Thank you for shining a light on some of the murk in the path forward. Your analysis frames the repot’s release properly within the extant guides, policies and best practices guidelines for transitions in normal times.
But, these are not “normal” times.
Biden and Garland are powered by historical and institutional beliefs backed by 250 years of history as reflected in their administration’s management styles. Conversely, Trump seeks to rewrite the Constitution and laws as an authoritarian by destroying all vestiges of institutional history, knowledge and beliefs and feels empowered to use every democratically inspired tool to do that.
Trump’s election should be viewed as an unanticipated coup using the Constitution’s democratic election processes backed by massive weaponized lies and disinformation campaigns to intentionally mislead and intimidate the voting public.
Rather than the “historical” peaceful transfer of institutional knowledge and records, this one will be full of CYA and efforts to save the historical records at all costs before the storm troopers arrive to destroy or rewrite the “evidence.” I’m envisioning a very messy, hasty exit not unlike those experienced when the US left Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, merely because nobody anticipated a need to do that do suddenly.
The cloud hanging over Garland will never be cleared even if he elects to publish the Special Counsel’s report in the normal manner. His election to publish will be delayed if not derailed when Trump sues to stop it. Eventually, SCOTUS will work hard to cobble up some clouded originalist logic and words to bury the report as if it never existed.
So, absent any actual legally binding prohibitions beyond “best practices” or “policy guidelines,” Garland could simply publish the report preemptively while making all requisite notifications simultaneously.
Or, an unredacted copy could be “inadvertently” “leaked” in the exiting frenzy at the end of Garland’s term as AG and accomplish the same thing.
The worst things that could happen to Garland, et al, in any of these scenarios are already in motion given Trump’s stated intention to use the DOJ to seek revenge and retribution against him and every other person who ever opposed him in any manner. An unredacted report in the public domain would be a powerful tool for the People to use going forward.
Certainly one possibility for leaking the unredacted Smith report would be for the Democratic members of Congress who receive it to read it into the Congressional record. This is the "Mike Gravel" plan we alluded to on the air, but because members of Congress enjoy actual absolute immunity under the speech-or-debate clause, they could do so.
That’s a brilliant plan. Whomever (all of them) receives it needs to have a focused call, email and postcard effort to encourage them do that! Preservation of the record is critical to our collective futures. Thanks, Andrew.
Can't Biden order Garland to release the report? Would that be crossing some big fat line — one that hasn't been erased by Trump-v-US and/or gratuitously pissed on by the Bullshitter-in-Chief and complicit lie factories?
So there is a possibility (probability?) that the evidence could be revealed to the public before Trump's inauguration? That would at least be some consolation. One thing I can't understand is how a majority of Americans weren't curious enough about the extent of his crimes & treason & exactly what he did, who conspired with him, & who received the confidential information Trump confiscated, to vote for Kamala for that reason (among so many other good reasons that surely number in the hundreds if not thousands).
Thank you for shining a light on some of the murk in the path forward. Your analysis frames the repot’s release properly within the extant guides, policies and best practices guidelines for transitions in normal times.
But, these are not “normal” times.
Biden and Garland are powered by historical and institutional beliefs backed by 250 years of history as reflected in their administration’s management styles. Conversely, Trump seeks to rewrite the Constitution and laws as an authoritarian by destroying all vestiges of institutional history, knowledge and beliefs and feels empowered to use every democratically inspired tool to do that.
Trump’s election should be viewed as an unanticipated coup using the Constitution’s democratic election processes backed by massive weaponized lies and disinformation campaigns to intentionally mislead and intimidate the voting public.
Rather than the “historical” peaceful transfer of institutional knowledge and records, this one will be full of CYA and efforts to save the historical records at all costs before the storm troopers arrive to destroy or rewrite the “evidence.” I’m envisioning a very messy, hasty exit not unlike those experienced when the US left Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, merely because nobody anticipated a need to do that do suddenly.
The cloud hanging over Garland will never be cleared even if he elects to publish the Special Counsel’s report in the normal manner. His election to publish will be delayed if not derailed when Trump sues to stop it. Eventually, SCOTUS will work hard to cobble up some clouded originalist logic and words to bury the report as if it never existed.
So, absent any actual legally binding prohibitions beyond “best practices” or “policy guidelines,” Garland could simply publish the report preemptively while making all requisite notifications simultaneously.
Or, an unredacted copy could be “inadvertently” “leaked” in the exiting frenzy at the end of Garland’s term as AG and accomplish the same thing.
The worst things that could happen to Garland, et al, in any of these scenarios are already in motion given Trump’s stated intention to use the DOJ to seek revenge and retribution against him and every other person who ever opposed him in any manner. An unredacted report in the public domain would be a powerful tool for the People to use going forward.
Certainly one possibility for leaking the unredacted Smith report would be for the Democratic members of Congress who receive it to read it into the Congressional record. This is the "Mike Gravel" plan we alluded to on the air, but because members of Congress enjoy actual absolute immunity under the speech-or-debate clause, they could do so.
That’s a brilliant plan. Whomever (all of them) receives it needs to have a focused call, email and postcard effort to encourage them do that! Preservation of the record is critical to our collective futures. Thanks, Andrew.
I'm pretty sure Raskin (among others) would really go for that.
How sad is it that defending truth has become an act of resistance?
🤮
Can't Biden order Garland to release the report? Would that be crossing some big fat line — one that hasn't been erased by Trump-v-US and/or gratuitously pissed on by the Bullshitter-in-Chief and complicit lie factories?
Well, Smith hasn't written it and Garland hasn't gotten it yet.
But yes, under Trump v. US, Biden could openly order Garland to release the full report.
And so ... prior to Trump v. US, would such an order have been considered unprecedented and/or 'weaponization'?
And then i suppose Garland could clutch pearls and call that an unconstitutional order ...
"The reality is that Trump will never face justice in any court of law. The bad guys won this round"
As it concerns tRump, even when losing in court, he eventually wins by virtue of his elections success. Most flagrant example in American history
that indeed CRIME DOES PAY.
Evil triumphs.
So there is a possibility (probability?) that the evidence could be revealed to the public before Trump's inauguration? That would at least be some consolation. One thing I can't understand is how a majority of Americans weren't curious enough about the extent of his crimes & treason & exactly what he did, who conspired with him, & who received the confidential information Trump confiscated, to vote for Kamala for that reason (among so many other good reasons that surely number in the hundreds if not thousands).
Is chutkan going to decide what an official act is?
No. Smith is going to dismiss the indictment pursuant to Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.