What we learn is this: There are DOJ insiders who disagree with Merrick Garland’s approach, and FBI agents who “resisted” opening an investigation into Trump.
I hate to be a spoilsport, but we already knew these things, and there is no bombshell.
If you are a strong critic of Merrick Garland and you believe he is weak, timid, and afraid of “appearing partisan,” it seems to me that a logical response to this article is: “See! People inside the DOJ agree with me that Garland is screwing up.”
An illogical response to this article would be, “See! There is proof that Garland is screwing up. I knew it all along. I TOLD EVERYONE that Garland was screwing up and now we have a well-sourced article confirming that.”
Okay. Let’s look closely at the article. Here is the headline:
FBI resisted opening probe into Trump’s role in Jan. 6 for more than a year
Here is a fact from outside the article:
On January 15, 2022, we learned from a defense lawyer representing insurrectionists (Rob Jenkins) 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.
(We don’t know when that happened, but it was obviously before January 15, 2022. One year earlier, on January 15, 2021, we were still in the Trump administration.)
Here is the subheading:
Here is the incident referred to in the headline
We already know that Garland and the DOJ adopted the “going up the ladder” approach. On January 5, 2022, Merrick Garland explained it this way:
We follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money.
Translation: Garland insisted on applying the same rules to investigating Trump that are applied to all complex investigations. Rule of law, in fact, means that rules are equally applied, no matter who is being investigated.
We can assume, I think, that Garland also believed this was the best approach. (For more on this, see my FAQ page.)
On March 5, 2022, Garland gave an interview to NPR and said: “The investigation won’t end until everyone is held responsible.” In response to a question about whether he would shy away from indicting a former president, he said: “We are not avoiding cases that are political or cases that are controversial or sensitive. What we are avoiding is making decisions on a political basis, on a partisan basis.”
On July 2022, Merrick Garland said this:
The Washington Post article also includes this “evidence.” In March of 2021, there was a meeting:
Michael R. Sherwin gave a presentation in which he “neglected to mention Trump or his advisors.” He also prepared an 11-page report for Garland in March of 2021 in which he also neglected to mention Trump.
I suggest that this is evidence that Trump was not mentioned in the 11-page report. It is, however, not evidence that Sherwin had decided not to investigate Trump.
We learn from the article that in February 2021, before Garland was sworn in, Cooney put forward a plan: Go straight for the top with the fake elector scheme. But others didn’t like it. “All who assembled for the meeting were in agreement, with Axelrod making the final call: Cooney’s plan would not go forward.”
Garland and Monaco, after they were sworn in, agreed not to start with the fake elector scheme.
We never learn why they didn’t want to start with the fake elector scheme. (At least as early as May 25, 2022, the DOJ was looking into the fake elector plot.)
But we do find out that “some in the group” felt that “Seeking the communications of a high-profile Trump ally such as Stone could trigger a social media post from Trump decrying yet another FBI investigation as a witch hunt. And what if the probe turned up nothing?”
Translation: Starting from the bottom up avoids that scenario (which would cause the DOJ to lose credibility in the eyes of the public and thereby undermine any future indictments) by allowing prosecutors to make sure there will be evidence of a crime where they look for it (because they can’t keep fishing).
From the article: Garland, Monaco, and Wray “remained committed to [the bottoms-up approach] even as evidence emerged of an organized, weeks-long effort by Trump and his advisers before Jan. 6 to pressure state leaders, Justice officials and Vice President Mike Pence to block the certification of Biden’s victory.”
Translation: Garland and Monaco stubbornly insisted on keeping to their course.
The article also suggests that Garland changed his approach after the January 6 hearings in mid-2022. One author of the piece, Carol Leonnig, said this on Twitter:
(See? She is saying that the support for the article is that “many people inside the DOJ strongly believe this.” Me: so what? does everyone always agree with the boss?)
What undermines the idea that the J6 hearings (beginning in June of 2022) jumpstarted an investigation into Trump’s inner circle is this reporting from March 30:
March 30, 2022: We learned that “in the past two months, a federal grand jury in Washington 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.“
What we learn is that “many people inside the DOJ strongly believe” that “without the January 6 committee there wouldn’t have been a DOJ investigation into Trump’s role.”
We do not learn that “without the January 6 hearings, there wouldn’t have been a DOJ investigation into Trump’s role.” (And actual facts undermine this take.)
No surprise (given that the sources are people in the DOJ who dislike Garland’s approach) the language used to describe Garland’s approach is slanted toward the viewpoint that the bottoms-up approach is motivated by timidity and fear:
- “charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department”
- “shying away”
- “slow-paced”
- efforts to go after Trump himself were “chilled.”
- lower level prosecutors felt “chafed“
What does “slow-paced” actually mean? Does it mean that if you work from the bottom up it takes longer to get to Trump? Or does it mean that people did less work, dragged their feet, and took long lunches and holidays? (The article mentions the sheer number of prosecutions being brought by this DOJ and the long hours Garland works, so “slow-paced” is a judgment on the method not a factual description. Bottom-up is actually more work, so the description “slow-paced” is slant.)
The article tells us that an “obstacle” in the document case was that “FBI agents . . . resisted raiding the former president’s home” but we know nothing about the nature of that obstacle or what it took to overcome the obstacle.
Finally, from the article, “Whether a decision about Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6 could have come any earlier is unclear.” In other words, we don’t really know if things would have happened faster had they gone straight for Trump.
Bradley P. Moss said this:
Big-name commentators leap forward, waving their copy of TheWashington Post, saying “SEE I WAS RIGHT! Merrick Garland is doing it WRONG.”
I do wonder: If there is disagreement within the DOJ: Garland on one side, and others against him, why do people assume Garland is wrong? Maybe the people running to the press in violation of DOJ policies should be a little more suspect.
I also wonder why these disgruntled insiders chose this moment to go to the press.
I won’t quote all the TV lawyers who evidently didn’t read past the sensational headlines, but here is an example of the kind of responses people had to the piece:
Here Is how the author summarized the The Washington Post piece:
“In those days of 2021 and early 2022, before dual Special Counsel investigations and grand juries, there was widespread worry that bad-faith claims of DOJ bias by the Trumpist GOP had cowed AG Merrick Garland into inaction. Now we know that’s exactly what happened!”
Nothing in the article says that the GOP “cowed” Merrick Garland into “inaction.” The article tells us that people in meetings (including Monaco and Garland after they were appointed) agreed that bottoms-up was the best approach and the investigation would not start with the fake electors.
The article also tells us that people in the FBI “resisted” opening an investigation into Trump. But to leap from there to “inaction” is just that: a leap.
The above headline is misinformation, not disinformation. Disinformation is deliberate falsification. Misinformation is incorrect, but the intention isn’t to deceive. The people passing along the misinformation simply have it wrong.
What actually happened was like game of telephone:
- The article was confusingly written with sensational headlines.
- TV lawyers didn’t read past the headlines or had knee-jerk reactions.
- Others listened to the TV lawyers and got the wrong idea.
* * *
My first inclination was to say to the thousands of people melting down on social media (and the many people sending me questions and emails): “Enjoy. You can have unnecessary meltdowns and rages if it makes you feel better.”
But it seems to me that democracy needs more 🥸 and less 🔥💣.
Moreover, constant outrage isn’t good for anyone’s health. How will we all have the energy to do the work necessary to save democracy if people keep unnecessarily setting their hair on fire?
* * *
2. June updates in the January 6 probe
(Remember that the DOJ is using a “bottom up” approach to the investigations.)
June 7, 2023: We learned that Steve Bannon was subpoenaed by the DOJ in connection to the investigation into the January 6 insurrection.
June 13, 2023: Nevada ‘fake electors’ (Nevada’s GOP Chair Michael McDonald, a close Trump political ally, as well as Jim DeGraffenreid, the state party’s vice chair) appeared before the D.C. grand jury investigating Jan. 6. (They were spotted by NBC News entering the area where the Jan. 6 jury is meeting at the Washington federal courthouse.)
June 22, 2023: Trump campaign’s Election Day operations official G. Michael Brown appeared before the Jan. 6 grand jury.
(Witnesses can refuse to talk by taking the Fifth. One way to compel their testimony is for prosecutors to give limited immunity, which means if the person testifes truthfully, he or she will not be prosecuted for their role in this crime. This generally means the prosecutors have their sights set on someone higher on the ladder who is harder to get to.)
June 23, 2023: Next, we learned that Michael Roman, a top official in former President Donald J. Trump’s 2020 campaign, is in discussions with the DOJ to cooperate. From The New York Times:
Here is a good definition of a proffer:
Basically the defendant tells the prosecution everything they know and the federal rules of evidence protects defendants from prosecutors using their proffer statements against them in future proceedings, except for untrue statements, which void the agreement.
So, the difference between the DOJ compelling someone to testify by immunizing them and a cooperation agreement like the one Roman is hoping for is this: If you’re in talks to cooperate, it means you are in big trouble and you want to be in less trouble. On the other hand, if you are immunized it means you are a small fish and they want the bigger fish.
Therefore, Roman’s position is precarious. He doesn’t know if he will even get the proffer meeting. If he does, he’d better take care to tell the truth and provide something valuable to the prosecutors.
Note: It can be hard to distinguish a person who witnessed a crime from someone who aided and abetted the crime or was part of the conspiracy. Prosecutors need to collect a lot of evidence before they can distinguish witnesses and small fries from those with significant criminal liability. (Any defense lawyer can tell you that prosecutors sometimes get it wrong.)
3. This week’s updates on U.S. v. Trump & Nauta (the classified documents case).
If you’re just tuning in, I wrote about this indictment in three parts:
- Part I: Trump’s Second Indictment (Over the Cliff Notes).
- Part II: Trump has been indicted on federal criminal charges and his case was assigned to Aileen Cannon. Now what?
- Part III. Trump Confessed. Now what?
The DOJ’s response to the standing discovery order is here.
(Like all the documents filed in these cases, the DOJ is writing these documents so they can be easily read and understood by the public. Don’t be afraid to click and start reading. You may find that reading legal documents is totally fun🤓)
Here is everything you need to know about criminal discovery in a nutshell: The defendant gets almost everything the government has, including anything exculpatory (anything that can help the defendant.)
In this first production, Trump will get the grand jury transcripts of any witnesses who will be testifying against him:
Seeing the transcripts from witnesses who testified against him is likely to explode Trump’s head. This stage can be intense (and for normal defendants, painful and frightening.) Things get real.
In this filing, the DOJ basically says: “We are going to give you everything we are supposed to give you and more”:
Among the things Trump will also get to see is Nauta’s testimony to the grand jury on June 21.
In what is surely the strangest thing I have ever seen, Trump continued his spree of confessing his crimes in front of large audiences, this time in an interview with Bret Breir where he admitted that he refused to comply with a subpoena. He gave some silly reasons (he wanted to go through the boxes to check for personal belongings, but he was too busy) but none of these reasons are legal defenses. They are excuses and admissions that can be used against him in court.
Here is the Republican Accountability Project’s ad “Trump is too busy to follow the law”
And now, for another crime. Someone ate my lunch when I wasn’t looking.
I took this picture immediately after the crime was committed because there was only one suspect in the house. Although there were no eyewitnesses, and JJ is too wise to confess, the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming: I briefly turned away. Crumbs were on the table where there had previously been no crumbs. A chair was pulled out, giving JJ a clear path to the table.
The verdict?
Adding: I have been reading the comments and we clearly have a two-tiered system of justice in this country: One for cute dogs and one for everyone else.
Great post, Teri, as usual.
This is why it’s so hard to come by the truth offered by these news sites. Mis or Dis it’s all information we have decide for ourselves if it’s right. So, thanks again Teri. So glad someone has the intelligence and resources to point out the discrepancies.
I swear the whole alphabet of news agencies are vying for the title of State Media in case Trump actually gets back in. Or have they always been that obfuscating?
Poor J J! Without an eyewitness to the actual EATING of said sandwich, how can he be convicted???? Love your writing; it always calms me down and puts a smile on my face.
As always thanks for the informative blog! I read the Government’s Response to the Court’s Standing Discovery Rules and had two thoughts: first I didn’t think it was written in as simple to follow English as the Indictment mostly because of the numerous compound sentences (which I imagine track the language of the discovery rules). Second, I was chuckling about how the doubters said naming Special Counsel Smith late last November would SLOW things down! A question: Can there be any hopeful significance of flipping attached to the statement that Nauta ‘s discovery wasn’t provided because he still hasn’t been arraigned and has no counsel of record?
I just love to read the explanations and your comments. Thank YOU
Your reasoning always brings sense to an emotionally charged topic.
We’ve become a society that needs a picc line to something that outrages or offends us so we can feel that our anger is justified. Maybe folks should deal with their anger problems first and then be able to view news topics objectively.
Did JJs “lunch” spoil his dinner or did he still have room in his belly for another meal?
Re JJ:
“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” – Thoreau
Hi Teri,
Thank you
JJ is adorable and completely innocent of what he’s been accused of.
After all the sandwich was left unattended and within reach, so not his fault!
JJ, I’m familiar with that “Who, me? Somebody else did it!” expression. My cat Artemis has it down perfectly too.
Thank you for this helpful (as always) summation; I confess, since the Miami indictments, I’ve been trying to limit my news consumption, as I have faith in Garland and Smith to do the right thing thoroughly, and setting my hair on fire, as you say, is counterproductive and stressful. The next year or so, until the election, will be full of nonsense and hateful lies, and we must gird ourselves to maintain the course, and take care of our mental and physical health meanwhile. It’s a marathon, not a sprint, and your rational tone is so helpful for staying informed, but not wallowing (especially in weeks like this, where wall-to-wall tragic submersible news, winding up with whatever-that-was-in-Russia news consumes Twitter and other news sources). Thanks so much for keeping us so clearly up to date.
As for JJ, clear case of entrapment! Who made lunch and put it out on the table where it could be sniffed and detected? Who left the chair pulled out, so said lunch could be reached and sampled? Someone, clearly, with opposable thumbs! Look at that face, the very picture of innocence! Mercy, I say, my client was clearly lured in carelessly, shamelessly!
JJ looks guilty. But he’s so cute so I’d let it slide.
How could that sweet little face be guilty of anything?
Great article. My favourite line is”democracy needs more and less “. Too right!
Hi Teri. As always, love your posts. But there is one issue that does bother me. Why is Donald Trump not in jail? Anyone else found with those top secret docs would have been arrested and in jail already. I am sure there are nuances I am missing but when we talk about a two-tier justice system I think we can plainly see where it lies.
Hi, Dave,
The scenario you imagine would have the police or investigators deciding someone is guilty and throwing them in jail without any due process. “You have secret documents! To jail with you!”
You packed so many errors into your post, it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s just start with two:
(1) Imprisonment or jail happens AFTER you are convicted of a crime. If you are held in pre-trial detention there will have to be a good reason. Maybe you are a flight risk, or a danger to yourself. People accused of nonviolent crime are generally not held in jail until their trial.
(2) Not everyone with classified documents is accused of a crime. Biden and Pence are well-known examples. If you accidentally have the documents, you will not be charged with a crime (and if you are, you will not be convicted unless the jury really screws up.)
I would suggest beginning with my FAQ page so that you can learn a little bit about how criminal justice works:
https://terikanefield.com/all-new-doj-investigation-faqs/
Hi Teri,
Let me respond with two points.
1. I conflated the ‘in jail’ comment with the time line for the top-secret docs. My point, not explained very well, is that the gov’t appeared to bend over backwards in retrieving the documents. Providing multiple opportunities for their return that others would not have been given.
Another mistake you are making is thinking that Trump was charged with possession. He was not
(1) “Providing multiple opportunities for their return” is how prosecutors build an obstruction case. Anyone charged with obstruction had multiple opportunities to comply.
(2) Trump was also charged with “willful retention.” If a potential defendant is not given ample opportunity return the documents, it would not be possible to charge someone with “willful retention.”
(3) There is one way that Trump has been treated differently: He has the top prosecutors making sure that the case against him is airtight. He is not similarly situated: He was formerly the president, which gave him unfettered access to documents that other people don’t have. His indictments and case will be scrutinized. His trial will be very public.
Defense lawyers do win cases. The government is making sure that won’t happen this time.
You might want to read my DOJ and general FAQ pages. You can find them in the “criminal investigations” tab of the menu.
I know that legal reasoning isn’t rational reasoning, but one can fairly reason that since Reality Winner was not allowed bail, then it would be fair and proper to disallow tRUmp OR release. Legal reasoning may reason otherwise, but fairness would demand it.
To me, the idea that cases should be handled identically, even though the charges and circumstances (and occasionally jurisdictions) are different is irrational and more likely to lead to unfairness.
I also consider this reasoning irrational and unworthy of a rule of law society: “X person was denied bail. Therefore all people should be denied bail.”
It was gratifying to read your take on the ‘bombshell’ article because it followed the same reasoning as I had on my own. Garland’s bottom up, evidence first approach is in contrast to what so many of us see in TV cop shows where the detectives ‘like’ someone and set about looking for evidence that the person they ‘like’ can be arrested. Rarely do we see the outcome of the trial where the evidence was suppressed because proper procedures were not followed.
That’s why we have long-form podcasts about wrongful convictions. Seems like there are too many times there is improper conduct on behalf of the prosecution – either the cops, the DA’s office, etc. The appeals based on these circumstances end up taking years (which is why those podcasts cover cases that may have happened in the 90s and are still going through appeals, or just came to the end of their road – either in favor or not – for the convicted. The problem to me seems to me the lack of guardrails for improper conduct by the state – and the lack of accountability when a representative of the state (cops, DA, etc) has been found to be grossly negligent or worse, actively suppressing or even making up evidence.
Thank you for very astutely observing the latest WaPo blame game piece. And, your other work remains impressive. There may be one big unspoken reason for articles like this that leap frog from “somebody says” into a sweeping conclusion. There is ample evidence that the people doing the investigation aren’t leaking and there is a lot unknown. WaPo dislikes those who wont be sources, and promotes the ideas of those who do. In this case, there are three prime sources left when the investigators are silent: those being investigated and those riding elevators with the investigators who are upset they’re not part of the team. Both of those groups want to burnish their standing but a third group, are there solely for that purpose. After being a Bill Barr flunky, the oft mentioned former US Attorney in DC may want entry into the DC legal elite or at least invitations to DC cocktail parties, while trumpy FBI agents want him to know they fought for him, especially if he returns to office. The reporting skill here is throwing all of them into a lengthy single article and it’s accomplished by their common anti Justice Department thread. It’s a hell of a narrative that will mostly collapse with indictments but, at least, the you could have done it sooner crowd will have something to be angry about and talk about while, for the third or fourth, or maybe fifth time, follow the 21st century motorcade (“white bronco, anyone?) into another courthouse for another breathless indictment fueled by reporters who, almost laughably leave early and have nothing to report but get their screen time…
And JJ appears not guilty to me.
JJ is of course innocent until proven guilty, will he be fundraising in the meantime. It seems that is the norm these days.
He could fundraise based on this picture alone! Somehow he is even cuter after committing this heinous crime.
The look on his face has no doubt saved many a guilty pup in the past!
I think it important to reiterate the reality that putting Trump and his lackeys in jail for several decades (Secret Service complications not withstanding) tomorrow will do nothing to address the political problem of Trumpism and the MAGA movement.
That it would is a fundamental, and incorrect premise of all the “see I was right!!” screamers.
It would be great if the trial is completed before Election Day, 2024, but it will have no impact on whether or not Trump continues his candidacy and little impact on his support among the MAGA faithful.
It certainly will do nothing to impact the fascist past, current and future actions of DeSantis or Abbott or any other pretender to the MAGA crown.
JJ is undoubtedly guilty despite his less than convincing facial expression. I suggest his punishment include special treats to curb his addiction to lunch items clearly left in his reach.
Re #3 above: is there any evidence Trump put the money in the law firm’s account? Would Tapioca law firm say they had it in the bank if they didn’t?
The money will be in the possession of the court. I’m not exactly sure how the mechanics of that works because I’ve never practiced criminal law, but the court will have control of the money.
The verdict? Those eyes! ❤️
Thank you for the clear, concise sanity. Which I much prefer to buckets of water thrown at my head.
First of all I align my self with JJ. I expect from the crummy evidence, you ate the lunch while distracted by work and simply don’t remember. OR, you want an excuse to have a second portion. Hmmm!
Secondly, you have opened my eyes to the way Garland works. I thought he was simply timid. Now I know he is astute and methodical. May he get to the bottom of this mess and nail the miscreants who instigated it. I’m looking forward to a perp walk including handcuffs.
I only want the guilty to pay.
Thank you. Fire put out. 😉 I
Thank you for your logical cogent analysis, however JJ literally takes the cake (sandwich).
Thank you, Teri. I skipped right past the WaPo article when it came out, because I could tell exactly what it was.
Why oh why do we feel the need to tear down the very people who are doing their jobs and trying to save our democracy?
Dog vs lunch, circumstantial….He shall be exonerated
You left your lunch unattended, right there, with easy access? You ought to be arrested for incitement.
FREE JJ!!
Stunning you still believe you’re right about Garland.
Hi, there. I really have no idea what you are talking about. What, specifically, did I say about Garland that was wrong? In this piece, I mostly critiqued the Washington Post article.
It would be helpful if you point to my sentence with the error.
Teri, do you have any posts exclusively about JJ? (What does JJ stand for?) I would love to hear more about him. Where did he go to Uni? What was his major? Hobbies? Previous criminal history? Is he married? 🙂
Thank you.
I love JJ and greatly appreciate your articles not being behind a paywall. Since fleeing Ukraine over a year ago our budget has been too limited to subscribe to the dozens of columns I read.
Your clear explanations of the American legal system help this Canadian understand what is going on. Can you please explain the Grand Jury system? That baffles me.
I can’t speak for Teri, who would provide a far more knowledgeable and first-hand response, but at least to this layperson, the introduction and Purpose sections of the Wikipedia article about Grand Juries seem accurate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury
Here’s a description of how Grand Juries are being used, specific to investigations of the January 6, 2021 incursion at the US Capitol:
https://www.salon.com/2022/07/31/how-grand-juries-work–and-why-jan-6-prosecutors-are-relying-on-them_partner/
Thank you
Your screen name is brilliant.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/grand_jury
Excellent break-down as usual. Thank you!
As for JJ, not guilty.
That good boy JJ looks guilty as sin! Going with the ‘Aren’t I cute?!’ move is clearly a preventive effort to draw affection and push the crime into the background. I give JJ a 9.0/10 for effort. The circumstantial evidence however appears quite solid!
Good boy!
I don’t think I could ever scold a pup with such a cute face even if he ate my lunch daily! What a charmer!
Thanks for the analysis, and also for the gift article.
I’m torn between those who argue that media should not be quoting without commenting, and the idea that media’s job is simply to report, including what people said, even if obviously false.
Sometimes I think, if country X invaded the USA, reporters would just stand on the sidelines and give unbiased running commentary.
Your post helps by calling attention to language that exposes that some reporters *do* have an agenda – to get the reader excited.
I couldn’t read the article because I’m not a paid subscriber to WaPo, but I saw the reactions to the article on Twitter and almost fell into the trap of believing it until someone else posted it with the heading “Another Garland hit piece.” Eventually I came to the conclusion that, regardless of what may have transpired in the early days of the Biden administration, things are moving briskly now and there is definite focus on those at the top.
In the days of old when Twitter had puppy legal defender @darth, jj would not be smeared in this fashion. He’s innocent! Innocent I say!
I confess that I scrolled down to read about naughty JJ before I read the post about naughty Donald.
JJ has perfected the “Oh, Mom. It wasn’t me!” expression. Donald could take some lessons on that. And wise JJ obviously knows when NOT to speak. Donald should follow his lead.
JJ ended up with an extra lunch because he’s a smart man. Donald will end up in an orange jumpsuit because he isn’t.
So you advise caution in judging Merrick Garland but are prosecutor, judge, and jury when it comes to JJ? I hope he got leniency in sentencing on account of serious cuteness.
Excellent review. I think you’re exactly right. Especially about Garland (who is deeply imbued with the rule of law and not motivated by partisan ire–just as he says. Some with partisan ire want everyone to act according to that, even when the methodical, non-partisan approach will be more effective in nailing the bad guys-and maybe even quicker).
However, there are likely, even among the sources for the WaPo article, people who WERE trying to spike the investigation & protect Trump, or at least resist effectively investigating him. Marcy Wheeler mentions Steven d’Antuono. In complicated projects there are always delays that aren’t really expected. Some are unavoidable & sort of random, but sometimes there are intentional partisan actors gumming up the works. And while it’s a great advantage that our government agencies are staffed with permanent, non-politically appointed professionals, not all of those are non-partisan. The FBI in particular has a majority of conservative agents, and a few of them do play politics in the background. Those are likely a large-ish percentage of the sources for the WaPo article. So rather than Merrick Garland dogging it, he’s been remarkably successful in pushing the investigation so quickly. The opposite of the popular take away.
+1
Great stuff! Thank you (yet again)!
I especially like how you underscore the difference — ignored by some big names on social media– between “x happened, and for this reason” and “some insiders said that x happened, and for this reason.” Also how you provide some missing counter evidence about the timeline (Garland’s early statements, the J6 as catalyst…) that undermines some of the innuendo in the report
On the other hand, I still think that the main substance merits reporting: that there were contending approaches about how best to proceed (top-down vs bottom-up, slower and steadier vs speedy but riskier) and that political contexts and sensitivities (including recent FBI missteps) likely played some role in decision-making. I mean, conservative bottom-up methods notwithstanding, there *was* an issue of timing (Trump could run out the clock by getting re-elected), and it might be both true and a good that Garland and top brass stuck with, as the report calls it, “a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department”.
As for leaks and timing: Maybe deliberate or as unintended consequence…. but
this reporting sort of cuts the legs out from under the front-burner, full-flame MAGA-GOP propaganda that DOJ leadership “weaponizes” investigations of MAGAs and that indictments of Trump are the result of “witch-hunts” that violate standard procedures for applying the rule of law. Conversely,, this is a story of a deliberately patient and methodical investigation, one that insists on following established methods of gathering evidence and building a case.
Excellent piece, I couldn’t agree more. Such a clear & well-written article.
I’ve noticed that the usual cynical Garland/DOJ critics are rather quiet when something positive occurs, like the recent Smith indictment of Trump, but they are now lit up after the WaPo article, claiming, as you suggested, that they were “right all along”, even going as far as saying that Garland should be replaced.
It seems so counter-productive to attack the very institutions & people working towards accountability, while downplaying the real successes we’ve seen so far.
It’s true. You really have to wonder. Is it click bait? Or, despite their education and professional stature, they just don’t read closely? Or they don’t care?
Good points, Teri.
And maybe it’s just me, but I find it very suspicious that the article dropped a few days after Trump was hit with 37 indictments and had to appear in court to face them.
I cannot thank you enough for this logical, fact based, articulate review.
It’s one thing for people in an organization to disagree with what best methods are for approaching a project. This is normal. The media constantly take this normal dynamic and blow it up into making their target (always a Democrat) appear incompetent, cowardly, etc. In this case I get the feeling they sought out dissidents who IMHO operated in bad faith with their “opinions” and seemed to ignore anyone who disagreed.
I’ve been suspicious of the media for years and the egregious behavior in 2016 ratcheted that into full blown skepticism about the their integrity and my willingness to believe the worst – that they are actively propagandizing to advance a fascist agenda.
Thank you. I’m exhausted with the Merrick Garland assumptions and the ‘Biden Crime Family’ accusations that just continue on and on and on with never an end — or, really, any facts.
Thank you!
Agreed. I treat a lot of addiction in my practice. I think this is the modern day addiction- outrage. I think, how about we have a glass wine and a delicious meal with folks we love and get a good night sleep. Get restored. We have work to do. 2024 is coming.
Highly educational read.
Thanks, Teri. I know this article really got under your skin, probably because of the public’s overreaction to it. I agree with one of your earlier sentiments that the WaPo is one of the better papers out there. I also subscribe to it, but that doesn’t mean that they get everything right. Sources matter.
With respect to this article, I too find it suspect that the ones who ran to the press directly in violation of DOJ policies about discussing ongoing investigations are those with some kind of grudge against the AG. Whether it’s impatience, incompetence, or an actual attempt to undermine the investigation, their motives are suspect which casts suspicion on their claims as well.
The track record of the prosecutions resulting from the bottoms up approach is impressive. The cases are solid, and as AG Garland intended supply the evidentiary foundation for later prosecutions. They never would have convicted the militia leadership not present on January 6th had they not built the foundation and then followed the evidence up the ladder. Trump and his circle are higher up the ladder, and as the evidence was uncovered, they too were within scope, long before the public was aware of it as it should be.
Given the complexity of the cases the DOJ is following related to J6, I’m amazed at how quickly they are proceeding. And the documents case also took time, and that indictment was far worse than I ever imagined it would be. AG Garland and his team are doing this exactly the way it needs to be done, with professionalism, following the evidence and the law just the way the DOJ should.
> How will we all have the energy to do the work necessary to save democracy if people keep unnecessarily setting their hair on fire?
I’ve been a “netizen” for over 50 years. My hair became fireproof decades ago. Flame wars do that.
Thank you for your careful reading of this seriously problematic reporting, Teri. I was deeply disappointed yesterday that some normally sober media commentators whom one would think would know better, including Norman Ornstein and David Rothkopf, immediately took the bait and assumed the worst regarding the DOJ. Elizabeth de la Vega’s response to Leonnig’s “people are saying” Twitter comment is spot-on: “Who care[s] what people ‘believe?’ ‘Many people…believe’ sounds just like something Trump would say. We need to be able to distinguish between facts and opinions at the very least, as well as between actual news and rehashed gossip. These are sad days.”
I really like how you think!
Thanks, Teri, not only for adding context here, but also in effect teaching HOW to read this sort of story and simultaneously strip out one’s inclination to add innuendo-laden “explanations” (something I’m hoping to reform myself from doing). The better able I am to do that, the more disappointed I am in those of our “thought leaders” who are doing some outsize preening over facts not in evidence. Humble thanks.
I add my heartfelt thanks in agreement with Doug.
I agree. This article raised many questions for me especially about the sources and what their motives were for coming forward and talking to the press. It is an obviously one sided article from reporters whom are usually more careful than this. There is so much we don’t understand about what is going on behind the scenes. Garland knew what he needed to do was to hire Jack Smith and he is doing a bang up job of getting iron clad evidence on a very dangerous man.
This is so well done. I love that you keep your own notes and continue to demonstrate how to read statements made in the press and are so very good at pointing out the bias in these articles. Thank you for this calm assessment of where things stand.