I don’t like repeating myself in this newsletter. In part because I want to believe that every word I write is fully absorbed by each reader and remembered for all time. But perhaps that’s not the case. Regardless, it’s time to reiterate and revisit a point I made in early January: Attorney General Merrick Garland should tell the American public if the Justice Department is investigating Donald Trump’s attempted coup.

We know the FBI has arrested and charged nearly 800 people with crimes related to the assault on the US Capitol that Trump incited. Many have pleaded guilty. The first trial of an accused 1/6 rioter began this week; in the dock is Guy Reffitt, an alleged member of the Three Percenters, a right-wing, anti-government militia outfit. He allegedly led a mob of assailants as they breached a police line. Other trials of January 6 marauders are coming. Yet what’s unknown is whether the Justice Department has been examining Trump and his insurrectionist intimates for their own efforts to overturn the election.

This week that question became more pointed. On Wednesday, the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack submitted a legal filing stating it had gathered evidence indicating that Trump, John Eastman, the conservative attorney who drafted a plan for Trump to block the Electoral College vote in order to stay in power, and their allies could be charged with federal crimes, including obstructing an official congressional proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the American people. This was the first time the committee had raised the prospect of a criminal investigation of Trump. The filing, seeking to enforce a subpoena the committee served on Eastman for documents and testimony, noted, “There is also evidence to support a good-faith, reasonable belief that...review of the [subpoenaed] materials may reveal that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in common law fraud in connection with their efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.”

This was a big deal—an official suggestion that Trump may have committed a crime in his post-election scheming with Eastman and others. It implied the Justice Department ought to be on this case, at least to give it a good look. There are other aspects of Trump’s war on democracy that may have violated the law. Trump’s post–Election Day phone call to Georgia officials pressing them to “find” him enough votes to win is under investigation by the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis. (She is scheduled to seat a grand jury on May 2.) And as I noted last August, Trump’s underhanded attempt to muscle the Justice Department into declaring the election fraudulent also might have been a crime. Norm Eisen, who was President Barack Obama’s ethics czar and co-counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment, told me there are several federal statues Trump may have violated through his DOJ skullduggery.

As the New York Times pointed out Friday, it may be legally difficult to charge Trump with a federal crime: “Building a criminal case against Mr. Trump is very difficult for federal prosecutors, experts say, given the high burden of proof they must show, questions about Mr. Trump’s mental state and the likelihood of any decision being appealed, underlining the dilemma confronting the agency.” Yet so far there’s no sign that Garland’s gumshoes are even working any stretch of this beat. No leaks, no court filings—nothing indicating an investigation of Trump and his henchmen for their actions on, before, or after 1/6 to undermine or block the peaceful transfer of power.

Under normal circumstances, this is how the Justice Department is supposed to function: it does not state whether a person or entity is under investigation until there is an indictment. That’s a matter of fairness. A person who is not prosecuted ought not be branded as a suspect or target, for then he or she will not be afforded the chance to clear their name. (No trial, no way to prove you’re not guilty.) If the government identified people who might be indicted but who are ultimately not charged, it would have enormous power to tar individuals and do tremendous reputational harm to them.

Certainly, there are instances when it’s clear the FBI and the Justice Department are on the hunt. (Think Jeffrey Epstein.) Or times when word of an investigation leaks. (Hillary Clinton and the emails.) But the general rule—we don’t acknowledge investigations unless we bring a case—is a good one.

Yet as with all rules, there can be—and sometimes ought to be—exceptions. The question here is whether a sitting US president tried to illegally abuse his power to thwart the Constitution and undo democracy. That qualifies as a big deal. American citizens have a right to know that the Justice Department is taking this seriously and doing all that is reasonably possible to protect the republic. Garland should disclose, to a limited extent, his department’s activity (or lack thereof) on this front. Yes, that would mean treating Trump and his crew differently than the average citizen. But Justice Department rules are not absolute. There is a conflict: the rights of individuals possibly under investigation versus the right of the public to have faith its democracy is being safeguarded. With these stakes, the latter can outweigh the former and justify a limited exception to standard operating procedure. And there is another reason to break with the rule: Showing that a president who attempts to defy an election will face close legal scrutiny might just provide a disincentive to future despot-wannabes.

It could well be that experienced federal prosecutors might conclude there’s no solid case to mount against Trump and his abettors. But the public should be assured—officially—that the Justice Department is fully probing and considering the matter to make a determination. Maybe that is occurring right now—or maybe it has happened already. But we shouldn’t have to guess. On the question of whether a president—especially one who may run for the office again—is being investigated for attempting to criminally subvert American democracy, Garland ought to spill the beans.

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

Dumbass Comment of the Week

Days after her visit to the neo-Nazi and white nationalist conference in Orlando, Florida, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Bigotland) decided to play-act a response to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech. The Republican Party won’t renounce or expel her, but it’s not dumb enough to select her to deliver its official response to Biden. That quasi-honor was handed to Gov. Kim Rogers of Iowa, who suggested that Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine because President Joe Biden was too focused on “political correctness.” I wonder if a sentient adult can truly believe that.

Greene’s idiocy was far more elaborate. Sitting at a desk surrounded by American flags—as if she were a head of state—she blathered, “The president of the United States is totally compromised because every world leader has the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop and much more to blackmail him. It’s no wonder America is weak.” This makes no sense. If everyone has blackmail material, then it’s of no value to anyone. And Greene must know that the conservative media, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, and others have long had access to the laptop Hunter Biden apparently left behind at a Delaware computer repair shop. Are they all blackmailing Biden, too? She went on (of course): “We do not have a president that can defend our country. We have a president that puts America last because he is literally serving China, Russia, and the world. He is a globalist. He’s for the global economy.” This is QAnon-speak. But it was particularly bizarre coming from Greene following her speech at the neo-Nazifest, where the audience had earlier been chanting, “Putin! Putin! Putin!” Tell me, who’s on the side of Russia?

Tucker Carlson could win the Cal Ripken Jr. Award for the Dumbass Comment of the Week, in that every week he shows up and offers a contender. This week, he demanded the White House release the LSAT scores of Supreme Court justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson: “It might be time for Joe Biden to let us know what Ketanji Brown Jackson’s LSAT score was...Why wouldn’t he tell us that?” Considering Carlson didn’t make a stink and request the LSAT scores of Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, or Neil Gorsuch, it is really, really hard to read this as anything but a racist barb. Jackson graduated from Harvard University magna cum laude and then Harvard Law, where she was a law review editor. By the way, son-of-privilege Carlson himself only managed to win admission to Trinity College in Hartford, as The Week put it, “after his boarding school's headmaster — the father of his then-girlfriend and now wife — pulled some strings on his behalf.”

As I was writing this, another last-minute entry from Carlson came in. On Thursday night, he claimed that during his pro-Putin days (a little over a week ago) he hadn’t considered a Russian invasion of Ukraine a serious threat because of...Vice President Kamala Harris. Since she was being deployed by the White House to build support among US allies, he said, that must have meant the Russia-Ukraine conflict was an inconsequential matter. The guy just can’t hide his misogyny and racism.

Carlson’s bigotry this week was no match for the obnoxious inanity of conservative hero Ben Shapiro. Responding to Biden’s State of the Union speech, Shapiro brayed that Biden has had “the worst 14 months of any president of the United States ever...Everything bad that has happened [to Biden]...is a completely self-inflicted wound.” Ever? I don’t understand the right-wing talking point that is being repeated constantly, that Biden is a complete failure. Today there are 6.5 million more people with jobs and fewer people threatened by Covid than when Biden took office. There certainly can be criticism of the Afghanistan withdrawal, fear of inflation, or concern for the ongoing war in Ukraine, but on the economy and Covid, this is a far better record than Trump’s calamitous last year in office. And then Shapiro uttered this crazy line: “Joe Biden is the Kurt Cobain of politics. He put a shotgun in the mouth of the American body politic and then pulled the trigger. And the brains are on the wall." I’m not sure what this means. Blasting apart the body politic? Biden didn’t incite a riot to overturn an election after recklessly spreading lies and disinformation about the results. Oh well, whatever, never mind.

Masks and Freedom

This was one of the many photos I found inspiring this week. You will notice that many of the brave people protesting for freedom are wearing masks.

The Mailbag

There was a strong response to my survey of recent right-wing extremism (and trolling), which included looking at the Conservative Political Action Conference; a white nationalist, neo-Nazi gathering; and the attitude of conservatives, such as Steve Bannon, toward the war in Ukraine. Reader Lee Miller was to the point: “These people are truly scary. Thanks for exposing them.” Actually, they tend to expose themselves. Perhaps that’s what is frightening. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly hobnobbed with a Hitler fanboy and then CPAC publicly welcomed her to its proceedings. All the comments I quoted in that item were uttered publicly. That this extremism is occurring out in the open—with no shame or hesitation—is worrisome.

My Mother Jones colleague Marla Jones-Newman wrote in:

I just read the article and there are tears in my eyes. As a Black woman who has many Republican friends (we can use that trope as well), I am not only worried and frightened and any other adjective you want to conjure but so disappointed. Disappointed that my friends are not denouncing this. That my friends, who have grandfathers who fought in WWII, are not shocked and appalled. That my friends, who have fathers who fought alongside my father, uncles, etc. in Vietnam, are not outraged. My BIPOC friends tell me they are now just saying the quiet part out loud. But I thought my Republican friends never said it, even quietly.

The acquiescence of many Republicans toward this radicalism, bigotry, and demagoguery is indeed frightening. That’s been a core story of the Trump years. Never forget that he inspired 74 million Americans to vote for him. There is no longer a quiet part.

Tom Cleaver noted that when he was promoting his book, The Bridgebusters: The True Story of the Catch-22 Bomb Wing, he had the usual experience of being interviewed by talk show hosts and reporters who had not bothered to read it. But he writes:

The best interview I did, in fact the best of these interviews I have ever done with an interviewer who had obviously read the entire book personally and loved every page, who asked the best questions any interviewer has ever asked about any of my books, was...Drum roll...Steve Bannon, back when he was merely Gauleiter of Breitbart.

That doesn’t surprise me. Bannon does fancy himself a grand strategist who understands the sweeping currents of history. His rants can be incredibly hard to follow, as my colleague Dan Spinelli recently found out. But his Big Thinker schtick has drawn a following, which included the many Trumpists he urged to head to Washington on January 6, 2021. That’s why he’s worth watching—at least in limited doses.

There was also strong reaction to my piece noting that we as a nation collectively failed to respond in a united and forceful fashion to Putin’s attack on the United States in 2016, when he mounted a covert operation to help Trump win the White House. I contended that this was mostly the Republicans’ fault but that Democrats and the media also shared a chunk of the blame. A few readers objected to this bipartisanship. Dene Karaus was one:

You are respected as a speaker of truth. You need to stop "sharing" responsibility between Democrats and Republicans. It's ALL on the Republicans. All. Full stop. Every word suggesting some equivocation on this subject is born of the devil. You are tearing down the only hope we have for the future. If you can't handle the truth, hand it over to somebody who can. This article that arrived today was a waste of editorial space and may move me to cancel your $5 a month allowance. Really, David. You can do better. Stop. Think.

Dene, how do you really feel? Seriously, thanks for sharing your perspective. I obviously do believe that a lot of mistakes were made by different participants, including Ds, though the worst actions were taken by the Rs. I’m glad you’re not grounding me.

Ann P. White shared a similar sentiment:

I, for one, will not accept responsibility for Donald Trump's candidacy, presidency, or idiocies while president. Not I, nor the friends with whom I commiserated about our wretched national status during those four years. What I have to accept is being an unwilling part of a racist society...But don't ask me to shoulder blame for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Dave Bunker had this to say about Democrats:

I believe the actions and inaction by Democrats is driven, and has been since the Obama presidency, by an unrealistic yearning for a bipartisan America. Bridging the great divide is an obsession. While the Democrats dither, the Republicans, now Trumplicans, believe they are struggling for their political lives and are taking advantage of every chink in the Democrats’ righteous armor, simply in order to cling to power. Democrats must start calling out these charlatans for what they are and for what they aren’t doing for this country, while blocking almost every Democratic initiative. If the Trumplicans believe that their only path to keep their power is dumping our democracy, in favor of an autocracy, then for the most part they are all in.

I touched on some of this in my analysis of Biden’s State of the Union speech. During his address, he called for a “Unity Agenda” that Democrats and Republicans could pursue together—obviously an attempt at bipartisanship. But, as I noted, if he and the Democrats do not sharply depict the Republicans as obstructionists blocking popular proposals (expanded Medicare, universal pre-K, lower prescription drug prices), they will likely lose control of Congress.

Margaret Garigan was on my side:

Thank you for another excellent piece of Russia-Trump-GOP dot-connecting in “How We Let Ukraine — and the World — Down.” You’ve been the world’s leading expert at explaining those links, in my opinion, for several years. The only thing I’d add to your piece is that when it comes to Brexit: everything you said about us, x2.

Robert Berlow had an unusual suggestion: “Run for Congress so you can say this on the floor.” And Sharon Vollett emailed:

RUN FOR OFFICE! The irony is no one sees this disgusting damage and threat. They do not have the devious mind that thinks like a criminal and acts like a Hitler crazed thug! I agree with everything you said. Thank you for your amazing articles.

Is this what they call a groundswell? As some of you might recall from my interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), he is a neighbor. That means I am in his congressional district and quite satisfied with my representation in Congress.

Both Laura Pizzicara and the abovementioned Garigan noted they prefer the shaggier version of Moxie over the groomed one. The good news is, all you have to do is wait. The shag will return in a matter of weeks. And Ken Millow asked, “No Moxie photo?” MoxieCam™ is a once-a-week feature. It does not appear in every issue. I wouldn’t want all that attention to go to her head. Speaking of which...

MoxieCam™

An action shot!

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

March 1, 2022: From CPAC to Ukraine—how the right went from wrong to crazy; rebranding this newsletter; and more.

February 26, 2022: How we let Ukraine—and the world—down; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Special Useful Idiots Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 23, 2022: Yoko Ono (finally?) gets the credit she deserves; a Trump-Russia fantasy; The Slow Hustle takes on the hard case of a Baltimore cop-killing; and more.

February 19, 2022: A masterclass in both-sidesism from Washington Post columnist Matt Bai; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 15, 2022: Why is John Fogerty serenading Trump crony Steve Wynn?; can Trump be barred from running for president because he flushed documents down the toilet?; The Woman in the House Across the Street From the Girl in the Window doesn’t know if she’s in a parody or not; Elvis Costello tells us to listen to Ian Prowse; and more.

February 12, 2022: Would you want to look at photos of a massacre?; rebranding This Land; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 8, 2022: The Trump coup: Maybe we can’t handle the truth; Steve Martin and Martin Short shine in Only Murders in the Building; Invasion’s odd but conventional take on the sci-fi/alien-attack genre; and more.

February 5, 2022: Can we call Trump’s race war a “race war”?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Michele Bachmann and Rick Scott); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 1, 2022: Please tell me: Why is Michael Flynn crazy?; an impressive film about Nicolas Cage and his pig; Wajahat Ali’s impressive memoir about growing up Muslim and nonwhite in America; and more.

January 29, 2022: The inside story of the banning of Maus—it’s dumber than you think; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; and MoxieCam™; and more.

January 25, 2022: The snowflake-ization of the right; would you buy cryptocurrency from this man (Steve Bannon)?; Belfast, a feel-good movie about a civil war; Elvis Costello’s delightful and cynical new album; and more.