Thread by @dcpetterson

There are about five areas for which Twitter has been attacking AG Garland.

1) Hasn't indicted Trump based on Mueller's work.
2) Hasn't indicted Trump for the Stormy Daniels thing.
3) Hasn't enforced the Bannon subpoena.
4) Hasn't brought sedition charges against anyone.

1/18

And finally:

5) He's not telling us what he's doing.

Let's look at all of these areas.

First, be aware, for any major indictment, a grand jury must be empanelled, and all the evidence that has been gathered must be presented to them.

2/18

A grand jury can request more evidence and more testimony in addition to what has already been accumulated. Any indictments come out of their deliberations.

This means that nothing that has come before can be simply picked up and used to put handcuffs on someone tomorrow.

3/18

Neither Mueller's work, nor Cohen's conviction in bribing Stormy Daniels, is sufficient, all by itself, to charge Trump with anything.

And the amount of evidence in these cases is enormous.

4/18

All the evidence has to be presented to a grand jury, which can then, as I said, demand still more documents and testimony before they make a decision.

A former president has never been charged with any felony.

5/18

There are legal hurdles and constitutional questions that literally no one on Earth knows how to handle. If a single comma anywhere in any of it is out of place, any indictment will be thrown out of court, and there will never be another chance.

6/18

So in addition to the necessary wait for grand jury deliberations, the preparation of any charges will, unavoidably, take a long time.

As for the Bannon subpoena (and potentially subpoenas for Meadows and other former Trump officials), the House held him in contempt and...

7/18

... sent a criminal referral to DOJ. Again, DOJ has to convene a grand jury and present the evidence.

Here's an article expanding on why it has so far taken about three weeks since the referral from Congress, and will likely take longer still.

8/18
msnbc.com/opinion/steve-…

Also remember, the prosecutor for that matter was only appointed a few days ago. He had to be confirmed by the Senate.

9/18

Individual cases are assigned to specific federal prosecutors, and it's up to them to decide if prosecution is warranted, and if so, to do the work with a grand jury. Garland likely isn't involved.

10/18

On sedition charges in relation to the January 6 attack on America, sedition is a really difficult thing to prove. (Start by considering everything above about grand juries.)

11/18

What we're talking about here is the largest, most complex, and most politically sensitive conspiracy in American history. The =only= way to prosecute it is through methodical investigation and gruntwork.

12/18

Garland said in his confirmation hearings he would handle it as he would any case involving a large corrupt criminal operation. The way that happens is starting with the foot soldiers, getting them to flip on the people above them, and moving up the chain.

13/18

You want everyone involved to be prosecuted, right? This is the =only= way to do it.

There have been close to 700 indictments so far, and over a hundred of those have already resulted in convictions, and many of =those= are plea bargains where the accused ...

14/18

... has entered into cooperation agreements with prosecutors, and are providing further evidence and testimony regarding the people who funded, organized, and instigated the attack.

15/18

And no, Garland isn't saying what's happening, or who is being investigated. DOJ isn't supposed to tell us. Law enforcement doesn't tip its hand. You =want= the crooks to become overconfident, and to make mistakes.

16/18

You don't want to warn them what investigators are looking for.

All of the objections to how long it's taking are based on impatience, fear, and a lack of knowledge of what's involved. That's the truth of it. And no, you =won't= know, until and unless indictments happen.

17/18

If you haven't seen activity, it's because you're not looking; and anything you haven't seen does NOT mean it =isn't= in the works. The people claiming "Garland isn't doing anything about X!!" simply don't know what they're talking about.

18/18

Excellent find here.

https://twitter.com/VeronicaSixsmi1/status/1459252927143501830

People who want "proof" that Garland is following the path I laid out above, see here:

https://twitter.com/CMargaronis/status/1459248799314952192

Within minutes of this thread, CNN reported Bannon has been indicted for defying the Congressional subpoena.
edition.cnn.com/2021/11/12/pol…

Some additional details on the Bannon indictment.
npr.org/2021/11/12/105…

A couple of people dropped this meme on my thread.

I'm certain there's enough evidence in Mueller's report to indict Trump. It has to be presented to a grand jury, which has to consider ALL of it. You'll notice Mueller wasn't asked here how long that would take.

A reader pointed out, the comments in the meme above are out of context. Mueller was answering a theoretical question--NOT whether he could charge TRUMP with obstruction, but whether any president could be subject to such charges after leaving office.

politifact.com/article/2019/j…