Merrick Garland Names War Crimes Prosecutor Jack Smith to Oversee Trump Investigations

To my mind, the best part of appointing war crimes and public corruption prosecutor Jack Smith as Special Counsel to oversee the twin investigations into Donald Trump is that it will be a cinch, now, to subpoena Ginni Thomas.

Otherwise I have mixed feelings about the decision. I think the letter of DOJ guidelines requires it. But I don’t think it will change how much of a clusterfuck Trump makes of it.

It does have certain other advantages, other than making it easier to subpoena Ginni. It might even make it easy to subpoena Mike Pence.

First, this will make it very easy to refuse Jim Jordan’s demands for information about the investigation.

It will ensure the continuity of any prosecution after 2025, no matter who is elected (neither hypothetical Trump prosecution — the stolen documents or the coup attempt — would be done by then, even if it were indicted on December 15, the earliest possible date for either).

I don’t think this will create much of a delay. The stolen documents case, which is the first that could be prosecuted (assuming the 11th Circuit overturns Judge Aileen Cannon’s special master order) is fairly self-contained, so would only take a day to be briefed into. The coup attempt is far, far more complex, but I think there was no way Trump himself would be indicted before February or March anyway, probably longer.

The jurisdictional boundary is of interest: Anyone who crimed at the Capitol will be prosecuted by DC US Attorney Matthew Graves. Anyone who was not physically present at the Capitol would fall under Smith’s investigation.

It’s unclear where Alex Jones would fit in that schema. Roger Stone, though, would be moved under Smith.

My favorite part of the order appointing Smith is this part:

The language authorizing a Special Counsel to investigate anything that “might arise directly from this investigation” is standard Special Counsel language. It generally covers efforts to obstruct the investigation.

Only, usually, it only appears in the subjunctive, covering matters that might arise, in the future.

This authorizes Smith to investigate things that already have. Which would only be necessary if such matters had already arisen.

The order also authorizes Smith to spin off prosecutions.

Again, that’s not boilerplate. It may suggest Garland has already seen evidence of criminality that could and should be spun off.

Mostly, I think this is an “Eh” decision. It doesn’t change Garland’s role in the process. I don’t think it delays things. I think it carries certain advantages, two of those named Ginni and Jim.

But otherwise, the investigation continues with — as Garland said — urgency.

Update: Overnight I thought of this: Garland said there were recent developments, plural, that led to this decision. One could be the GOP taking over control of Congress. After all, Scott Perry, head of the Freedom Caucus, must be a subject of this investigation. But it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the incoming House Judiciary Committee Chair is too. And depending on the final split in Congress, it’s also not outside the realm of possibility that enough members are under investigation — with Perry, Jim Jordan, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, and Matt Gaetz — that it could, briefly anyway, alter the majority in Congress.

105 replies
  1. obsessed says:

    >It will ensure the continuity of any prosecution after 2025

    Are you saying a GOP AG couldn’t fire/overrule the special counsel?

    • emptywheel says:

      Thanks for sharing your fact free take. Would you like to substantiate it or just get booted for trolling?

      • Bobster33 says:

        So hiring a new staff, getting office space and equipment, and getting security clearances for staff members will happen overnight because how?

        Jack’s going to need to build his organization and that will take time.

        • Scott Rose says:

          One way hypothetical prosecutions arising from this investigation and special counsel could be completed before 2025 would be if a, and/or the defendant(s) entered into plea bargains.

        • GlennDexter says:

          I imagine The Special Prosecutor will absorb many from DOJ that’s already done plenty of the the leg work.
          New hires will be needed for the expanding scope of the Conspiracy.

    • timbozone says:

      It’s not clear that it’ll slow it down any further than it has already been slowed down. Basically, if it is a growingly complex case, it’s best to move it mainly off the AG’s plate so he can concentrate on the more mundane matter of running everything else at DOJ. The same applies to Lisa Monaco, who also no doubt has been burning extra cycles on the attempt to obstruct the Congress on Jan 6, 2021. Basically, Garland has added another office to handle the White House Jan 6 conspiracy and after the fact PRA/DNI scandals. It’s a good idea and may make mostly everything more efficient, not less.

      That having been said, I can see that some of the plea deals being worked out with folks who overlap within the Capitol mob actions and the White House related conspiracies will no doubt be slightly less coordinated with the possible prosecutions coming from the Special Counsel’s office. Other than that, I’m thinking that this will help get more work completed by focused Special Counsel led parts of the investigations into Trump’s malfeasances while President and afterwards.

      With regard to the burdgeoning investigations, we just heard reports about possible DOJ interference in Florida elections in 2018, some of which might have been to benefit DeSantis and other GOP candidates. Is that under the Special Counsel now or not? At least it is now likely easier for whoever’s potato that is at DOJ to concentrate on that rather than worry about splitting resources with other investigations on the other side of the Special Counsel wall, etc.

  2. joel fisher says:

    If what I read is correct: the new guy’s focus is 1/6 and the docs, doesn’t that imply the stop the steal fraud is getting a pass? And what about Russia? Were people just supposed to ignore the running of the SoLs? Mueller essentially found obstruction and the important and pardoned witnesses now have no–or less–5A privilege with nary a Manafort, a Stone, or a General’s ass in front of a grand jury. Looks like a big victory for Trump.

      • joel fisher says:

        “Impertinence”is my middle name. If there are other ongoing investigations, they are closely guarded national secrets, and Messrs Manafort, Stone, and Flynn are silent on the subject. Why treat the 1/6 and docs differently unless the other matters are the rioters? Some processions seem more important than others. OTOH your suggestion–albeit a trifle snotty–was a good idea. Here’s the link.

        • Yohei72 says:

          “Pertinent” in this case obviously means “relevant.” So if you’re saying your middle name is “irrelevant”… well, you said it, not anyone else.

      • joel fisher says:

        Tell me there is something from the Mueller report that’s the subject of a still active criminal investigation. The obstruction of the Mueller investigation by Trump apparently has officially been forgiven. Maybe this is irrelevant and not pertinent but I thought otherwise. And where does the Order leave the stop the steal fraud investigation, perhaps the most overt crime of all?

        • Doug Kane says:

          The order specifically covers efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 election. How would that not cover the stop the steal fraud investigation?

        • emptywheel says:

          Thanks for coming onto my website and doing PR for Bill Barr, blaming Garland for stuff Barr did. Why would you do this?

        • joel fisher says:

          Of course Barr let the Mueller investigation go. But when Garland took over, did that mean all of Barr’s decisions were ratified? I come to this website to get more informed.

        • Ravenclaw says:

          The special counsel was appointed to conduct these two investigations, true. But the one we call 1/6 for short includes all efforts to overthrow the election: fund-raising for the “stop the steal” movement, lawsuits filed in bad faith, false slates of electors, spreading of inflammatory disinformation, and of course the culminating day of violence. The news reports seem pretty clear on that score.

      • Randy Baker says:

        It is a federal crime to solicit another person’s interference with the calculation of votes in a federal election. Indeed, the conduct likely involved several federal criminal statutes.

        • Hoping4better_times says:

          It is also a state crime in Georgia to interfere or intimidate officials who are performing their duties. Fani Willis, the DA in Fulton County, Georgia, is further along in her process than DOJ. She convened a special Grand Jury in May with a one year term. Many witnesses have already testified before this special GJ. BUT this special GJ lacks the power to indict.
          For that Willis has to convene another GJ with the power to issue indictments. She has said publicly that she will be done with the special GJ by December.

      • obsessed says:

        Harry Litman says “If and when Willis brings charges in Fulton County, GA, it’s going to present some gnarly legal issues that may tie things up for a while.” and I also recall him and his guests opining that the whole thing would wind up being taken over by the feds. Not sure what the experts here think of Litman. He’s seems smart and reasonable to me, but that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.

  3. klynn says:

    So does this effort keep information that DOJ has about Trump away from Jordan and crew while developing investigations thereby keeping direction of investigations from Trump and keeping the GOP from picking selective info that can be manipulated into propaganda campaigns that could impact the investigations?

  4. Clare Kelly says:

    “Mostly, I think this is an “Eh” decision. It doesn’t change Garland’s role in the process. I don’t think it delays things. I think it carries certain ad advantages, two of those named Ginni and Jim.

    But otherwise, the investigation continues with — as Garland said — urgency.”

    Thank you, Marcy.

    • nedu says:

      I think today’s appointment does “change Garland’s role in the process.”

      If you recall, back on Aug 11, when the AG delivered his remarks on unsealing the search warrant (video; at ~2:30), he said:

      First, I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter.

      Contrast that personal role then with what the AG said today about going forward:

      As Special Counsel, he [Jack Smith] will exercise independent prosecutorial judgment to decide whether charges should be brought.

      I read that as a significant change in the AG’s role in the process.

  5. BobBobCon says:

    Does it provide any protection in the case of a government shutdown move by the GOP House?

    Mueller’s team was specifically insulated during the 2018-19 shutdown by a special funding source while DOJ budgets were limited in various ways that hampered some investigations, but I don’t know how this would play out now.

  6. Gatorbaiter says:

    Perhaps a spinoff investigation might involve the activities of a certain ghoulish ratfucker in Florida in 2018?

    • emptywheel says:

      Something like that!

      I hope one day soon to write about Geoffrey Berman’s book, which is most valuable for the nuances it described about how Mueller prosecutions got spun off. It’s actually a very big deal, and including it in the order is smart.

        • ollie says:

          oh seriously amen to that! I’ve come here looking for a response from EW and if nothing yet I go look for Marcy on twitter, lol. I’ve a lot of ‘pro’s’ in my TL/twitter that exploded w/nasty negative talk about Garlands move today. So even if it’s bad news? like if this had been horrible? at least I fricking know the facts about how bad it is and that’s something I guess. lol

  7. der says:

    “First, this will make it very easy to refuse Jim Jordan’s demands for information about the investigation.”

    Also my first thought. I don’t think AG Garland had a choice if the investigations have discovered evidence of Congress folks involvement in January 6. I think it would be hard to keep hidden what evidence that those who were neck deep in it Justice has if not for the appointment.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • timbozone says:

      Not all the conspirators know all the facts and/or testimony and records provided to both the J6 Committee and to the various grand juries and other investigatory agencies involved though. A criminal conspiracy does not require that all members of such a conspiracy be aware of all facts of the conspiracy either during the conspiracy or afterwards; many players/instigators/witnesses to these scandals have little to no idea what might have been happening on the edges away from themselves.

  8. Ben Soares says:

    I hear you . I think what intrigues me is the amount of “dove tails ” this SC can carve out, and how big of a box he chooses to build. There seems to be a ton of work product and as you say he can – in a sense hit the ground running. I’m a bit confused on how things will be easier in terms of setting off to study Ginni all though she is married to the judicial she is not part of that branch. Allowing her to game out this precedent seems counter-intuitive to me and offers up dare I say unprecedented benefit of affirmative action -a ladder (ironically) among many the Thomas’s and their collective narcissisms seem compelled to kick out -by any means necessary . I myself would like to see her work her way up from the miners into the major’s …. her life story – is that of a quintessential hypocrite. A story best told in court – all of them. imho

    I would greatly appreciate your perspective on Ginni . I reckon you will visit it in due time ( as always ) I see your seeds.

    and thank you , for all it is that you – do . I have learned a lot. Keep it rumblin MyLady !

  9. Klaatu Something says:

    I came here to get an intelligent, informed opinion on this matter and was not disappointed. Thanks Marcy

  10. wasD4v1d says:

    I am surprised this move wasn’t made earlier but maybe this timing is better. This must have been cued up for a while, I am surmising – seems a particularly solid choice.

    • emptywheel says:

      I really don’t think it was. I suspect Garland would have been happy to proceed as he was. Eg the lead prosecutor on Jan 6 is ALREADY a Republican.

      I just think Garland has a legalistic approach to DOJ guidelines and so thought this ethically necessary under the guidelines here.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Your insight above that Garland may have been motivated by the House going to GOP (not just Trump’s declared candidacy) while members of congress remain plausibly under investigation strikes me as most germaine.

        Most, especially the press, focus only on Trump. But I remain haunted by Liz Cheney’s exclamation to Jim Jordan on 1/6/21: “You did this!”

        I doubt DOJ will net Jordan, but Scott Perry seems within the realm of possibility.

    • Hoping4better_times says:

      Garland needed to appoint a special counsel. The Jan 6 Select committee will be gone in January with the Republicans in charge of the House. There are House members (Gosar, Biggs, Scott Perry for example) who should be investigated for any involvement to prevent the electoral college vote on Jan 6, 2021.

  11. Savage Librarian says:

    Yeah, this isn’t what I expected to happen. But now that it has, it does seem like an elegant approach. It is logical, realistic, practical, thorough and seems well thought out.

    And besides the bonuses that you have already mentioned, it has some central casting intrigue, as well. I think the Hague and Kosovo work history might make some players more apprehensive than they might have been before.

    I don’t think this will slow things down much, if at all.

  12. punaise says:


    “Cowardly”: Legal experts slam Garland for punting to special counsel after Trump announcement
    Garland set to appoint special counsel for Trump probes after presidential campaign launch

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      A lot of projection there. Garland seems relatively impervious to public opinion. He appointed a special counsel because he thought it was the right thing to do, not because it was the only legally possible thing to do.

      The argument that the Right won’t consider any prosecutor of Trump fair or independent works both ways. It means there is little downside to the appointment and a potential upside in the survivability of these cases beyond this House and this administration.

      The angst is about whether Trump will be indicted, for good reasons and on evidence that survives appeals. It’s also about Trump and the fascist right’s attempts to destroy democracy, which won’t be stopped by prosecutions of Donald J. Trump.

      • Bay State Librul says:

        Merrick Garland Is Making a Mistake by Appointing a Special Prosecutor

        Charlie Pierce makes some fair points against the decision
        You can check it out at Esquire
        Worth the read

        • DrFnguy says:

          I’m as big a fan of Pierce as anyone, but the only substantial point he makes is: “A special counsel means another layer of bureaucracy, which implies further delays and opportunities for mischief and deceit. ”
          The rest is whining about Garland seemingly overly concerned about politics (no evidence provided).
          Maybe the SC appointment will lead to delays, maybe not.
          And Marcy’s post today speculates about some of the ‘special circumstance’s’ which Pierce waves off as entirely due the the FPOTUS filing for re-election.
          Pierce is often a brilliant writer but I don’t think he reads as carefully as Dr. Wheeler.
          p.s. to moderators: sorry about the typo in my name, guess I don’t always read carefully either ;-)

        • DrFunguy says:

          I’m as big a fan of Pierce as anyone, but the only substantial point he makes is: “A special counsel means another layer of bureaucracy, which implies further delays and opportunities for mischief and deceit. ”
          The rest is whining about Garland seemingly being overly concerned about politics (no evidence provided).
          Maybe the SC appointment will lead to delays, maybe not.
          And Marcy’s post today speculates about some of the ‘special circumstance’s’ which Pierce waves off as entirely due the the FPOTUS filing for re-election.
          Pierce is often a brilliant writer but I don’t think he reads as carefully as Dr. Wheeler.

  13. Peterr says:

    One other element to all of this is that the DOJ investigation into Jan 6 involves both investigating the foot soldiers who entered the Capitol and otherwise were the cannon fodder of the insurrection, and also investigating the higher-ups (inside and outside the govt) who coordinated it all. Prosecuting the cannon fodder has been proceeding apace and continues to do so. Bringing the larger picture into focus, OTOH, is largely happening behind the scenes at DOJ, though we get glimpses here and there about where it is going.

    Assigning Smith to this second half of the Jan 6 investigation helps DOJ in two ways. First, it puts all the investigative efforts in the various parts of the country under a single umbrella. Second, it lets those who were doing this prior to Smith’s appointment go back to their “day jobs” and puts someone in charge of it all whose job is solely to work on this investigation.

    Since Biden took office, the DOJ has been working in a bifurcated manner. The Jan 6 investigation has pulled in folks from DOJ offices around the country to handle the extraordinary workload created by the size and scope of the insurrection. That has stretched those offices to handle all the other work they do with fewer resources. To a certain degree, appointing Smith as a special counsel will help the rest of the DOJ go back to whatever passes for normal these days.

    • hester says:

      Thank you for that comment and to Marcy always for the clear-headed analysis.
      Thank goodness for this site.

    • emptywheel says:

      Yeah, I don’t agree with any of that.

      One of my biggest concerns with this is that it DOES further bifurcate the case from others. Just as an example, Mary Dorhmann, one of the prosecutors on the Trump case, is also prosecuting REALLY pedestrian assault cases (and the case of Michael Riley, the cop prosecuted for obstruction). It had to have been an interesting perspective!

      But I don’t think the approach has been bifurcated. I don’t think it should be. I’ve already seen a bunch of stuff about who IF prosecutors discover ties between Trump and the people at the Capitol. THey already have!! They had, by March 2021.

      As I noted, even the question of how you treat Alex Jones is a big problem (or Owen Shroyer, who’s due to make a decision about a plea in the next 2 weeks). They were both at the Capitol and part of the Willard efforts.

      What do you do with Stone, who has been mentioned a bunch of times at the Oath Keeper case? By this definition, he’ll be dealt with by Smith. But I’m not convinced there’s a reason for that.

      • Peterr says:

        Maybe my use of “bifurcated” was a poor choice of words. What I intended to say is that the DOJ made a decision early on to move quickly on cases involving the cannon fodder, using AUSAs on loan from various USA offices around the country, even as various folks at Main Justice worked to develop the cases against the higher-ups in the insurrection. That’s the division of labor employed since Jan 7. The former half of that, while not finished, is certainly moving through the courts with relative dispatch; the second half is only now getting to the courts.

        What I was referring to in my comment was not who does the line prosecutions as much has who does the work at Main Justice to coordinate all this. By appointing Smith as a Special Counsel, those Main Justice folks can get back to their day jobs. To the extent that Lisa Monaco and various division heads beneath her have been working on this, that’s time and energy away from the other non-Jan 6 work that they normally handle.

        Finally, note please that I’m not saying this is why Smith was appointed, but that it is a byproduct of his appointment. And yes, you’re right that this is not a simple “OK, here are the files, you take over everything” situation. I agree that Alex Jones is a problem case (so to speak) because he falls under both the Special Counsel and ordinary DOJ definitions. I expect that Smith and Stone will figure out how to handle him. But I still think that Smith’s appointment will make the investigation and discussions around potential charges smoother, as this is ALL the special counsel will be doing, as opposed to regular senior DOJ officials who have to work these discussions into their already heavy schedules.

  14. BobfromCool says:

    If the J-6 committee refers their investigation and evidence to the DOJ can it go directly to this new special counsel?

      • BobfromCool says:

        I thought it was a simple question with a simple answer like yes, no, maybe, no one knows….
        Why the what?? Are you just being a cactus?

        • clyde g says:

          I assumed that any evidence (that is, all documents and the interviews) that the J6 Committee has would go to the Special Counsel, either directly or through the DoJ. Is this not so?

        • timbozone says:

          The Special Counsel does not need and does not have a mandate broad enough to encompass all the information the J6 Committee has developed so far. If there is information that the Special Counsel believes he needs within the bounds of his mandate, I’m sure he and the Committee will attempt to get what information they can to his office for further investigation and possible prosecution of individuals. The Committee itself may also refer specific individuals and areas of their investigations where they were stymied and/or where the Committee is no longer able to follow up on as they are likely to be dissolved soon, etc, including possible lying under oath, refusal to give testimony beyond invocation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, etc, etc, to the DOJ and the Special Counsel’s office. If the Committee does do referrals beyond those already presented by them to the DOJ, then they will likely be giving the DOJ and the Special Counsel records that the Committee feels will help the wheels of justice proceed towards whatever more immediate legal remedies the Committee concludes is best for the country.

  15. brucefan says:

    2 general questions for the experts, from an administrative/civil lawyer (retired)

    (1) When a criminal defendant says he consulted a lawyer and was told there is a plausible (straight face) argument for what you plan to do, what is the outcome of the prosecution when the “plausible” argument turns out to be hogwash?

    (2) When the defendant is a high profile politician, how effective is the defendant’s “I relied on my lawyer” argument (part (A) in the courthouse; part (B) in the court of public opinion)?

    • Peterr says:

      I’ll tackle 2(B): Generally speaking, it doesn’t.

      The opinion of lawyers by the general public is often such that “if you relied on that, you’re an idiot” is the knee-jerk reaction. All those local tv ads for ambulance chasers and all those national ads for lawyers pitching “if you used product X, give us a call and we’ll get you millions” has poisoned the reputation of lawyers generally. Then there are all the insurance company lawyers telling patients “sorry, but you can’t have that procedure” or “no, we won’t cover that claim.”

      (It’s kind of like the reputation of members of congress: “I hate members of congress in general, but I love my representative and senators.”)

    • Willis Warren says:

      to emphasize this, from CNN

      4) The Department of Justice. Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who is widely expected to chair the House Judiciary Committee when Republicans formally take over the majority in January 2023, sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland on November 2, requesting a slew of documents on everything from the Justice Department’s alleged “targeting” of Project Veritas to the search for classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. In a report released on November 4, Jordan insisted that “the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the stewardship of Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland, is broken.”

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Gym Jordan represents a party that has appointed a serial lawbreaker as its head. He and his party want the DoJ and FBI to be broken, which includes being willing to pursue political vendettas against their political enemies. From his perspective, allowing them to investigate and prosecute real lawbreakers would be the proverbial own goal.

  16. ollie says:

    is there anything cooking regarding the other rat-fucker? Flynn? Flynn sure is active in his religious zeal w/Q and fpotus. I would guess if so it’d be Smith? I’m giddy hoping…

    also? I sure love (like 1x I actually stood and cheered!) you offering suggestions to some of those reporters on twitter! You’re polite and (so far) NO POTTY MOUTH! you’re so awesome. I can’t do that well, lmao.

  17. James Sterling says:

    Thanks, as always, for your reports. Not an attorney, I am willing to be patient as all this plays out. AG Garland, I’m sure, didn’t just wake up this morning to have “Special Council” pop in to his head. Rather, serious thought seems to be behind this particular decision, and this specific appointment. Again, thanks for keeping us informed.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      I’m curious too. Aside from subpoena authority, which would potentially put her in front of a grand jury, I’m not seeing how Smith could crack that nut.

  18. Curious says:

    The Special Counsel’s appointment letter ( excludes “future investigations and prosecutions of individuals for offenses they
    committed while physically present on the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021.” This would presumably seem to exclude from his purview most members of the House and Senate. IANAL. Will this be a problem for a unified investigation of the larger coup and certification issues?

    Let me express my great appreciation for Dr. Wheeler’s clarifications and this wonderfully informative site!

    • David F. Snyder says:

      “… future investigations and prosecutions of individuals for offenses they
      committed while physically present on the Capitol grounds on” other dates, such as Jan. 5, are fair game for Smith.

  19. bughunter says:

    I don’t understand why this makes it easier to subpoena Ginni Thomas, or even why there may have been an obstacle to this in the first place.

    (But I’m glad it does…)

    Can someone please clarify that bit?

    • David F. Snyder says:

      “ On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:

      (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

      (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c);

      (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or

      (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.”

      I presume ítem (iii) is the relevant point here.

      • clyde g says:

        Yes, can Marcy or someone explain why it would be easier for a SC to subpoena G.Thomas than DoJ? Or maybe David could explain why (iii) is relevant to whether DoJ or a SC initiates a subpoena?

  20. harpie says:

    I think Marcy makes a really important point in the UPDATE.
    The House “Freedom” Caucus is an imminent danger to our democracy.
    They met on 12/21/20 at the WHITE HOUSE to strategize about 1/6/21.
    TRUMP, MEADOWS and PENCE were there, too.

    On 1/11/21, TRUMP gave JORDAN the Presidential Medal of Freedom
    in a closed ceremony at the White House. WHY?

  21. fredamae says:

    Not one of “us” are in the room. Not one of us have reviewed *all the evidence that has been collected.
    I maintain my full faith in the DoJ and AG Garland at this time.

  22. biff murphy says:

    Perry, Jordan, Greene, Biggs, Gosar, and Gaetz…
    Throw in Ronny Jackson and newly elected Max Miller and you have the 8 Politicians who endorsed Trump for 24.
    Those who have already come out against the former president, in his own party, include: Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD), Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH), Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears (R-VA), Rep. Greg Pence (R-ID) , and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) – as well as several high-profile GOP donors.

  23. skua says:

    In Australia the national public broadcaster continues with its light weight approach to serious matters, presenting the news of the special counsel so;
    VIDEO: Donald Trump is facing the prospect of another criminal investigation

    (Video is of Trump raving about the appointment being more witch-hunt by corrupt Dems, DoJ.)
    Sadly unsure if the misleading headline is the product of ignorance or of pro-Trump sentiment. Chastening feedback has been provided to broadcaster.

Comments are closed.