Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Democracy Labs's avatar

DemLabs reviewed this article in an interactive StoryMap along with images and videos of recent incidents. https://arcg.is/0LS4Xz

Expand full comment
Gary Horvitz's avatar

The current focus on Garland’s decision on the legalities of charging Trump is too narrow. Is it possible Garland is weighing the national implications of a decision to indict? What will be the possible national response to a strictly legal decision? Will charging Trump incite RWE to violent action? What forms of protest will arise, where and of what magnitude?

Who will respond and what will be the response? Which law enforcement units can be trusted to respond beyond performative foot-dragging? Which governors can be trusted to respond to a surge in local protest or even domestic terrorism?

What advance coordination between federal, state, and local agencies must be in place before publicly naming Trump as an indicted felon? What leverage would federal agencies even have to enlist compliance with a national preparedness effort? Which public figures will need heightened personal security?

When gun fetishists have more lethal weapons than police departments, how many will be willing to enhance their investigative capacities, coordinated responses and take up the necessary arms to confront even small uprisings, guerilla actions, hit plans or covert actions?

What measures will federal law enforcement be taking in advance of any indictment to investigate, identify and interdict a proliferation of covert militia cells before they are able to execute violent plans?

Is it conceivable that any of these issues are holding Garland back? If so, judicial restraint, short of outright intimidation, would be prudent, no?

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts