I initially wrote this in March of 2022 and I have been periodically updating it since. The March 2022 version is here. For some reason, not all the links are showing up as a contrasting color.
I stopped updating this after indictments were brought, but please read if. you believe any of the following:
- The DOJ took too long with the investigation into the January 6 insurrection.
- The January 6 Congressional Hearings in the summer of 2022 jumpstarted the DOJ and finally got Merrick Garland moving.
- Things really got moving after Jack Smith was appointed. Garland should have appointed Smith a year earlier.
- Okay, so why couldn’t they just charge Trump earlier and keep investigating?
- We need Trump convicted to keep him from running for office.
- Trump has to be indicted (or convicted) to stop him from undermining democracy and committing crimes.
- Using just the evidence available through public reporting there is enough evidence to convict Trump
- Just lock him up already
- A former prosecutor said so, and a former prosecutor should know better than Teri (so there)
- But what about the fact that Garland “refused” to prosecute cases handed to him by Mueller on a “silver platter?”
- The DOJ was slow to indict Trump because Garland (or the DOJ) is compromised and/or corrupt.
There is a quiz at the end. Don’t worry: It is a multiple-choice quiz and open book.
No skipping ahead! This page is meant to be read in order. Later answers build on earlier answers.
1. Why is the DOJ taking so long with the investigation into the January 6 insurrection?
Variations include:
- “Why didn’t the DOJ begin looking at the higher-ups involved in the January 6 attack until well into 2022?”
- “The January 6 Congressional Hearings in the summer of 2022 jumpstarted the DOJ and finally got Merrick Garland moving.”
- What about The Washington Post piece that proved the DOJ did nothing for a full year?
I will answer this question (and the variations) by showing you what we learned about the investigation through 2021 and 2022, but first, a word about how the DOJ is going about the investigation. In a speech given on January 5, 2022, Merrick Garland explained how the DOJ was conducting the investigation:
Everyone in this room and on these screens is familiar with the way we conduct investigations, and particularly complex investigations.
We build investigations by laying a foundation. We resolve more straightforward cases first because they provide the evidentiary foundation for more complex cases.
Investigating the more overt crimes generates linkages to less overt ones. Overt actors and the evidence they provide can lead us to others who may also have been involved. And that evidence can serve as the foundation for further investigative leads and techniques.
In circumstances like those of January 6th, a full accounting does not suddenly materialize. To ensure that all those criminally responsible are held accountable, we must collect the evidence.
We follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money.
Here is something Garland said on July 22, 2022:
These investigations do not happen in public for a range of reasons including secrecy in is necessary to protect the investigation and shield witnesses.
Now, for some facts.
As of January 1, 2022, more than 700 people had been indicted for participating in the attack on the Capitol.
Charges included:
-
- assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees
- using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer
- entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon
- destruction and theft of government property
- corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so
- conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding
- conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder
(Notice all those crimes were at the ground level. The defendants had entered the Capitol and were often caught on tape committing crimes. This is the low-hanging fruit, or what Garland called, the “overt crimes.”)
On January 15, 2022, we learned from a defense lawyer, Rob Jenkins, who was representing a few of the insurrectionists, that the DOJ had been “pretty aggressive” in “seeking out information . . . that points to others’ involvement and culpability” in planning the events of January 6, including Rudy Giuliani and Roger Stone.
Okay, let’s stop right here and address the question: “Why didn’t the DOJ begin looking at the higher-ups involved in the January 6 attack until well into 2022?” As of January 2022, we had reporting that the DOJ was looking at Rudy Giuliani and Roger Stone, members of Trump’s inner circle and certainly people who count as “higher-ups.”
Now, let’s continue on.
On March 2, 2022, the DOJ secured its first conviction for seditious conspiracy for Joshua James, the leader of the Alabama Chapter of Oath Keepers. (Seditious conspiracy means conspiring to overthrow or oppose the authority of the government by force. This was the most serious charge thus far.)
James was not at the Capitol during the riot, so it was also a step toward less overt crimes. His plea deal required him to cooperate with prosecutors, including testifying to a grand jury. Also note: Joshua James was in Roger Stone’s hotel room the morning of the insurrection.
March 30, 2022: We learned that “in the past two months, a federal grand jury in Washington D.C. has issued subpoena requests to some officials in former president Donald Trump’s orbit who assisted in planning, funding, and executing the Jan. 6 rally.“
A word about grand juries. This is from the DOJ page:
(In other words, a grand jury is not the starting point. Moreover, because grand juries are shrouded in secrecy we don’t usually get leaks until the DOJ moves past interviewing the witnesses who want to be there and move on to the witnesses who are in trouble, or who are subjects or targets of the investigation.)
April 8, 2022: Ali Alexander, a guy who was heavily involved in planning the Stop the Steal rally (he was at the Capitol but never entered) received a subpoena from a federal grand jury seeking information about members of the executive and legislative branches who were involved with the insurrection itself or the plot to obstruct the transfer of power.
April 27, 2022: We learned that Proud Boys member Louis Enrique Colon —who helped plan the attack in December — was cooperating with prosecutors as part of a plea deal.
Sometime in April, 2022: DOJ investigators received the phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump Administration, including Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. (We didn’t learn about this until July, but it happened on April 22.)
May 26, 2022: We learned that the DOJ subpoenaed information about some of former President Donald Trump’s lawyers and closest advisers as part of their criminal investigation into efforts to put forward fake slates of electors in the 2020 election. Among those asked about were Rudy Giuliani, adviser Boris Epshteyn and campaign lawyer Justin Clark.
On June 10, 2022: The January 6 congressional committee held its first public hearing. These hearings continued until October.
June 22, 2022: FBI agents searched the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official, who tried to help Trump overthrow DOJ leadership and overturn the election.
Also on June 22: federal authorities seized the cell phone of John Eastman. Eastman was the former law professor who wrote the memo on how Pence could overturn the election.
Sometime during the summer: Mark Meadows willingly turned over text messages to the DOJ.
(It takes time to gather the evidence for a search warrant, particularly if you want to search a lawyer or a former DOJ official. Special laws and procedure apply to lawyers because of attorney-client privilege, so obviously this didn’t happen in response to the Congressional hearing on June 10. What was happening was what Garland said would happen: The investigation started at ground level and moved upward.)
2. “The January 6 Congressional Hearings in the summer of 2022 jumpstarted the DOJ and finally got Merrick Garland moving.”
Wrong! So far everything on this timeline happened before the start of the January 6 congressional hearings.
(If you want a more complete timeline on the investigation from 2021 to the present, click here.
Now let’s address this variation: But what about that Washington Post article that offered proof that the DOJ did nothing for a full year?
Here were the headlines:
Here is how one writer interpreted the Washington Post article:
And an example of the reaction on social media:
Obviously, from the timeline I’ve shown so far, you can see that a year was not lost, and the GOP did not succeed in intimating the DOJ into doing nothing. For a more complete breakdown of that Washington Post piece, see this “The Washington Post “Bombshell” about Merrick Garland.”
3. Things really got moving after Jack Smith was appointed. Garland should have appointed Smith a year earlier.
First, let’s continue the timeline:
July 21, 2022: We learn that Marc Short, former Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, and Greg Jacob, lawyer to Pence, appeared before a federal grand jury investigating the Jan. 6 attack.
July 28, 2022: We learned that Former DOJ staffer Ken Klukowski, who worked with Jeffrey Clark, was cooperating in the DOJ Jan 6 investigation, including allowing a search of his electronic records.
August 3, 2022: Former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Patrick Philbin, who worked in the White House under Cipollone, were also subpoenaed by a grand jury for testimony and documents about the efforts to overturn the election. They are expected to appear before a federal grand jury on September 2.
August 9, 2022: FBI agents seized Rep. Scott Perry’s phone.
August 10, 2022: The FBI delivered subpoenas to Pennsylvania lawmakers.
August 15, 2022: We learn that a federal grand jury investigating the Jan. 6 attack subpoenaed Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann for documents and testimony.
September 6, 2022: A federal grand jury sent subpoenas on Wednesday to a wide range of former campaign and White House staffers asking for information about the Save America PAC. At least one of the subpoenas also demanded information about the plan to submit slates of phony electors claiming Trump won pivotal states, including all communications with several key lawyers and advisers involved in the effort, including Rudy Giuliani, Boris Epshteyn, Bruce Marks, Victoria Toensing and Joseph DiGenova. Among those subpoenaed was William Russell, who served as a special assistant to the former president and went to his home in Florida. Steve Miller was among those subpoenaed. Rumors on Fox were that some had also received search warrants (presumably for documents.)
Between September and December 2022, the DOJ had to jump through legal hoops secure the testimony of three of Trump’s lawyers, M. Evan Corcoran, John P. Rowley III, and Timothy C. Parlatore, Pat Cipilonne, Rudy Giuliani, Pat Philbin, Marc Short, and Greg Jacob.
November 18, 2022: Jack Smith is appointed special counsel.
Garland appointed Smith because Trump announced his candidacy for office, which created a conflict of interest.
The investigation did not speed up after Smith was appointed. For the remainder of the timeline, click here.
4. Why can’t they charge Trump now with the evidence they have and keep investigating?
Variation: “Garland should just indict what they have now and bring superseding indictments later.”
Getting to the Truth is a Process
A number of former prosecutors advocate a strong-arm method of getting to the truth: subpoena them all, force them all to tell the truth, and throw them in jail if they don’t.
Unfortunately, the strong-arm method is unlikely to get you very far.
Problem #1: To “force them to tell the truth,” you have to know the truth before you start questioning witnesses, which is the wrong order of things. Through the questioning of witnesses, the truth comes out.
Problem #2: People can say they don’t remember. Technically it’s perjury if a person says “I don’t recall” but they actually do recall. But it’s rarely prosecuted because it’s hard to prove, and a lot of people really can’t remember details.
Problem #3: The Fifth Amendment is always available as a way to avoid answering questions.
A hostile witness or an adverse witness is one who doesn’t want to be there and doesn’t want to talk. A good cross-examiner can squeeze facts out of a hostile witness, but it’s hard. If all the witnesses are hostile, you may not get very far. The idea is to have as many cooperating witnesses as possible.
Cassidy Hutchinson’s process
Cassidy Hutchinson, (White House aide and assistant to former chief of staff Mark Meadows) had to go through a months-long process before she was able to be forthcoming with the committee. She was one of the people in the room when it happened.
In February, she received a subpoena from the Select Committee. She was twenty-six years old, unemployed, and had no money. Her aunt and uncle had offered to refinance their house to raise the money she needed for a lawyer but their application to refinance was not approved. When she wrote to Trump people, she was “primarily seeking financial assistance.”
Trump world provided a lawyer for her, a die-hard MAGA person. While working with this lawyer, she was not forthcoming with the committee. Then, she switched lawyers to one connected with Jeff Sessions. With her new lawyer (and having bonded with Liz Cheney in the process) she found new courage and was able to offer the riveting testimony we saw on television.
Pat Cipollone’s process
As a result of Hutchinson’s testimony, Cipollone agreed to testify under oath. Previously, he resisted. The committee primarily needed him as a corroborating witness. (If six people are in the room where it happened, and one testifies truthfully, and the others close ranks and call her a liar, a jury may waver. But if the White House counsel is able to corroborate her story, the truth gets easier to prove in court.)
Prosecutors who rush to trial without all the evidence risk being surprised at trial with evidence they didn’t know about. Sometimes the new evidence can change our understanding of what happened. For example, here is what we knew at the time of Trump’s second impeachment:
-
-
- On December 19, 2020, Trump summoned supporters to D.C. with his “be there, will be wild” Tweet.
- During Trump’s January 6 speech on the Ellipse, he told the crowd: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Then, perfectly timed for when Congress was scheduled to certify the election, Trump directed his protectors to the Capitol and said he would accompany them.
- Reporting at the time of Trump’s second impeachment told us basically that about 50 minutes into Trump’s speech, some of his supporters began heading toward the Capitol where “unprecedented mayhem ensued.”
-
Legal scholars at the time debated whether “be there, will be wild” and “fight like hell” was legally sufficient to prove that Trump incited violence given the difficult hurdle for proving that speech incited an insurrection under the Brandenburg test.
Since then we have learned (mostly from DOJ filings) that the paramilitaries that led the attack on the Capitol (1) were not at the Ellipse when Trump gave his speech; they skipped the rally and went straight to the Capitol, (2) they came prepared for military action on January 6, and (3) they did much to rile the crowds after Trump sent them to the Capitol.
Now the head of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, and his sidekick Kelly Megs have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, which establishes that this was not a spontaneous reaction to Trump’s speech, it was meticulously planned in advance.
In other words, what happened was a lot more complex than what we thought at first and these new details undermine the theory that it was Trump’s speech at the Ellipse that incited the attack and caused the damage. (On the other hand, the new facts are potentially much worse.)
A prosecutor who puts one story before the jury and then said, “Wait! That’s not what happened. This is what happened,” is on shaky ground. Prosecutors need to know what happened before they walk into court.
A guilty defendant knows exactly what happened, and will know if the prosecution has the wrong end of the stick. The defense can then introduce evidence at trial showing that the prosecution has the wrong end of the stick, and the prosecution falls apart. Example: If Trump had been charged in March of 2022 with inciting an insurrection, and the defense submitted evidence that the people who committed the violence (1) were not at Trump’s speech and (2) did not hear Trump’s speech, the prosecution would have looked stupid and Trump would probably have been acquitted.
Because the new facts we’ve learned since last year point to even more culpability for Trump, rushing to trial last year would have greatly increased the chances of Trump escaping criminal consequences for his role in the insurrection.
Good prosecutors don’t rush to trial before they have all the evidence and a firm understanding of exactly what happened.
Also, see this article for what can go wrong when filing too many indictments too quickly. And if you want a sense of what can happen at a hearing when the prosecution doesn’t have enough evidence, read this blog post about Marjorie Taylor Greene’s evidentiary hearing in Georgia.
Two stories about prosecutors who rushed to trial without all the evidence.
The first is the story of a young (and arrogant) federal prosecutor who was absolutely sure he had a case against my client. Indeed, the case looked airtight. My client was caught red-handed with illegal drugs. Plus she confessed.
You can’t get more straight-forward than that, right?
Turns out that the prosecutor didn’t get all the facts.
The facts: My client was sleeping in the backseat of a truck. Further back in the truck were illegal drugs. The truck driver owned the truck. He was her boyfriend. He was also married (but obviously not to her).
So there she was, sleeping in the back of the truck (with drugs nearby) when the truck driver drove onto an air force base right past the sign that said, “All vehicles passing this point are subject to search.” Yes, he did that . . . (defense lawyer = 
)
The purpose of the sign was obvious: If you drive past the sign, you consent to a search. If you consent, the search is legal under the Fourth Amendment. I don’t know why he drove past that sign under the circumstances. Maybe he wasn’t the best reader.
My client woke up as the officers were searching the truck. Her boyfriend, in a panic, took her aside and said, “You gotta say the drugs are yours. If I get charged, I’ll lose my job.” (Apparently, he was also terrified his wife would find out.)
So my client did it. She confessed and said the drugs were hers. She was charged with a federal crime because they were on federal property.
First, I tried to talk the prosecutor out of insisting on jail time, which would have totally ruined her. She would have lost her job as a laundress. She was barely hanging on financially and otherwise.
He wouldn’t budge. He insisted that she should go to jail.
Me = 
Then= 
I filed a motion arguing that the search was illegal as to her because a sleeping person can’t consent to a search.
Guess what? The judge agreed with me. During the evidentiary hearing, he turned to the prosecutor and said, “I don’t see how someone can come out of sleep and give consent.” Winning on my motion would mean that the evidence would be excluded under the exclusionary rule. (Evidence obtained in an illegal search can’t be used in court.)
As soon as it was clear which way the wind was blowing, the prosecutor asked for a recess and said he wanted to talk to me. Needless to say, the case ended to my client’s satisfaction.
Had the prosecutor probed a little more and gotten the whole story, he might have seen that the case was stronger against the truck driver, who owned the truck and actually consented to the search.
One more story to illustrate the point. One of my clients was given a reckless driving misdemeanor for driving too fast in a parking lot. Ordinarily, things like this are not criminal, but she was going so fast, it was charged as a misdemeanor (criminal).
The officer had drawn a map of the parking lot showing her path and where he stopped her. We hired a professor of physics and engineering who went to the parking lot, took measurements, did the calculations, and said there was no possible way that her engine could get going at that speed given the short distance. My guess was that she was going too fast—but not as fast as the officer said.
We sent the calculations to the prosecutor. Some time passed. Charges were dropped. I assumed they verified the calculations.
The prosecutor could have refiled the charges, accusing her of going at a dangerous speed that the car could manage. But, see how that looks? A jury would wonder how the officer got it wrong the first time. Her theory was that the officer lied. Refiling the charges would look as if the prosecutor (and officer) were targeting this particular person.
In fact, the prosecutor didn’t recharge the crime. The matter was entirely dropped.
That is what Garland meant when he said, “We have to get this right.”
When to bring indictments is part of an overall strategy. It’s literally impossible for people outside the DOJ to evaluate whether the DOJ strategy is working because they don’t have all the information because a “central tenet of the way in which the justice department investigates, and a central tenet of the rule of law, is that the DOJ does not conduct its investigations in public.”
#9: A former prosecutor said so and a former prosecutor should know better than Teri (so there)
The media, including social media, is carrying on a love affair with former prosecutors.
At any given time there are more than 5,000 AUSAs (Assistant United States Attorneys) commonly known as “former prosecutors.” Literally tens of thousands of people out there can call themselves “former prosecutors.” Lots of them were not very good. All but a select few would not be qualified for Garland’s job. Even those who rose to high ranks within the department were not asked to be on the team prosecuting Trump.
Much of what these former prosecutors say reflects more on them and the kinds of prosecutors they were than Garland. For example, the ones saying “Garland is a wimp! He should have had them all arrested by now,” are either (1) looking for attention (2) are the kind of prosecutors who rush to trial and screw up, (3) have a strange infatuation with strongmen. (I’ll point out that worshipping strength and strongmen is an aspect of fascism.)
I suggest that democracy needs more of this 🤓 and less of this 💪.
One former prosecutor wrote an article insisting that every “competent” prosecutor knows that Garland will never indict Trump because he knows he probably won’t get a conviction. Basically, he was saying, “I would be afraid to indict Trump because I know I’d never get a conviction.”
#10: But what about the fact that Garland “refused” to prosecute cases handed to him by Mueller on a “silver platter?”
First, let’s talk about the “silver platter” part.
What Mueller did was present evidence of crimes. During his testimony before Congress, Mueller clarified that his team did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. Presenting evidence is not the same as preparing an indictment or even presenting enough evidence for an indictment.
We don’t know why Garland didn’t go back and prosecute Trump for crimes he committed when he was president. It could have been that the evidence presented in the Mueller report was not enough to commence prosecution under the DOJ regulations, which you can see here. It’s also possible that when Garland assumed office in March of 2021, he had an insurrection to investigate and put all of his resources toward that.
#11: The DOJ was slow to indict Trump because Garland (or the DOJ) is compromised and/or corrupt.
This is an example of a conspiracy theory. Basically it attributes evil motives to ordinary events.
The “Garland is not bringing charges because he is corrupt” theory begins with the premise that the normal time it takes to conduct an investigation is an “unnecessary delay.” The conspiracy theorist then looks for a nefarious cause of that unnecessary delay.
A conspiracy theory is one that:
rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot.
A belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group.
The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of deceptive plots that are largely unknown to the general public.
Conspiracy theories about Garland (he isn’t doing his job because he has nefarious underworld connections) assumes:
- Garland isn’t doing his job
- Garland has nefarious underworld connections that Obama’s vetting team missed when nominating him for a Supreme Court seat and that Biden’s vetting team missed when nominating him for the position of AG.
- The person putting forward the theory is smarter than everyone else and is thus able to see important truths (for example, that even Biden and Obama are in on the plot.)
It seems to me that people who put forward these kinds of paranoid theories are either paranoid themselves (and are thus persuasive because they believe what they are saying) or overwhelmed by the complexity of our government and are looking for easy answers.
Democracy requires an educated electorate. It is harder to maintain a democracy in a large, sprawling, complex government like ours because (1) it takes a lot of work to understand a system as complex as ours, and (2) so many people cannot tolerate complexity.
#12: At least indicting Trump would provide some very solid schadenfreude.
The “indict him right now!” chants are premised on a misunderstanding of what an indictment actually is. An indictment is a formal accusation. It is the start of a long, harrowing process. . .An indictment does not mean that we all live happily ever after. Trials are nail-biters and both sides often feel like they lost. The judge will make rulings you don’t like. Trump will seize the opportunity to become the star of another episode of “I am the victim of a deep state plot against me,” and his followers will believe him. Juries can be unpredictable. I thought the Rittenhouse trial cured people from believing that indictment means conviction.
Conclusion: What is a rage-inducing simplification and why are they so dangerous?
A rage-inducing simplification takes a complex situation and boils it down to something that seems true and has some truth in it, but is not true and triggers rage.
In this video, Yale professor Timothy Snyder talks about “Internet Triggers,” which he defines as something a person reads on the Internet, feels triggered by, and repeats. People often see these triggers because they are directed at them through algorithms. They are then transformed into repeaters of targeted memes. In Orwell’s 1984, the fictionalized totalitarian government worked to reduce the number of words in the language because that limited the ability of people to think (which made it easier to control them). Internet Triggers accomplish the same thing.
Snyder finds this terrifying because democracy depends on us having “some sense of time beyond our immediate outrage.”
The Facebook whistleblower Francis Haugen explained “angry, polarizing, divisive content” gets wider distribution and more engagement. She said that content producers and political parties are aware of this.
The Pew Research Center says this:
The way to fight misinformation is with truth, which is why I put the time into maintaining these FAQ pages
“So, how do we save democracy?”
The way to save democracy is with more democracy. For ways to do that, see this to-do list.
* * *
If you have any of these questions (or want a response to any of these comments) see this post on rage-inducing simplifications.
- “There are never any consequences.”
- “The consequences haven’t been harsh enough and that’s why Republicans keep committing crimes.”
- “At least while they are in jail, they can’t commit any crimes.”
- “If all lawbreakers are not brought to justice, it means rule of law in America is dead”
- “Using just the evidence available through public reporting there is enough evidence to convict Trump.”
- “The process takes too long which shows that the system is hopelessly broken.”
- “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.”
- “At least indicting Trump would provide some very solid schadenfreude.”
- “The entire system is corrupt. Just look at _______ (example).”
- “Trump has been committing crimes all of his life. Anyone else would have been in prison by now.”
- “Just lock him up now already”
- “Stop saying that we have a political problem. we have a law enforcement problem. Committing crimes is always wrong and anyone who breaks the law should be punished harshly.”
- “You can’t go by the book when the book is burning” or “Democrats / the DOJ is bringing a knife to a gunfight.”
- “Nothing else matters if Trump is not indicted.”
This person said:
I prefer to be called an “explainer,” thank you very much.
After I published this blog post, a person characterized my views in this way:
That means it’s time for a mental health break, which is an item on my list of things to do (which you can see by clicking here).
Scroll down for the quiz
If you got this far, you, too, deserve a mental health break.
Examples of mental health breaks:
Quiz
Instructions. Read each of the tweets and pick the best responses. These are recent tweets from real people.
Question #1
A. Nothing ever happens because Garland is too cowardly to do anything about Trump, so without a doubt, Trump will continue ranting on social media and announcing rallies for the remainder of his life.
B. The only thing that can prevent Trump from ranting on Truth Social and announcing his next rally is actual imprisonment, and we are a long way from that. However, he still retains his First Amendment rights in prison, so he will not be silenced completely. For example, he will be able to write letters to the editor and people may be inclined to read them.
C. Stirring people up with rants is illegal if the rants include lies. He should therefore be arrested.
D. None of the above.
Question 2:
A. Two years prior to the date of that tweet, Trump was still president. Garland was sworn into office in March of 2021, which means it has been 18 months, not 2 years. Try to keep up.
B. This meme dates from before the search warrant on August 8, 2022 when the loudest voices on the Internet were telling you that Garland was asleep at the switch and doing nothing. Try to keep up.
C. Hey, dude. Lots of people have been arrested. Lots have already pleaded guilty. Try to keep up.
D. All of the above.
Question #3:
A. According to the headline, DOJ officials are “weighing whether to temporarily scale back criminal investigations.” You have read the headline as if a decision has been made. It’s possible they might scale back. It’s also possible that lawyers weigh everything and this really isn’t news.
B. Even if your reading was correct, you have jumped from “the DOJ will temporarily scale back some of its investigations” to “We Are Doomed.” This is a bit of an overreaction.
C. Both A and B.
D. Neither A or B.
Question 4:
A. While Trump was president, he kept appointing Attorney Generals who would do his bidding, so there was really no way for the Trump DOJ to have been preparing a criminal case against Trump, which means a case couldn’t have been ready against him when he left office.
B. It is not true that prosecuting Trump for only one crime will disqualify him for running for office. If he is specifically convicted of planning an attack on the Capitol, it’s possible that the Fourteenth Amendment will apply, but that would first require a conviction and then additional court proceedings.
C. The New York criminal investigations were delayed while Trump was president because he managed to keep his taxes away from prosecutors. They didn’t get his tax information until later in 2021.
D. All of the above.
Question 5:
A. They’re still looking for a jumpsuit that will fit him.
B. There are no prisons large enough for his ego.
C. Lol easy. America takes its sweet time investigating and prosecuting rich, powerful, white men.
D. Read Teri’s FAQs, take a long mental health break, and then check out her list of things to do.
Answers:
1: B
2: D.
3: C.
4: D.
5: D
If you got them all right, give yourself a 🏆
Thanks for keeping the light on, Teri. Don’t know what some of us would do without you. Seriously. These people who praise themselves with their long years of experience, place of office, name dropping expertise, just sound like they came from the studios of Fox News or OAN etc.
Are they really consciously trying to hinder the investigation and/or give more fire to the Trumpettes and company? I really don’t understand it (I know you’ve mentioned some are out for the money, fame etc but this is too serious for that malarky).
R
Teri,
Your tweets, your articles, your blog are part of keeping my mental health intact. I am incredibly grateful to you.
Abbi Kaplan
Thank you so much for explaining it lament terms. Great read and I appreciate your effort. Love the part at the end about needing a mental break. I’m putting my phone down right now and I’m going outside to visit my beautiful flower garden. Keep up the good work
Teri, I stumbled upon this in the ways that one link leads to another. Thank you hugely for feeding my hunger to know facts. You’ve illuminated much.
Thank you. Your patience is extraordinary.
Ms. Kanefield,
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all of this to the average person, who has a political bend. While it may seem confusing before reading your FAQ, afterward it is much clearer. I will utilize a link to this FAQ, to explain to those who are still resistant to believing or understanding what has and is happening in the process-assuming of course that is okay with you, of course. I personally found these FAQs to be quite enlightening. Thank you, again.
“Democracy requires an educated electorate and repeating rage-inducing simplification dumbs us all down.” I copied this to continually remind myself as I scroll through Twitter and listen to others ranting and posing as “real experts”. Thank you, Teri, for offering education and balance. I’m rooting for Garland and our DOJ and trusting our democracy is strong enough even if I’m often frustrated with its pace.
Thanks.
I think the future of democracy depends far more on voter turnout in the midterms than anything that happens in the courts.
I just planned out a future blog post going deeper into the dangers of these Internet triggers, but I assume that the legal processes will keep me busy for the foreseeable future.
Yay, I got a 100 on your quiz! Most importantly, I truly now understand the meaning of “rule of law.” I think this is the secret sauce to our sanity right now.
Thank you so much!
Very much enjoyed rereading faqs and the quiz. Made me laugh! Better was seeing the dog on the beach (haven’t been to SLO since moved from California a year ago) and sacked out puppy. Thanks for all.
Trophy . Confess to little cramming action as old habits die hard but multiple choice a favorite.
Wordle was an unusually annoying challenge today so I needed this! Thanks teach…
Hi Teri,
You have GOT to get an RIS stamp or meme and use it for some replies. It might save you (and the rest of us) some time.
Was very glad to see you on Politics Girl podcast. Good talk! Thanks for keeping us calm and informed on Twitter. You have such patience with the irrational.
Thanks for this post!
Thank you, for the best lawsplainers on Twitter. Patient, detailed, and without a snarky putdown when someone who’s not a lawyer asks what might be a sophomoric question.
Thanks. I do get very testy, but not with questions that show that a person knows nothing about the law. I get very testy with cynicism and rage-inducing memes.
In Teri we Trust.
And even if Trump has $220 Million for lawyers and smoke, the US has more. Plus, AG Garland has Trump in his cross hairs. Next stop jail, where Trump can film his Manifesto on Apple TV. Then, too old.
“The way to save democracy is with more democracy, not with autocratic methods.”
So many brilliant take-aways from your writing. You explain everything in a way that I can understand. A rare commodity, indeed. Thank you very much from Denmark
I understand Garland is taking his time with the Jan 6th stuff. But what about all the other stuff? What about Trump stealing classified documents that he claims is his? He stole it. The law says he can’t have the documents he has. The FBI asked for it back and had to raid his house to get them back. It was theft. There is no “we have to get it right” here. Either he stole it or didn’t. So why hasn’t he been charged?
I personally believe MG just wants all this to go away quietly. He’s hoping Trump never runs for office again, or dies, or whatever. In a vacuum, of course he holds him accountable. But in reality, he has to worry about death threats to him and his family for decades. I just don’t think anything will happen.
I don’t believe you actually read this FAQ page.
Would it offend you if I said that your quiz was the best part of this FAQ page? I busted a gut with “try to keep up”.
I’m sure you’re told this often … you have a way a simplifying the complicated. However, your snark is what keeps me coming back. It’s always appropriate and timely.
Thanks for being out there in cyberspace helping me stay grounded.
Because we don’t know who Trump provided these documents to and what damage has been done. This goes to the indictments before you have all of the answers. Then you couldn’t prosecute him for giving government secrets to Putin. MBS etc. That would be the greatest charge of all. Does the fact Trump had lists of spy information have anything to do with the multitude of CIA informants that disappeared 6 months after Trump left office?
Not a lawyer, but someone who has been paying very close attention.
This entire post was superb and sublime, but this, for me, is the core message that people need to understand, especially as mail-in ballots are soon to arrive: “The criminal justice system cannot save democracy if enough people choose to vote for a candidate who they know will destroy democracy. Political problems require political solutions.”
Thank you for all you do.
Your analysis and comments are very, very helpful and I see how I have conflated issues of Justice with issues of politics. So, thank you for that.
You also state that these matters are very complex. Question: At what point do we concede that they are too complex?
Apparently our institutions are unable to educate a large segment of the electorate regarding the necessity of legal complexity. So, how might we simplify at least some of this complexity? Is it an issue of Justice or Politics?
I guess I think we need some charismatic genius to articulate a fundamental, philosophical tenet for simplifying the rules of democratic self governance. (Charismatic, because half of the problem is political. And genius, because the other half is intellectual problem of “Justice.”) I once thought John Rawls was such a philosopher. Maybe you know of other guiding lights re how to simplify? Or maybe you could be the guiding light?
Anywho, thank you.
This is a problem. I took a copy of your question and I may try to work it into a blog post. Unless something changes I’m planning to talk generally about democracy and fascism this weekend.
People also confuse rule of law with justice. They tell me if all the guilty people are not punished, rule of law will be dead. If all the guilty need to be punished for rule of law to survive, why do we have the exclusionary rule? If that is the case, I spent my career undermining rule of law as a defense lawyer.
I got the trophy. And I’m now confident I can pass the “Twitter Law Exam”. I’ve been a bit worried about that, and now I’ve had a mental health break. Bring it on, #Twitter Mom.
Love your work and insight, Teri. Re question 7, do we know what the standard is to determine people have engaged in insurrection (or aiding it) and are thus subject to 14A cl. 3? I’ve not seen one detailed. Is it convictions in court? House vote? Other?
There’s a difference of opinion on that. This is what Lawfare published: https://www.lawfareblog.com/14th-amendments-disqualification-provision-and-events-jan-6
There is something more recent (I think on Just Security.) There is no easy answer because it’s not something that had been much needed since after the Civil War.
I’ve been meaning to dig into the question but haven’t yet.
There was a hearing trying to disqualify Marjorie Taylor Green but her accusers were not well prepared.
Hi Teri, I’m new to your blog and really appreciate what you do to keep us up to date. I’ve looked over past posts and have not seen anyone ask about Moore v. Harper. Earlier today I watched an interview on MSNBC of Judge Michael Luttig discussing case before our highest court of law, and frankly it scares the heck out of me what it might mean. Would appreciate your thoughts. Thank you again.
I decided not to worry about Moore v. Harper because from the beginning I thought it unlikely that the Supreme Court would go for it. I make no predictions (nobody can ever predict with 100% accuracy what a court will do) but I always considered it improbable.
Love your work and I keep checking this FAQ for new material. It would be so helpful if at the top you had a line like: “Updated Dec 5 2022” or similar.
In fact full dates at the top of all your posts would help; for browsing now and for people looking back later.
Again, thanks!
For the past few months, it’s been mostly the timelines I’m updating with new events. I haven’t added any new questions.
I just come back and check for redlines periodically, but I agree that dating your posts would be helpful over time when we look back at these, and for this one, an “updated ” at the top would also make for quicker reading, but rereading it periodically isn’t a bad thing to do in the end.
FWIW, I nailed the quiz! Love the snark in some of the answers.
And yes, on the site, each post is dated when it’s first posted (only visible in the site listing, not inside the article itself), but there’s no indication of when updates are made.
Before Dobbs, I would have been more comfortable with SCOTUS maintaining precedent, but since then, it really seems like everything is up to the whim of the rogue majority. That said, with the current extremism the answer seems to relate to whether it furthers their power, and Moore v. Harper would dilute it. Only on that basis would it seem like they would reject it, i.e., giving the states the power to ignore the federal and state courts is not in their interest.
I think Congress has been studying Section 3 of the 14th Amendment since 1/6/2021. Here are links to two reports published by the Congressional Research Service in 2022. Within each report are many links to other reports and sources.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10750
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569
AMEN!
So many people forget this part when they are shrieking “lock him up NOW!!”
Thank you for this FAQ, I noticed that you stated under April 8, that Ali Alexander wasn’t at the Capitol.
He was at the Capitol, and has been documented in multiple locations, including climbing the steps with A. Jones.
https://twitter.com/TwittsnTweets/status/1365060694819954695
https://twitter.com/hunter2187/status/1405578167197351947
Thanks. I fixed to “he was at the Capitol, but never entered.”
What role do journalists have in this process?
And should their reporting be held to legal standards or can they extrapolate?
You make an excellent delineation of what is legal and what is political.
Is it fair to say that the judicial system is “truth” based while the political process is “perception” based?
Finally, why is it that white collar crime is so difficult to prosecute and treated so leniently when we know the damage these kinds of crimes do outstrip blue collar crimes?
As far as the first question, I don’t see a difference between truth based or perception based.
As far as the question about white collar crime, I answered it in this paragraph (keeping in mind that I had to keep answers short or this blog page would become a book):
“Some of the inequity happens because some crimes are easier to catch than others. A shoplifter and a bank robber commit their crimes in public. A burglar commits the crime in someone else’s house. Crimes like money laundering and bank fraud are harder to catch because they happen in private without witnesses, and evidence can only be obtained by means of a search warrant, which requires probable cause of a crime. If the only evidence is buried in a person’s personal papers, it’s hard to find probable cause for a warrant.”
I also, I believe the answer is in the heart of the entire blog post: Certain crimes are easier to catch than others, so in something like the insurrection, the DOJ started with ‘overt’ crimes and moved to less overt ones.
Sometimes a complicated post like this needs a second read.
Dr Kanefield,
Your clear eyed informative posts are very helpful. Thank you for doing these updates.
My question is: Of all the negative postings and commentary about Garland’s DOJ actions, what do you think is the most, damaging to our democracy, incorrect statement you encounter? Or can you rank the statements by degree of ignorance?
Best regards,
Kevin
Probably the idea that Garland should be dispensing with rules and procedures.
Yes, I see. We need to avoid becoming another version the monster we are fighting against. Thank you.
Well said.
Hi
To the point #9 that Garland is corrupt, can you address any Federalist society connections? There are Dems going down a destructive rat hole.
Tx
I think you’re saying that there are “dems” going down a conspiracy theory hole regarding Garland and the federalist society.
I will address this in the body of the blog post.
This is just a typical conspiracy theory. I’m not sure too many “dems” are going down this conspiracy theory rabbit hole. I know the large account that promotes it, and while she has lots of followers, I don’t know of any prominent Democrats who take her seriously.
I have staunchly defended Merrick Garland and told people to trust the process and have patience when they criticize him. But I confess that his appointing a special counsel to look into Biden’s handling of papers sticks in my craw. The papers were found, reported, and turned over. I imagine that this has happened before with no fuss being made. This is a very different scenario than TFG’s case. If this was done for “fairness” it seems to be very mistaken. It looks like the same kind of “fairness” that led Comey to report Hillary’s emails just before the election.
The reason the DOJ gave was that Biden is a candidate for office in 2024.
By the way, I suggest not telling people “trust the process” and “have patience.” People often misconstrue what I say as “trust the process” and “have patience.”
In fact, what I say is accurately describe what is happening, staying grounded in the facts.
The [false] notion that you should trust the process and be patient is why you get annoyed now. The reality is that we have no choice but to wait and see what happens. We elected Biden, he appointed Garland, who appointed a special counsel, and the matter is out of our hands. We may not like the results. Because there isn’t much choice right now in political parties (the Republican Party is unhinged) all we can do is vote Democratic even if we don’t get the results we want.
Thank you. People see that he was a speaker at the federalist society and are convinced he is one though Liz Warren did the same.
I understand that there are finite resources available to the DOJ. That said, the long gap between a stunning coup attempt and any consequences for members of the House and Senate who participated grows daily. People like Hawley, MTG, Gosar, Boebert, Gohmert, Cruz,…aided the coup attempt, often on camera.
Still, I watch as their power in our country only grows. Their intent was clear, confirmed by their own words. It’s not acceptable that they walk free.
I was going to answer this, but I decided to add it to the blog post instead.
First, I need to ask: What specifically did each of them do on camera to warrant criminal indictments?
I can see making an argument for MTG, although she beat the charge in Georgia when citizens tried to keep her off the ballot.
Tell me what each of the others did on camera to warrant a criminal indictment.
Your use of social media is IMHO what it’s best and meant for. I want to thank you for your time to educate me.
We all have watched too many crime cases on TV. Almost all of cases are solved in 1 hour. Even processes that normally take days or weeks are shrunk to a few minutes. This distortion warps our expectations of how quickly the research in a case normally occurs. We compare how fast “Perry Mason” solved his cases to the DoJ. We keep asking why the DoJ is so slow. The answer is the DoJ only works in real time, not the accelerated time of TV. We have to forget about characters on TV because they operate in accelerated time. The FBI, DoJ, etc all operate in real time which makes comparisons between real time and TV time like comparing apples to carrots, a useless task with terrible results.
Exactly this. TV is not reality, and never mistake it for such.
Hey, Teri – I replied to you on Mastodon regarding whether an arrest is a meaningful consequence for Trump, and due to my own poor phrasing I think it was understood as the opposite of what I meant.
I think a lot of people believe an arrest isn’t a meaningful consequence because they think a conviction is needed to stop him from becoming President again, which is, of course, not the case. Nothing stops a person with a conviction from running for and becoming President. However, an arrest *does* have political consequences. That in itself is meaningful. Also, Trump has managed to avoid an arrest for many of the things he is credibly suspected of having done to this point in his life, so an arrest *now* is meaningful for that reason alone.
If someone believes that only a conviction will do, I would suggest they set the bar too high. For any other person who doesn’t have Trump’s ambitions and history, an arrest might not be terribly meaningful. (I refer to the supposed criminality of ham sandwiches.) But for Trump, and given the obvious care given to the investigation thus far, it certainly is.
Thanks for coming over here, and sorry if my fuse was short.
If I made a rude comment to you I’ll delete it.
I’m hitting refresh waiting for that indictment !!!
No worries at all! You weren’t rude in my opinion – merely abrupt. I know you get a near-constant deluge of “but muh pinions” that you do, so I didn’t take it amiss. Thanks for letting me clarify!
Wow! Your timeline really shows how the DOJ is building a case step by step and from the bottom to the top. Thank you so much!
Stephen
I don’t remember.
This is the best and most comprehensive article I have ever read about anything connected with Trump, J6, Garfield, DOJ, political infighting, political yammering by either side of “todays” political issue of concern.
Thank you very much for your work and concise explanation of the process.