Merrick Garland

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      FBI searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home for classified nuclear weapons documents – report

      by

      FBI searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home for classified nuclear weapons documents – reportSuspected presence of such documents could explain why US attorney general took step of ordering FBI agents into a former president’s house FBI agents were looking for secret documents about nuclear weapons among other classified material when they searched Donald Trump’s home on Monday, it has been reported.The Washington Post cited people familiar with the investigation as saying nuclear weapons documents were thought to be in the trove the FBI was hunting in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. They did not specify what kind of documents or whether they referred to the US arsenal or another country’s.DoJ has asked court to unseal Trump search warrant, Merrick Garland saysRead moreThe report came hours after the attorney general, Merrick Garland, said he had personally authorised the government request for a search warrant and revealed that the justice department had asked a Florida court for the warrant to be unsealed, noting that Trump himself had made the search public.The justice department motion referred to “the public’s clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred in its contents”.Trump later released a statement saying he would not oppose but rather was “encouraging the immediate release of those documents” related to what he called the “unAmerican, unwarranted, and unnecessary raid and break-in … Release the documents now!”Garland’s announcement followed a furious backlash to the search from Trump supporters who portrayed it as politically motivated. On Thursday a man who tried to breach the FBI’s Cincinnati office was shot and killed by police after he fled the scene.01:56The court told the government to present its motion to Trump’s lawyers and to report back by 3pm on Friday on whether Trump objected to the warrant being unsealed.The suspected presence of nuclear weapons documents at Mar-a-Lago could explain why Garland took such a politically charged step as ordering FBI agents into a former president’s house, as retrieving them would be seen as a national security priority.Trump was particularly fixated on the US nuclear arsenal while he was in the White House, and boasted about being privy to highly secret information.In the summer of 2017 he told US military leaders he wanted an arsenal comparable to its cold war peak, which would have involved a ten-fold increase, a demand that reportedly led the then secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, describe him as a “fucking moron”. Trump publicly threatened to obliterate both North Korea and Afghanistan.In his book on the Trump presidency, Rage, Bob Woodward quoted the former president as telling him: “We have stuff that you haven’t even seen or heard about. We have stuff that Putin and Xi have never heard about before. There’s nobody – what we have is incredible.”Woodward said he was later told the US did indeed have an unspecified new weapons system, and officials were “surprised” that Trump had disclosed the fact.Cheryl Rofer, a chemist who worked on nuclear weapons at the Los Alamos national laboratory said there were varying classification levels applying to different kinds of documentation.“Information about the design of nuclear weapons is called Restricted Data and is ‘born classified’. That means it is assumed to be classified unless declassified,” Rofer, who writes a blog titled Nuclear Diner, wrote on Twitter. But she added: “There’s no reason for a president to have nuclear weapons design information that I can see.”Among the nuclear documents that Trump would routinely have had access to would be the classified version of the Nuclear Posture Review, about US capabilities and policies. A military aide is always close to the president carrying the “nuclear football”, a briefcase containing nuclear strike options, but it would be unusual for those documents to be taken out of the football.Another possibility Rofer pointed to is that Trump could have retained his nuclear “biscuit”, a piece of plastic like a credit card with the identification codes necessary for nuclear launch. Those codes would have been changed however the moment Biden took office at noon on 20 January 2021.TopicsDonald TrumpFBIMar-a-LagoUS politicsMerrick GarlandnewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Time is running out. The justice department must indict Trump | Laurence H Tribe and Dennis Aftergut

      by

      Time is running out. The Department of Justice must indict and convict TrumpLaurence H Tribe and Dennis AftergutIf Trump or any of the likely Republican nominees win in 2024, they will immediately move to protect those who attempted to overturn the 2020 election On Tuesday CNN reported that key January 6 texts have been erased by officials of Donald Trump’s defense department in addition to homeland security and the Secret Service. Not even a clueless Hamlet could avoid smelling “something rotten in the state of Denmark”.With the growing list of deletions, there is a whole new criminal conspiracy to investigate: one to destroy evidence of the grave federal crimes already under investigation. Nothing so focuses the prosecutorial mind or underscores the need to accelerate a criminal investigation as evidence that the investigation’s target may have plotted to erase the proof of his wrongdoing that is needed to hold him accountable.Trump’s attempted coup continues – even after January 6 hearings are over for now | Robert ReichRead moreThe attorney general, Merrick Garland, knows that the fish always rots from the head. On 26 July, the Washington Post broke news that the justice department’s investigation is focused on Donald Trump himself. Time is of the essence in bringing his case to indictment.Indeed, a moving target who gives every indication that he plans to strike again must trigger a different cost-benefit calculus in the inevitable debates both within and outside the justice department about when enough proof has been gathered to indict responsibly – and when it would be a dereliction of duty to delay further.The former president’s insistence that he has nothing to be remorseful about (other than not marching to the Capitol) makes that debate seem academic. And the steps being taken at his behest even now in battleground states to replace 2020’s failure with 2024’s success redouble the urgency. Shakespeare’s Brutus had it right when he said, in Julius Caesar: “We must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.”In these circumstances, prudence counsels running the clock backwards to set clear benchmarks for moving forward. Any calculation of how to proceed must start with two pessimistic premises. First, that Trump will run in 2024 and could win. Second, that if any of the likely Republican nominees wins, the next administration will be one that is eager to scrap any prosecution of the last.Hence, the goal must be to secure a conviction before November 2024, and in any event, no later than 20 January 2025, when the next presidential term begins. It is already too late for all appeals from any such conviction to be exhausted by that date, but the key to holding the chief conspirator accountable is a jury verdict of guilt.Consider this: the trial of insurrectionist Guy Reffitt occurred 13 months after his original indictment. That trial, and its delaying pre-trial motions, were incalculably less complex than Trump’s would be. One can easily anticipate motions that, if denied, might go far up the appellate chain.It is not hard to imagine a majority of supreme court justices in no great hurry to resolve motions upon which the start of trial could depend. One can easily conceive a 20-month or longer period with the former president indicted but not yet tried. If Trump is not formally charged until January 2023, that would imply a multi-month trial starting in September or October. Should he run for president and win in November, we would have a president-elect in the middle of a criminal trial.Part of why a lengthy post-indictment/pre-verdict period is foreseeable is that federal district courts are bound to protect an accused’s rights to full airing of pre-trial claims and the time needed to file and argue them. Trump will have many pre-trial claims, setting out his serial and inexhaustible list of grievances, the imagined violation of his rights, his purported immunity from prosecution as a former president and the overriding unfairness of it all.Some district court judges more than others will balance protections for the accused with accountability’s pragmatic need for speed. Importantly, even the four Trump-appointed district court judges in DC have often shown little sympathy for those charged with perpetrating the events of January 6 or resisting their investigation. On 1 August, Judge Dabney Friedrich sentenced Reffitt to more than seven years in prison, the longest sentence to date.Judge Tim Kelly refused to dismiss indictments against Proud Boy leaders who were part of the January 6 siege. Judge Carl Nichols brooked no nonsense in Steve Bannon’s July trial, deliberately preventing it from becoming the “political circus” Bannon sought to make it.On the other hand, among eight judges who have considered defendants’ motions to dismiss federal charges of obstructing an official government proceeding – Congress’s January 6 election certification session – Nichols was the lone outlier who dismissed the count. That is one of the main charges that observers believe federal prosecutors could bring against Trump.The point is that if Trump were to be indicted, the Department of Justice cannot count on a favorable judge putting it on a jet stream to an actual trial. So what does that mean for precisely when Trump must be formally indicted?Thankfully, it doesn’t imply the impossible. The Department of Justice could pull an experienced prosecutor or two from every US attorney’s office and put them together on the case.With all stops pulled, prosecutors still have time to do what is needed before year end. The tasks include talking to witnesses that the January 6 House committee interviewed and deposed, which is well under way. Cassidy Hutchinson, principal aide to Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Vice-President Mike Pence’s top aides, Marc Short and Greg Jacobs, are now working with the Department of Justice or appearing before its grand jury.Cooperation is already reported to have begun among the lawyer-enablers of Trump’s coup plotting. With the investigation’s accelerating aim at Trump, every potential target’s defense counsel has surely discussed with the target the advantages of an early offer to plead guilty and cooperate. Early birds get better worms.On 2 August, the federal grand jury investigating the lead-up to the January 6 insurrection subpoenaed the former White House counsel Pat Cipollone. Department of Justice prosecutors are reported to be preparing to go to court to secure his testimony about his conversations with Trump if Cipollone again declines to disclose them on grounds of executive privilege.The task ahead is massive, but if attacked with supreme urgency, it can get done. The building blocks for a trial of Donald Trump must be put into place with alacrity. In no case more than this one, the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. The clock is ticking.
      Laurence H Tribe is the Carl M Loeb University professor and professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard Law School
      Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor, currently of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsRepublicansMerrick GarlandcommentReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Garland promises ‘justice without fear or favor’ as DoJ digs into Trump’s January 6 role

      by

      Garland promises ‘justice without fear or favor’ as DoJ digs into Trump’s January 6 roleInvestigators have specifically questioned witnesses about ex-president’s involvement in the insurrection, reports say The US attorney general, Merrick Garland, said he would “pursue justice without fear or favor” in his decision on whether to charge Donald Trump with crimes related to the Capitol attack and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, as news reports indicate the justice department’s investigation is heating up. The department is conducting a criminal investigation into the events surrounding and preceding the January 6 insurrection, an effort that Garland – speaking to NBC’s Lester Holt on Tuesday – called “the most wide-ranging investigation in its history”.News reports on Tuesday suggested the inquiry is homing in on Trump’s role. The Washington Post reported – according to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity – that investigators have specifically questioned witnesses about Trump’s involvement in schemes to overturn the vote, and received the phone records of Trump officials and aides, including former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. The New York Times also reported that federal investigators had directly questioned witnesses about Trump’s efforts, signaling an escalation.‘Nancy, I’ll go with you’: Trump allies back Pelosi’s proposed Taiwan visitRead moreResponding to criticism that it is not acting quickly enough, Garland told NBC that the department was “moving urgently to learn everything we can lean about this period, and to bring to justice everybody who is criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power … which is the fundamental element of our democracy”.The House January 6 committee could make a criminal referral. Whether it should, or will, and whether it has presented sufficient evidence to do so, is a matter of extensive debate around the US and on the committee itself.Members including Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Elaine Luria of Virginia, who co-presented last week’s final hearing in a run of eight, have suggested a referral is possible and desirable. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the vice-chair, and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the chair, have been more circumspect.NBC released a clip from the interview earlier on Tuesday as Trump was speaking in Washington, a highly contentious return to the city in which he incited a mob attack on Congress which has been linked to nine deaths, including suicides among law enforcement officers.Holt asked about the political sensitivities around potential charges for Trump.Holt said: “You said in no uncertain terms the other day that no one is above the law. That said, the indictment of a former president, of perhaps a candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart. Is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here? Do you have to think about things like that?”Garland said: “We pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for events surrounding January 6, or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable. That’s what we do. We don’t pay any attention to other issues with respect to that.”Trump has suggested he will soon announce a new run for president. He hinted at such a move again in his speech on Tuesday.Holt said: “So if Donald Trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don’t move forward?”Garland said: “I’ll say again, that we will hold accountable anyone who was criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer legitimate lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.”Holt also asked if the DoJ would welcome a criminal referral from the House January 6 committee.The panel has made referrals for Trump aides. Steve Bannon was convicted of criminal contempt of Congress and faces jail time. Peter Navarro has been charged. Dan Scavino and Mark Meadows were referred, the DoJ then deciding not to act.Garland told NBC: “So I think that’s totally up to the committee.“We will have the evidence that the committee has presented and whatever evidence it gives us. I don’t think that the nature of how they style, the manner in which information is provided, is of particular significance from any legal point of view.“That’s not to downgrade it or disparage it. It’s just that that’s not … the issue here. We have our own investigation, pursuing through the principles of prosecution.”Maanvi Singh contributed reportingTopicsMerrick GarlandDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Garland: ‘justice without fear or favor’ will guide decision on charging Trump

      by

      Garland: ‘justice without fear or favor’ will guide decision on charging TrumpJustice department is investigating Trump’s election subversion efforts, while House select committee could make a referral to DoJ The US attorney general, Merrick Garland, said he would “pursue justice without fear or favor” when it comes to weighing political sensitivities around his decision on whether to charge Donald Trump with crimes related to the Capitol attack and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election.‘Nancy, I’ll go with you’: Trump allies back Pelosi’s proposed Taiwan visitRead moreNBC released a clip of its eagerly awaited interview with Garland on Tuesday. The full interview was due to broadcast in the evening.The Department of Justice is itself investigating Trump’s election subversion efforts.The House January 6 committee could make a criminal referral. Whether it should, or will, and whether it has presented sufficient evidence to do so, is a matter of extensive debate around the US and on the committee itself.Members including Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Elaine Luria of Virginia, who co-presented last week’s final hearing in a run of eight, have suggested a referral is possible and desirable. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the vice-chair, and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the chair, have been more circumspect.NBC released its clip as Trump was speaking in Washington, a highly contentious return to the city in which he incited a mob attack on Congress which has been linked to nine deaths, including suicides among law enforcement officers.Garland’s interviewer, Lester Holt, asked about the political sensitivities around potential charges for Trump.Holt said: “You said in no uncertain terms the other day that no one is above the law. That said, the indictment of a former president, of perhaps a candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart. Is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here? Do you have to think about things like that?”Garland said: “We pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for events surrounding January 6, or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable. That’s what we do. We don’t pay any attention to other issues with respect to that.”Trump has suggested he will soon announce a new run for president. He hinted at such a move again in his speech on Tuesday.Holt said: “So if Donald Trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don’t move forward?”Garland said: “I’ll say again, that we will hold accountable anyone who was criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer legitimate lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.”Holt also asked if the DoJ would welcome a criminal referral from the House January 6 committee. The panel has made referrals for Trump aides. Steve Bannon was convicted of criminal contempt of Congress and faces jail time. Peter Navarro has been charged. Dan Scavino and Mark Meadows were referred, the DoJ then deciding not to act.Garland told NBC: “So I think that’s totally up to the committee.“We will have the evidence that the committee has presented and whatever evidence it gives us. I don’t think that the nature of how they style, the manner in which information is provided, is of particular significance from any legal point of view.“That’s not to downgrade it or disparage it. It’s just that that’s not … the issue here. We have our own investigation, pursuing through the principles of prosecution.”TopicsMerrick GarlandDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Garland says he is watching January 6 hearings amid pressure to investigate Trump

      by

      Garland says he is watching January 6 hearings amid pressure to investigate TrumpUS attorney general says official guidelines do not prevent him from investigating ex-president The US attorney general said on Monday that he was watching the House January 6 select committee’s hearings, as he faces mounting pressure from congressional Democrats to open a criminal investigation into Donald Trump over his role in the Capitol attack.Merrick Garland also said at a press conference at the justice department’s headquarters in Washington that internal office of legal counsel guidelines did not prevent him from opening an investigation into the former president.“I am watching and I will be watching all the hearings, although I may not be able to watch all of it live,” Garland said shortly after the select committee concluded its second hearing. “I can assure you the January 6 prosecutors are watching all of the hearings, as well.”The attorney general declined to address potential investigations into Trump or other individuals mentioned by the select committee at the hearings, saying that could undermine prosecutors’ work and would be unfair to people under scrutiny who might never be charged.Capitol attack panel members urge DoJ to consider criminal charges for TrumpRead moreBut Garland reiterated earlier promises that the justice department is exploring potential criminal conduct regardless of those people’s level, their positions in the government and proximity to Trump, or whether they were at the Capitol on 6 January 2021.The justice department appears in recent weeks to have expanded its criminal investigation to examine top figures connected to Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including government officials and Republican lawyers and operatives.One grand jury in Washington is investigating the rallies that preceded the Capitol attack and whether any executive or legislative branch officials were involved in trying to obstruct Joe Biden’s election certification, according to a subpoena seen by the Guardian.The justice department also appears to be investigating political operatives close to Trump, according to another grand jury subpoena seen by the Guardian, as well as some Trump lawyers involved in a scheme to send fake Trump electors to Congress.Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general, confirmed in January that prosecutors were looking into any criminality in that plan, under which Trump’s lawyers hoped the former vice-president Mike Pence would refuse to certify those states and return Trump to office.The attorney general added some additional insight into the justice department’s decision-making with respect to opening an investigation into Trump, saying that internal guidelines did not prevent him from taking such action if warranted.“There’s nothing within the office of legal counsel that prevents us from doing an investigation,” Garland said. “There’s nothing that’s coming in the way of our investigation … We’re just going to follow the facts wherever they lead.”Garland’s remarks about the office inside the justice department, which issues opinions for the agency that are broadly seen as binding, did not address whether the guidelines preclude charging, not just investigating, a former president.But his careful response reflected the delicate and complicated legal considerations looming over the justice department should it consider whether to investigate and charge Trump over his efforts to reverse his 2020 election defeat to Biden.In court filings and at its hearings, the select committee has been making the case that it believes Trump committed at least two felonies – obstructing a congressional proceeding and defrauding the United States – given evidence it has collected in its 11-month inquiry.The question of whether to pursue a case against Trump has started to prompt serious discussions among senior justice department officials, according to a source familiar with the matter, though there has been no indication that Trump is currently a target of an investigation.Meanwhile, congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the January 6 committee, said on Monday that he did not expect to make a criminal referral against Donald Trump or anyone else over the Capitol attack to the justice department at the conclusion of its investigation.The chairman appeared to indicate the panel would put the evidence of potential crimes by the former president into a final report – currently expected to come in September – and that Garland’s justice department would then have to decide whether to pursue a case.“No,” Thompson said when asked explicitly on Capitol Hill whether the select committee would make a referral against Trump, “that’s not our job. Our job is to look at the facts and circumstances around January 6, what caused it, and make recommendations after the hearings.”The disclosure from Thompson reflects a sense among some of the members on the panel that a criminal referral would make a resulting investigation by the justice department appear political and could undermine a potential case, according to sources close to the inquiry.If the evidence is sufficient for the justice department to consider investigating or charging Trump, the sources said, then the justice department should be able to move ahead with a case regardless of whether the select committee makes a criminal referral.The internal deliberations also come as the select committee has publicly said Trump repeatedly broke the law as he sought to overturn the 2020 election results, but criminal referrals are not binding and the final decision to prosecute rests with the justice department.TopicsJan 6 hearingsMerrick GarlandBiden administrationUS Capitol attackUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack panel members urge DoJ to consider criminal charges for Trump

      by

      Capitol attack panel members urge DoJ to consider criminal charges for Trump‘I’d like to see DoJ investigate any credible allegation of criminal activity,’ says Adam Schiff as pressure builds on Merrick Garland Members of the House committee investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat called on Sunday for the US justice department to consider a criminal indictment for the former president and warned that “the danger is still out there”.Their comments on the eve of the second of the panel’s televised hearings into the January 6 2021 insurrection and deadly Capitol attack will add further pressure on attorney general Merrick Garland, who has angered some Democrats by so far taking no action despite growing evidence of Trump’s culpability.“There are certain actions, parts of these different lines of effort to overturn the election, that I don’t see evidence the justice department is investigating,” committee member Adam Schiff, Democratic congressman for California, told ABC’s This Week.“I would like to see the justice department investigate any credible allegation of criminal activity on the part of Donald Trump.”Schiff, who led Democrats’ prosecution of Trump at his first impeachment trial in 2020, said Thursday’s primetime televised hearing, which attracted 20 million viewers, provided “just a sample” of the evidence the panel has gathered.During Monday’s daytime hearing, he said, the committee will “tell the story of how Trump knowingly propagated his big lie” that his election defeat by Joe Biden was stolen from him by fraud, and how that lie was used to spread disinformation by Trump and his allies.“Once the evidence is accumulated by the justice department, it needs to make a decision about whether it can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the president’s guilt or anyone else’s,” Schiff said.“But they need to be investigated if there’s credible evidence, which I think there is.”Maryland Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin, another panel member, appeared on CNN’s State of the Union to assert his confidence that Garland “knows what’s at stake”.“One of the conventions that was crushed during the Trump administration was respect by politicians for the independence of the law enforcement function,” Raskin said.“Attorney general Garland is my constituent, and I don’t browbeat my constituents [but] he knows, his staff knows, US attorneys know, what’s at stake here.“They know the importance of it, but I think they are rightfully paying close attention to precedent in history as well as the facts of this case.”Raskin said Thursday’s televised hearing had “pierced the sound barrier” but that “Americans need to pay further attention because the danger is still out there”.It emerged that “multiple” Republican congress members had sought pardons from Trump, with Pennsylvania representative Scott Perry, the only one identified so far, denying he had done so.Perry was included in a meeting of congressional Republicans before the 6 January attack that strategized how to prevent lawmakers certifying Biden’s victory on that day.“The seeking of pardons is a powerful demonstration of the consciousness of guilt, or at least the consciousness that you may be in trouble,” Raskin said.“Everything we’re doing is documented by evidence, unlike the big lie, which is based on nonsense. Everything that we’re doing is based on facts.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpMerrick GarlandnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Is Trump in his sights? Garland under pressure to charge ex-president

      by

      Is Trump in his sights? Garland under pressure to charge ex-presidentTrump’s legal jeopardy about the January 6 insurrection is growing but experts say attorney general must move carefully The attorney general, Merrick Garland, is facing more political pressure to move faster and expand the US Department of Justice’s investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack and charge Donald Trump and some of his former top aides.With mounting evidence from the January 6 House panel, court rulings and news reports that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy in his aggressive drive to thwart Joe Biden’s election win in 2020, Garland and his staff face an almost unique decision: whether to charge a former US president.Ex-justice officials caution, however, that while there’s growing evidence of criminal conduct by Trump to obstruct Congress from certifying Biden’s win on January 6 and defraud the government, building a strong case to prove Trump’s corrupt intent – a necessary element to convict him – probably requires more evidence and time.In an important speech in January this year, Garland said he would hold “all January 6 perpetrators, at any level” accountable, if they were present at the Capitol that day or not, who were responsible for this “assault on our democracy”, which suggested to some ex-prosecutors that Trump and some allies were in his sights.But rising pressures on Garland to move faster with a clearer focus on Trump and his top allies have come from Democrats on the House panel investigating the Capitol attack.Those concerns were underscored this past week when the House sent a criminal referral to the justice department charging contempt of Congress by two Trump aides, trade adviser Peter Navarro and communications chief Dan Scavino, who refused to cooperate after being subpoenaed.“We are upholding our responsibility, the Department of Justice must do the same,” panel member Adam Schiff said. Likewise, Congresswoman Elaine Luria urged Garland to “do your job so we can do ours.”About four months ago, the House sent a criminal contempt of Congress referral to the justice department for the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, but so far he has not been indicted.Some former top DoJ officials and prosecutors, however, say Garland is moving correctly and expeditiously in pursuing all criminal conduct to overturn Biden’s election in its sprawling January 6 inquiry.“When people (including many lawyers) criticize the DoJ for not more clearly centering the January 6 investigation on Trump, they are expressing impatience rather than a clear understanding of the trajectory of the investigation,” the former justice inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian.“DoJ is methodically building the case from the bottom up. It is almost surely the most complex criminal investigation in the nation’s history, involving the most prosecutors, the most investigators, the most digital evidence – and the most defendants,” he added.Bromwich added that “people view the scores of ongoing criminal prosecutions of participants in the January 6 insurrection as somehow separate from the investigation of Trump. They are not. He is the subject of the investigation at the top of the pyramid. People need to carefully watch what is happening, not react based on their impatience.”The department’s investigation is the biggest one ever. More than 750 people have been charged so far with federal crimes, and about 250 have pleaded guilty.Still, concerns about the pace of the investigation – and why charges have not been filed against Trump – have been spurred in part by a few revelations over the last couple of months.Last month, for instance, federal judge David Carter in a crucial court ruling involving a central Trump legal adviser, John Eastman, stated that Trump “more likely than not” broke the law in his weeks-long drive to stop Biden from taking office.“Dr Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” Carter wrote in a civil case which resulted in an order for Eastman to release more than 100 emails he had withheld from the House panel.Similarly, the January 6 select committee made a 61-page court filing on 2 March that implicated Trump in a “criminal conspiracy” to block Congress from certifying Biden’s win.On another legal front that could implicate Trump and some top allies, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, revealed in January that the DoJ was starting a criminal investigation into a sprawling scheme – reportedly spearheaded by Trump’s ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign aides – to replace legitimate electors for Biden with false ones pledged to Trump in seven states that Biden won.Further, the Washington Post reported late last month that the DoJ had begun looking into the funding and organizing of the January 6 “Save America” rally in Washington involving some Trump allies. Trump repeated his false claims at the rally that the election was stolen.“We won this election, and we won it by a landslide,” Trump falsely told the cheering crowd. “You don’t concede, when there’s theft involved,” he said, urging the large crowd to “fight like hell”, shortly before the Capitol attack by hundreds of his supporters that led to 140 injured police and several deaths.A Trump spokesperson, Taylor Budowich, has called the House January 6 inquiry a “circus of partisanship”. And Budowich attacked Judge Carter’s ruling as “absurd and baseless”, noting that Carter was a “Clinton-appointed judge in California”.Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that recent actions by the House January 6 panel and by the DoJ, along with court opinions, have notably increased legal threats to Trump. “Anyone would need ice in their veins not to feel the heat when all three branches of the federal government are breathing down your neck,” he said.On the issue of whether Trump may be indicted, Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general in the George HW Bush administration, said “the critical question should be whether there is adequate proof of wrongful intent.” Citing Carter’s ruling that Trump “more likely than not” broke the law, Ayer said that “the evidence of such intent has recently become a lot stronger.”Nonetheless, Ayer and Aftergut stress Garland has to juggle competing priorities lest he politicize his department, while being extra careful to ensure any charges he may bring against Trump will stand up in court.“Garland’s between the rock of defending one justice department ideal and the hard place of protecting another. On one hand, no person is above the law. On the other hand, the department needs to avoid, as much as possible consistent with the first ideal, appearing political,” Aftergut said.“There’s nothing easy about the position Garland’s in,” Aftergut added. “The safest course, before considering a prosecution of a former president, would be to demand considerably more evidence of guilt than you’d require in any other case.”Ayer added: “Garland is right not to be discussing the specifics of whether and how Trump may be indicted,” a stance Garland has adopted to protect the DoJ’s credibility as not political. At the same time, Ayer suggested that Garland “should spend more time talking to the country about impartial justice and the idea that no person is above the law”.There are clear risks in moving too fast to appease critics.“Garland must make his decisions based on the law in relation to the facts,” the former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin said. “The more politicians endeavor to pressure Garland to act, it runs the risk that any decision Garland makes will be seen as politically motivated rather than based on purely legal considerations.”That seems to fit with Garland’s approach. In his 5 January speech this year, Garland emphasized, “we follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money. But most important, we follow the facts – not an agenda or an assumption. The facts tell us where to go next.”And, if there is enough evidence, following the rules could end up with Trump getting charged.“DoJ will never announce that it is investigating Trump and his inner circle. Such an announcement would violate DoJ policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation,” said Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School and a former attorney for the eastern district in Michigan.Garland, McQuade added, “is avoiding the mistake FBI director Jim Comey made in investigating Hillary Clinton, for which Comey was properly criticized”, referring to two status reports about the investigation made in the months before the 2016 election.Ultimately, McQuade said that Garland’s “biggest challenge will be proving that Trump had corrupt intent or intent to defraud, both of which would require proving that he knew his fraud claims were false. It can be very difficult to prove what was in someone’s mind, but it is not impossible.”TopicsMerrick GarlandUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US disrupts global ‘botnet’ controlled by Russian military intelligence, DoJ says

      by

      US disrupts global ‘botnet’ controlled by Russian military intelligence, DoJ saysAttorney general also announces charges against Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev for sanctions violations The US has disrupted a global “botnet” controlled by Russia’s military intelligence agency, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on Wednesday.A botnet is a network of hijacked computers used to carry out cyberattacks. “The Russian government has recently used similar infrastructure to attack Ukrainian targets,” Garland told reporters at the justice department.“Fortunately, we were able to disrupt this botnet before it could be used. Thanks to our close work with international partners, we were able to detect the infection of thousands of network hardware devices.“We were then able to disable the GRU’s [the military intelligence agency] control over those devices before the botnet could be weaponised.”The attorney general also announced charges against Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev for sanctions violations. He said the billionaire had been previously identified as a source of financing for Russians promoting separatism in Crimea and providing support for the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic in eastern Ukraine.“After being sanctioned by the United States, Malofeyev attempted to evade the sanctions by using co-conspirators to surreptitiously acquire and run media outlets across Europe,” Garland said.The indictment is the first of a Russian oligarch in the US since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.In a related move, a federal court in the southern district of New York unsealed a criminal indictment against TV producer John Hanick, 71, a US citizen charged with violations of sanctions and false statements because of his work for Malofeyev over several years.Matthew Olsen, assistant attorney general of the justice department’s national security division, said: “The defendant Hanick knowingly chose to help Malofeyev spread his destabilizing messages by establishing, or attempting to establish, TV networks in Russia, Bulgaria and Greece, in violation of those sanctions.”Last month Garland, who is America’s top law enforcement official, announced the launch of Task Force KleptoCapture, an interagency law enforcement task force dedicated to enforcing the sweeping sanctions against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.He vowed on Wednesday: “Our message to those who continue to enable the Russian regime through their criminal conduct is this: it does not matter how far you sail your yacht, it does not matter how well you conceal your assets, it does not matter how cleverly you write your malware or hide your online activity.“The justice department will use every available tool to find you, disrupt your plots and hold you accountable.”Garland, whose grandparents fled antisemitism at the border of western Russia and eastern Europe more than a century ago, acknowledged horrific images that emerged from Bucha in Ukraine his week. “We have seen the dead bodies of civilians, some with bound hands, scattered in the streets. We have seen the mass graves. We have seen the bombed hospital, theatre and residential apartment buildings.“The world sees what is happening in Ukraine. The justice department sees what is happening in Ukraine. This department has a long history of helping to hold accountable those who perpetrate war crimes.”He noted that one of his predecessors, Attorney General Robert Jackson, later served as a chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials after the second world war. “Today, we are assisting international efforts to identify and hold accountable those responsible for atrocities in Ukraine and we will continue to do so.”TopicsMerrick GarlandFBIRussiaUkraineEuropeUS politicsnewsReuse this content More