This week, Attorney General Merrick Garland delivered a much-anticipated speech in which he provided an update on the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation of the Trump-incited January 6 attack on the US Capitol. He noted, “The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law—whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.” This sentence was pored over by politics watchers who have been wondering if the ever-prudent Garland has been investigating Donald Trump or any of his crew for the insurrectionist attack on Congress. On Twitter—and elsewhere—progressives have been on Garland’s back for not yet initiating any prosecution of Trump and his gang. Garland’s statement was, not surprisingly, not that revealing. He raised hopes (“at any level”!) without saying whether Trump was being scrutinized by his gumshoes. The prosecution of a former president is a delicate matter, but recent revelations about Trump’s final-days actions have shown why it is important for Garland to bring a case against Trump, if a fair-minded reading of the law allows it, and to tell the public what he is—or isn’t—doing on this front.

As Garland recounted, the Justice Department has arrested and charged more than 725 January 6 rioters. Yet several federal judges who have handled some of these cases have pointed out that the guy most responsible for the assault—for the deaths, for the injuries, for the damage done to democracy—has not been held accountable. Is Garland letting Trump off the hook? That’s been the concern of some loud liberals on Twitter.

Justice Department policy is not to publicly disclose criminal investigations until a subject is indicted. (Yes, a whopping exception was made in the case of Hillary Clinton and her email server.) Perhaps Garland’s attorneys are on the trail, examining Trump for possible prosecution. As of now, though, there are no public signs of that. Trump is being investigated in New York for his company’s business and tax dealings. The Fulton County district attorney in Georgia was, as of last month, still considering whether to bring a case against Trump for pressuring state election officials to “find” him 11,780 votes to surpass Joe Biden’s total. Did Trump push them to commit election fraud? That would be a crime. A key issue, though, is whether it can be proved that Trump knew his heavy-handed attempt to muscle these officials was illegal. (Does Trump believe anything is unlawful for him?) None of this is directly related to the January 6 riot.

In his final report on the Trump-Russia scandal, special counsel Robert Mueller presented 10 possible instances of Trump obstructing justice—a serious crime. But Mueller concluded that Justice Department policy held that a sitting president could not be federally indicted. That view—correct or not—doesn’t apply to a former president. Still, it doesn’t look as if Garland’s department has picked up this particular ball. (It’s almost impossible to imagine that word of an investigation of Trump wouldn’t leak out.) Trump may well be in the clear on this front. There is a five-year statute of limitation on obstruction of justice.

What of January 6? I’m no lawyer. But prosecuting Trump for inciting the riot could be harder than impeaching him for that malicious conduct. Clearly, he was responsible for the attack—as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy each said afterward—and he deserved impeachment and conviction. (A bipartisan majority of the House and Senate agreed.) A criminal case has different standards. Legal experts have tussled over whether Trump could be indicted for spurring this violence. And there is also—as always—a political question: What are the ramifications of one administration trying to prosecute the previous president (who might run again)? Is there something Banana Republic–ish about this? Would it ignite unrest and possibly violence? We know such questions are not supposed to be part of a just-the-facts-and-justice-for-all calculation. But they are.

I confess that at the start of the Biden administration, I felt a tad squeamish about a federal prosecution of Trump. (I said, “a tad.”) For those obvious political concerns. But now that we know more about Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, it seems crucial that the Justice Department give serious and full consideration to investigating him for criminal acts—and that the public in this exceptional case be informed of those efforts.

As more information emerges, we can see that Trump and his lieutenants had a fully formed plot to overturn the election—and it came close to success. Former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro, who (of course) has a book out, has been in the media in recent days practically boasting of their plan to mount a coup. As I noted in August, Trump’s attempt a year ago to force the Justice Department to declare the 2020 election results fraudulent—which was a piece of this conspiracy—may have violated several federal laws. It’s also possible—I will leave this to legal scholars to determine—that his scheming to prevent Congress from certifying the election on January 6 ran afoul of the law. As Laurence Tribe, Barbara McQuade, and Joyce Vance contended in a Washington Post op-ed last summer, “It is a federal crime for individuals to agree to defraud the United States by interfering with governmental functions.” This trio—two are former federal prosecutors—maintains that there is plenty of evidence to justify the Justice Department opening a criminal probe.

Here’s why it’s important that a case be leveled against Trump if at all legally justifiable: He shouldn’t be able to get away with it. Following the November 3, 2020, election, Trump didn’t just rant and rave and spew disinformation and lies about the election being stolen. He didn’t flail at harebrained schemes to stay in office. He plotted and connived with his dead-enders and Republican House members to subvert the election and destroy American democracy. They devised a plan to illegitimately block the congressional certification of a free and fair election in order to reach the constitutional backup of the House determining the outcome. In that event, the House decides not on the basis of one vote per member but one vote per state delegation—and the Republicans controlled a majority of the states. In consultation with a bevy of co-conspirators, Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to take extra-constitutional action to sabotage the certification process. Trump leaned on the Justice Department to facilitate false charges of fraud. And when it looked as if a wild and violent mob could help him by delaying the vote counting in Congress, Trump did nothing to stop it. In fact, his former press secretary Stephanie Grisham recently said on CNN, “[Trump] was in the dining room gleefully watching on his TV as he often did, [saying,] ‘Look at all the people fighting for me,’ hitting rewind, watching it again.”

Had Pence submitted to the pressure, had the riot not been suppressed, who knows how this might have turned out? One option proposed to Trump was to declare a national emergency. All in all, the nation did come close to a coup. Even though Trump failed, it is important he pay a penalty for trying to undo American democracy. Otherwise, what’s to prevent him or others from giving it a go next time? Republicans, by taking over the election apparatuses in many states, are now putting the pieces in place that would allow them to mount a more comprehensive and elaborate effort to overturn future elections.

With this unprecedented situation, it is critical that the public be assured that the Justice Department is fiercely on the beat protecting the foundation of the republic. Consequently, Garland ought to break with department tradition and disclose to the public whether his lawyers have been investigating Trump’s failed coup. If they decide—or have decided—a strong prosecutable case is not possible, that should be publicly explained. This would be similar to how a special counsel operates. Mueller’s investigation was publicly declared. He filed the indictments he thought were justified. At the end, in his report, he explained his prosecutorial decisions; that included why he did not indict Trump.

If Garland is not going to appoint a special counsel to investigate Trump, then he should, in effect, become one. There ought to be a basic rule: If a president tries to retain power improperly or unlawfully, the Justice Department takes a look. That hardly seems outlandish. Citizens deserve another speech from the attorney general.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at thisland@motherjones.com.

Dumbass Comment of the Week

This week was the first anniversary of the January 6 assault. Naturally, there were plenty of dumb and dangerous remarks from GOPers and others dismissing or spinning that horrific attempt to overturn American democracy, including comments from you-know-who, which I will skip. (You’re welcome.) Tucker Carlson–enabler Glenn Greenwald huffed, “The number of people killed by pro-Trump supporters at the January 6 Capitol riot is equal to the number of pro-Trump supporters who brandished guns or knives inside the Capitol...That number is zero.” This was his way of dismissing as histrionic those people who refer to the riot as an insurrection or attempted coup. Greenwald is a 1/6 downplayer. And the number of deaths or brandished weapons is irrelevant to the significance of the riot and the threat it posed to democratic governance. See the above. By the way, pro-Trump brownshirts at or near the Capitol did possess guns and knives—and they managed to injure 140 or so law enforcement officers. Diminishing the seriousness of January 6 is now a central Trump/GOP talking point, an essential element of Trump’s Lost Cause and his restoration effort.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Trumpland) called President Biden’s dramatic speech from the Capitol on Thursday “brazen politicization of January 6.” Flashback: After Trump’s marauders had been rooted out of Congress, Graham declared, “I hate it being this way. Oh my god I hate it...But today...all I can say is count me out. Enough is enough.” Yet soon he was back on the leash as one of Trump’s most loyal dogs. Denigrating Biden’s blast against Trump’s attempted political coup as “politicization”—that’s like saying it’s unfair to refer to an insurrectionist as a traitor. Graham once again is yapping nonsense to please Dear Leader.

The new Democratic mayor of New York City had a winner—or a loser—too. On his first Monday as the Big Apple’s chief executive, he said, “When a mayor has swagger, the city has swagger. We’ve allowed people to beat us down so much, that all we did was wallow in COVID.” Huh? Was he suggesting more swagger—whatever that means—would have beaten back Covid? Let’s hope he has a more sophisticated public health policy than that.

But the top prize this week goes to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.). During an interview with a local television station, he declared that vaccine scientists are wrong to think they "can create something better than God." That idiocy launched a slew of quips. Were the inventors of Band-Aids arrogant to believe they could improve upon skin? Why use cars when God gave us feet? And should we count on God-given natural immunity to combat polio and measles? It’s easy to poke fun at such a boneheaded remark. Yet those who heed Johnson could suffer greatly.

The Mailbag

Because we took a break over the holidays, the Mailbag was quite full upon our return. Moxie and I appreciate all the responses to the New Year’s card we sent out. (It was her idea.) Jai Boreen responded to my article that described 2021 as a stupid year in part due to the resistance of anti-vaxxers:

Yes, David, you need a break. Your denigration of millions of us never Trumpers who chose not to "take the shot" should embarrass you. You come on as a fanatic, one who cannot see credible reasons for some to have a different opinion than yours. Vaccine resisters are not all nut cakes and conspiracy believers, but those seem to be the only ones you pay attention to. Kiera Butler's articles in Mother Jones (yes, I subscribe) reflect the same dogmatic attitude. Thanks for reading with an open mind.

Jai, thanks for subscribing and for writing with an open mind. You and I disagree. Some people may have a true medical basis for not being jabbed—or a sincere religious objection. But absent that, I do believe we each share a communal interest and an individual responsibility to be vaccinated during a pandemic. Next time you write, let me know your reason for resistance. And Kiera does great work for Mother Jones. People can check it out here.

Pia Hough had a different take:

Your article was informative, eye-opening and frightening but made me feel hopeless. The only people who are reading what you write are folks like me who understand the difference between facts and lies. I have tried to calmly talk to folks with opposing views but get nowhere. I offer them articles to read but they are not interested. People are distracted (intentionally) by the false narrative that mask wearing or not is a fight for freedom. Meanwhile, in Texas for example, part of the abortion law encourages people to report on their fellow citizens. Seems eerily similar to the East Germany “citizen informants” of the Berlin Wall era. I fear my grandson will not live in a democratic America.

Pia, hang in there. I know things look tough. It’s important for people like you and other This Land readers to stay informed so that when you interact with someone who might be persuadable you have a chance—but also to bolster your own knowledge base to reinforce your own values. If we give up, it will not be any easier for your grandson. Also, I’ve been reading Jamie Raskin’s fabulous, insightful, sad, and important new book: Unthinkable: Trauma, Truth, and the Trials of American Democracy. He refers to a quote from his father, Marcus Raskin: “When everything looks hopeless, you are the hope.” Keep that in mind.

Pat Nevin was more upbeat:

Thanks for reminding us that there are still a lot of Americans who have decent values. Your writing gives me some hope at the end of a really stupid year.

Patricia Jaeger responded to my article about January 6 that noted that terrible tragedies tend not to yield national unity:

I wanted to let you know that I look forward to and enjoy reading your newsletter. I like both the content (including your writing on music) and your writing style. I'm 69 years old and I lived through all of the events you listed in today's newsletter, as well as the pain of each event. However, I have not seen these events analyzed as you did today. It struck a chord. I am a white, highly-educated (PhD) Boomer who lives in the suburbs. Over the years, I've voted as a Democrat, Republican and Independent. I believed that you should always vote for the person, not the party. I was wrong. After George W. Bush's first term I began to vote for Democrats only, up and down the ballot. I've experienced misogyny firsthand and watched racism and xenophobia play out over my entire life, and I'm tired of it all. I read a lot of political news and opinions, vote every election and contribute to candidates and causes when I can. When my Irish mother (her parents came "over on the boat") was literally on her deathbed in the hospital she voted for Obama. Thank you for keeping us all updated and for putting events in perspective.

My old pal Jon Wiener also liked that piece: “Thanks David for this week’s post—one of your best.” And Jonni Gray emailed:

I wish you would make a distinction between the response of those in power and citizens on the ground. A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster [by Rebecca Solnit] gives the historical evidence of people of good will working together to heal and finding joy after disasters. The authoritarian response of some politicians and the 1-percent is also revealed. (San Francisco earthquake.) I subscribed to This Land after your analysis of the roles of Julian Assange. Will you be writing about the role of Sean Hannity and his First Amendment for journalists claim to prevent his being a fact witness for the 1/6 committee?

I much respect Solnit’s always intelligent work. I am sure she makes a good case. I was focusing on the political responses to great tragedies. It’s not surprising there is a gap between the two types of reactions. As for Sean Hannity, I’m still pondering this one. The January 6 committee is interested in talking to him because of his role as an adviser to Trump not because of any journalistic activity he might have engaged in. That seems an important distinction, but we real journalists always do fret about slippery slopes with cases like these. Let’s give Hannity the last word and note that he once said, “I’m not a journalist, I’m a talk show host.”

Alfred Higgins, who tells us he is an MD, wrote:

Thank you for your most valuable journalism. A thought that has struck me lately, regarding mainstream media coverage of the January 6, 2021, insurrection and its aftermath, is the steadfast normalization of the divergence of American political factions through the terms “dual realities,” “parallel realities,” or “alternative realities.” In fact, to claim that paranoid, delusional, and violent psychosis is a “reality” at all belies the truth that this is actually a condition of mental aberration or mental illness. Whether it is classified as borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, or mass psychosis, the “reality” of tRumpublican America is not reality, it is a factitious creation of the conservative propaganda network. Thanks for your monumental efforts.

Thanks for the thanks. That’s a good point. (I had to look up the meaning of “factitious.”) The media does like to present frameworks that feature dualities: There’s reality and an alternative reality. In recent years—and in covering Trump and his Big Lie—they have partly broken free of their usual dependence on both-sides reporting. But it’s still probably difficult for them to describe tens of millions of Americans as believing a delusion due to a particular mental condition or illness.

Richard Winkler sent an adamant note:

Trump must be charged, arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to prison for what he did. He has gotten away with his crimes all his life, and this one is too much. Garland must prosecute without further delay. If he does not, there is no justice left in this country.

See the above.

David Robinson emailed:

I feel that your This Land thoughts need to be shared! Please put a link at the bottom so you and Mother Jones magazine writers get a larger audience.

We always want a bigger audience. But This Land is a newsletter that we ask people to subscribe to. The best way to share it is to forward the email to friends, colleagues, relatives, foes, and strangers. And please ask them to subscribe if they enjoy reading it. They can go to DavidCorn.com to sign up.

Lee Miller gets that. He wrote:

Excellent article on Trumpism and lack of reality in the GOP. Thank you. I am going to forward it to friends, most of who are not Republicans.

It’s always good to have a few Republican friends.

Bill Dixon made my week:

Your facts, your analysis, your conclusions, and your conciseness remind me every time I receive them of the late, great Izzy Stone and how I always looked forward to his next communiqué. Thank you very much for your insights.

Izzy was someone I looked up to. When I first got to Washington, he gave me a piece of valuable advice: Always stay until the end of every hearing and always read to the end of every report—and pay attention to the footnotes. I’ve gotten good stories following his guidance. A few years ago, I won the I.F. Stone award, and my only regret was that he was no longer around and could not be thanked.

Bettina Norton sent Moxie greetings from Carmella:

And Pen Harms did the same with Moonlight:

Noreen Greeno emailed:

Want to thank you and say keep the columns coming! Do you live in West Virginia? I live in Pittsburgh and know how beautiful West Virginia is! Happy New Year to you and Moxie. Moxie gets everything right.

No, I live in the Washington area. But I am fortunate enough to have dear friends who have a place far out in West Virginia where we spend a fair bit of time. It is a beautiful state, though the economic distress there is disturbing. And I’m not going to tell Moxie you say that. She already thinks she’s always right.

MoxieCam™

From a week ago: Moxie asked, “I know it’s always quiet on New Year’s Day, but is it always wet?”

Read Recent Issues of This Land

January 4, 2022: The lesson of January 6: Tragedy does not yield national unity; Ayman Mohyeldin’s impressive American Radical podcast; and more.

December 23, 2021: Farewell to a stupid year; Dumbass Comment of the Year; Mailbag, MoxieCam™; and more.

December 21, 2021: How the GOP is establishing political apartheid; Donald Trump’s most outrageous email, spending time with The Shrink Next Door; Susanna Hoffs’ delightful new album; and more.

December 18, 2021: Mark Meadows, the chief’s chief coup plotter; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag, MoxieCam™; and more.

December 14, 2021: Denounce Julian Assange, don’t extradite him; why WandaVision is marvelous; hanging out with Neil Young and Crazy Horse in an old barn; and more.

December 11, 2021: Trump’s newest—and biggest—potential conflict of interest; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Tucker Carlson Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

December 7, 2021: John Lennon and the NRA—four decades later; Chris Christie: Trump is afraid to lose in 2024; an inspiring documentary about Jacques Cousteau; and more.

December 4, 2021: Donald Trump and the Cruddy Pan Theory of human behavior; Peter Thiel, kingmaker?; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

November 30, 2021: One big reason to fear a Trump restoration: revenge; why The Beatles: Get Back is one of the greatest documentaries ever; Tick, tick…BOOM! is Lin-Manuel Miranda’s love letter to theater geeks; and more.

November 23, 2021: How dangerous is Peter Thiel?; No Time to Die as a daddy-daughter film; spending time with Nick Offerman; Aimee Mann’s fabulous new album; and more.

November 20, 2021: Should the Democrats really push the panic button?; the Steele dossier and Donald Trump’s betrayal of America; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

November 16, 2021: New information on how Donald Trump killed 400,000 (or more) Americans; Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. on the witness stand in a Trump corruption trial?; American Rust shines with Jeff Daniels; Bruce Springsteen and John Mellencamp face the final song; and more.