them there leads wherever they take us” in the “I’m telling you what you want to hear so I can get this testimony over with and get confirmed” manila folder.

    Sadly, it’s a full folder.

    I’ve another folder on the desk, this one’s called “Yer back before my committee tuh explain yer ansuhs from yer confirmashun hearin’.” It’s always empty.

    • Troy P says:

      Thanks for posting the link, Harpie. This quote struck me:
      “Over the past five months, our committees have worked together in a bipartisan way to thoroughly investigate the intelligence and security failures prior to and on January 6, and to develop recommendations to address them,” said Senator Blunt. “These recommendations are based on an extensive fact-finding effort that included interviews with key decision makers, firsthand accounts from law enforcement personnel, and the review of thousands of documents. Our focus now should be on immediately implementing these recommendations. We owe it to the brave men and women who responded that day to do everything we can to prevent an attack like this from ever happening again, and in every instance ensure that the Capitol Police have the training and equipment that they need.”
      Am I being overly cynical in reading this as an attempt to dismiss further investigation into the causes of 1/6 in an effort to move on?

  8. RobertaM says:

    Long time reader, first time commenter. Hope not to accidentally violate any norms with my post but something came to mind and I can’t let it go. haha. I read this last night on the Bulwark (article can be found here: and have some thoughts/questions.

    Here’s the text:
    “On the afternoon of January 5, I [Acting Defense Secretary Miller] received a call from the President in connection with a rally by his supporters that day at Freedom Plaza. The President asked if I was watching the event on television. I replied that I had seen coverage of the event. He then commented that “they” were going to need 10,000 troops the following day. The call lasted fewer than thirty seconds and I did not respond substantively, and there was no elaboration. I took his comment to mean that a large force would be required to maintain order the following day.”

    I may be totally off my rocker here, but could have President Trump asked the National Guard to ASSIST the protestors instead of protecting the capitol? I know that there’s been some reporting about the delay between when the Guard was requested and when the men were actually deployed, but this quote really stuck out to me as interesting and wanted to run it by knowledgable folks like the commenters here on emptywheel.

    Thanks, Dr. Wheeler for all of the work you’ve done and continue to do!

    • subtropolis says:

      Yes, imho. The events of that day might have been a lot worse, had left-wing activists not stayed away. The Proud Boys began milling about the area around the Capitol, some two hours before the mob showed up, itching for a confrontation. They were hoping to battle anteeeefah so as to give cover to Humpty Dumpty to declare an insurrection, and so interrupt Congress.

      (I wish that I could recall the source, but there was an article which spelled out the efforts by many to convince people to stay well away that day. That seems to have been a very smart move.)

      I wrote elsewhere about this notion that Miller might have been concerned that Trump wanted the Guard to show up because it would embellish this fakery.

      • RobertaM says:

        Thanks for sharing your link! I enjoyed reading your perspective and still find myself thinking about this a few days later.

        Of course it’s obvious that would be dictators like Trump would want to use all of the power they have to maintain power in this type of situation, but the possibility that he wanted to use the American military to help him prevent Congress from certifying the results for sure makes me totally nauseous. There’s about ten thousand reasons we need an investigation on 1/6, but if Trump tried to use the military in this way… I hope we get to find out and that all of the people involved will be held accountable. Not counting on it but hey, from my mouth to God’s ears?

  9. Rusty Austin says:

    The real problem with all this sober discussion is we’re treating this as business as usual. Rules of evidence, specific intent, speech and debate clause, blah blah blah. Fer chrissakes a rabid murderous mob, created, directed, and egged on by GOP politicians, tried to overthrow our government and make Trump dictator for life. Most other countries they’d a been shot or hung by now. Granted they weren’t even organized as well as a bible camp game of Capture the Flag, still they are insurrectionists and traitors, and should be prosecuted as such.

    • bmaz says:

      What a load of simpering shit. And, yes, all those rules and concepts do indeed apply and control. Jeebus.

    • Rayne says:

      The insurrectionists attempted to overthrow the U.S. republic, a form of representative democracy codified by a social contract of laws developed since the country’s founding.

      I don’t know why you think it’s okay to overthrow this democracy, simply ignoring its laws, to prosecute and punish those those chose to overthrow this democracy. Refusing to follow the letter of the law only validates the insurrectionists’ erroneous opinion of a lawless state.

  10. Donald Hindle says:

    Some of this hinges on whether or not Garland follows the precedent set by Barr in his confirmation hearings, namely that no promise made in a confirmation hearing can be believed. Or do we believe that only Republicans lie to Congress in that way?

Comments are closed.