https://democraticunderground.com/100217244948gab13by13 (12,560 posts)
Merrick Garland Has Tough Decisions
He must consider the Magat Supreme Court, here is one example;
Over a year ago the J6 committee subpoenaed Mark Meadows and he provided a lot of documents but when Trump found out Meadows stopped cooperating, claiming executive privilege. The J6 committee sent a criminal referral to DOJ for Meadows and Bannon. DOJ dismissed the Meadow's referral but indicted Bannon, because DOJ would have had to fight against executive privilege which would have gone to the Magat SC. Last month DOJ subpoenaed Meadows but just for the documents he already provided to the J6 committee, once again DOJ did not want to take on executive privilege, the sanctity between a president and his Chief of Staff.
Meadows is the key player in indicting Trump, he was the middle man between Trump and the Willard hotel.
Meadows was the key man in the theft of classified documents, he supervised it.
To nail Trump for seditious conspiracy or espionage or theft of documents Garland will have to challenge executive privilege with a fascist SC.
Seriously, Garland may not need Meadow's testimony to indict Trump for obstruction of justice re: the theft of classified documents which carries a 20 year maximum sentence.
Maybe that is the best option for Garland, challenging executive privilege, even though it is being claimed to hide criminal activity may not be waived by the SC we now have and would take a very long time to resolve.
Chainfire (10,984 posts)
1. Garland needs to do what he needs to do and worry about the SC when the time comes.
If Garland has solid evidence of a crime, he should indict; that is his job at this time. If he does not have evidence of a crime then he needs to drop it; it is really that simple
Star Member Fiendish Thingy (10,724 posts)
2. Meanwhile, in the reality-based community:
DOJ never “dismissed” the J6 committee’s criminal referral on Meadows, they just haven’t publicly acted on it.
Aside from the subpeona for documents, there has been very little public information on interactions between DOJ and Meadows. That doesn’t mean there hasn’t been any activity, it’s just that we (including YOU) don’t know anything about it.
As for executive privilege issues and SCOTUS, the one EP case from Trump that made it to SCOTUS, they ruled against him. In fact, every case where Trump is a named party that has made it to SCOTUS he has lost.
Star Member gab13by13 (12,560 posts)
3. I agree, DOJ has not publicly acted on the Meadow's criminal referral.
According to a source familiar with the notification, US Attorney Matt Graves notified Doug Letter, the House general counsel, that the Justice Department had completed its review and had decided it “will not be initiating prosecutions for criminal contempt, as requested in the referral against Messrs Meadows and Scavino.”
Oh I am aware that DOJ doesn't leak, but somehow we found out about last month's Meadow's subpoena.
I do not have the same faith as you that our present SC will do the right thing. The latest appeal by Trump to the SC should be a no brainer, Clarence Thomas should refuse to take the case or should dismiss it or should get the entire court involved. No way Clarence sides with Trump on this one.
Star Member Fiendish Thingy (10,724 posts)
4. Do you think DOJ could be the only possible source re: Meadows' subpoena?
How about Meadows himself, or his attorney?
Star Member gab13by13 (12,560 posts)
5. I agree with you 100%
I was not being snarky when I said that DOJ doesn't leak, it doesn't. You made my point, we hear about DOJ activity from other sources.
You know, I bet if they just drop the indictment thingy and live a normal life, they'd be much happier.
But, they're DUmmies and Trump lives in their heads 24/7/365. It's a beautiful thing to watch..
