![Attorney General Merrick Garland made it clear the DOJ's probe into January 6 is ongoing and that more indictments could be on the way.](https://san.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/1793ce734508f88afd6d226c194ca332_Merrick-Garland-Is-Not-Done-Investigating-Jan-6.png?w=1200)
Commentary
-
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
THANK YOU, Merrick Garland. Also: Finally.
I, along with many fellow progressives, have been borderline infuriated by the lack of action on the part of the DOJ with regards to the ongoing assault on small-d democracy. While the January 6th commission seems to be doing a fairly bang-up job – albeit a slower one than some might prefer – Garland has been close to radio-silent on the topic, which some (myself included) interpreted as a lack of desire to engage with the issue. Sort of a “they’ll deal with it; I’m going to stay above the fray” attitude.
Which I don’t personally think is the right approach to an attempted coup that is still basically…happening. The right – and especially the far-right, – are barely even trying to hide what they’re doing to ensure control over the next election. They’re altering voting districts, putting in place sympathetic officials, tightening voting rights – all in the effort to disenfranchise those who are less likely to vote for them.
So when I heard Merrick Garland’s speech to the Justice Department, I just about ran laps around my apartment in joy. Because he might not have said overtly what I’m dying to hear – that Trump and his coconspirators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – if you pay attention to the subtext…isn’t that kinda what he’s saying?
First, he addresses public frustration with the “small fry” arrests – how it seems like the DOJ is only aiming for the lowest hanging fruit, rather than the big fish (sorry, mixed metaphor) who masterminded the whole thing.
“A necessary consequence of the prosecutorial approach of charging less serious offenses first is that courts impose shorter sentences before they impose longer ones.”
“We build investigations by laying a foundation. We resolve more straightforward cases first because they provide the evidentiary foundation for more complex cases.”
He sends what, to my ears, sounds like a warning to anyone who might be considering additional acts of violence, and lays out the difference between First Amendment speech (protected) and threats of violence against another person (not):
“The Justice Department will continue to investigate violence and illegal threats of violence, disrupt that violence before it occurs, and hold perpetrators accountable. We have marshaled the resources of the department to address the rising violence and criminal threats of violence against election workers, against flight crews, against school personnel, against journalists, against members of Congress, and against federal agents, prosecutors, and judges. Peacefully expressing a view or ideology — no matter how extreme — is protected by the First Amendment. But illegally threatening to harm or kill another person is not. There is no First Amendment right to unlawfully threaten to harm or kill someone.”
I have to wonder, since this speech was on January 5, whether he was speaking to any credible threats made in relation to January 6, or whether he was speaking to insurrection and violence more generally – but I’ll take either and both for the win.
Garland also directly encourages cooperation with investigators, underscoring why this cooperation isn’t just patriotic – which should be enough, but apparently not #ahem Mark Meadows #ahem – but the better choice even on a selfish level.
“In charging the perpetrators, we have followed well-worn prosecutorial practices. Those who assaulted officers or damaged the Capitol face greater charges. Those who conspired with others to obstruct the vote count also face greater charges. Those who did not undertake such conduct have been charged with lesser offenses — particularly if they accepted their responsibility early and cooperated with the investigation.”
In short, Garland is appealing to the baser sensibilities – the fundamental desire of most people who aren’t Steve Bannon to not want to go to jail. Way to take a page out of the right-wing playbook, Mer.
(I do actually mean that as a compliment – people are, unfortunately, way more likely to heed threats to their personal autonomy than they are to some abstract sense of “what’s right and wrong.”)
Most uplifting, perhaps, were his comments on the scope of the investigation, and his assurance that it doesn’t stop at the yahoo who stole Nancy Pelosi’s lectern.
“The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law — whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. The central norm is that, in our criminal investigations, there cannot be different rules depending on one’s political party or affiliation. There cannot be different rules for friends and foes. And there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless.”
I mean, he’s not talking about Trump…but isn’t he? I really enjoy Merrick Garland’s version of throwing shade. It’s very satisfying.
And finally, his most heartening statement in that hopefully-prescient speech:
“The actions we have taken thus far will not be our last.”
…Gonna hold you to that one, sir.
-
Americans must reject Trump to defend our democracy
At the end of the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump accepted the nomination as the GOP candidate for president. In the first part of his acceptance speech, Trump called for unity and healing, although he derailed into partisanship as he continued. Critics have debated the media’s role in handling Trump’s speech. Some argued he was…
-
It’s time for Kamala Harris to pick up the torch
Debates have continued among Democrats about whether President Joe Biden is the best candidate for the 2024 election or whether an alternative Democratic leader might be more electable. While there’s no shortage of fellow Democratic leaders to choose from, President Biden and his supporters have continued to assert that Biden can and will win as…
-
Republicans want to sabotage US education
Former President Donald Trump’s official educational policy platform reveals plans to eliminate the Department of Education and seize the financial assets and endowments of elite U.S. universities. These proposals and others have convinced some liberal critics that the true goal of Republicans is to intentionally weaken U.S. education. Watch the above video as Straight Arrow…
-
Despite poor debate performance, Biden deserves our support
President Joe Biden himself admits that he delivered a “bad” performance in the first 2024 presidential debate. About a week after what some consider to be the worst debate performance in the history of televised debates, polls indicate that more voters than ever have an unfavorable opinion of the president, believe he is too old…
-
The modern-day Republican woman has terrifying role models
In a recent New York Magazine cover story entitled, “How Did Republican Women End Up Like This,” Rebecca Traister writes about some of the more polarizing examples of female Republican leaders and their positions on abortion, the transgender movement and women in general. With Republican women set to play a major role in the November…
Latest Opinions
-
U.S. Department of Defense
Congress still trying to figure out how to reduce wasteful military spending
-
DVIDS
US Navy, Air Force making waves with new weapons at RIMPAC
-
Getty Images
Israeli PM Netanyahu meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago
-
Getty Images
Growing US nuclear power resurgence reaches the nation’s heartland
-
Getty Images
Beer from the sun, other solar thermal projects get government funding
Popular Opinions
-
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.