Trump
supporters
stand on
the U.S.
Capitol
Police
armored
vehicle
as
others
take
over the
steps of
the
Capitol
on
January
6th.
(Photo
By Bill
Clark/CQ-Roll
Call,
Inc via
Getty
Images) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attorney
General
Merrick
Garland
speaks
at the
Department
of
Justice
in
Washington,
Wednesday,
Jan. 5,
2022, in
advance
of the
one year
anniversary
of the
attack
on the
U.S.
Capitol.
(AP
Photo/Carolyn
Kaster,
Pool) |
|
Garland
vows
Jan. 6
riot
prosecutions
‘whether
they
were
actually
present
or
committed
other
crimes’
By Matt
Zapotosky,
and
Devlin
Barrett
washingtonpost.com
WASHINGTON
-
Attorney
General
Merrick
Garland
vowed to
hold all
those
responsible
for the
Jan. 6
riot
accountable
—
whether
they
were at
the
Capitol
or
committed
other
crimes
surrounding
the
day’s
events —
saying
investigators
are
methodically
building
more
complicated
and
serious
cases
and
would
prosecute
people
“at any
level.”
“The
actions
we have
taken
thus far
will not
be our
last,”
Garland
said
Wednesday,
speaking
in the
Justice
Department’s
Great
Hall in
an
address
that was
broadcast
live
online
and by
cable
news
channels.
“The
Justice
Department
remains
committed
to
holding
all
January
6th
perpetrators,
at any
level,
accountable
under
law —
whether
they
were
present
that day
or were
otherwise
criminally
responsible
for the
assault
on our
democracy.
We will
follow
the
facts
wherever
they
lead.”
Garland’s
remarks
came on
the eve
of the
anniversary
of the
Capitol
breach
and as
he faces
intensifying
pressure
to do
and say
more
about
the
investigation,
and to
focus
more
acutely
on the
actions
of
former
president
Donald
Trump
and his
associates.
Debate
has
raged on
Twitter,
television
and
newspaper
editorial
pages
over
whether
Trump
could be
charged
with a
crime,
and, if
not,
what
that
might
mean for
future
transfers
of
power.
The
attorney
general
did not
name the
former
president
or those
close to
him.
While
many of
his
statements
were
common-sense
assurances
that
could be
said of
any
investigation,
they
seemed
designed
to
address
criticism
that the
department
was not
taking a
broad
enough
view of
possible
crimes
connected
to Jan.
6, or
looking
at
high-profile
enough
targets,
including
Trump.
“We
build
investigations
by
laying a
foundation.
We
resolve
more
straightforward
cases
first
because
they
provide
the
evidentiary
foundation
for more
complex
cases,”
Garland
said,
adding
later,
“There
cannot
be
different
rules
for the
powerful
and the
powerless.”
A
growing
chorus
of
public
officials,
former
military
leaders
and
others
have
suggested
Trump
may have
committed
a crime
by
encouraging
the
rioters
or
pushing
efforts
to
overturn
the
results
of the
election.
But some
legal
analysts
say
charges
for
Trump
and
others
seem
unlikely,
given
that
public
evidence
has not
pointed
to a
grand
conspiracy
that
involved
the
president
or his
top
allies
directing
rioters
to
breach
the
Capitol.
A
Washington
Post
review
of court
records
last
year
found
that the
vast
majority
of those
charged
federally
were not
known to
be part
of
far-right
groups
or
premeditated
conspiracies
to
attack
the
Capitol.
Instead,
they
were a
collection
of
everyday
Americans,
including
community
leaders,
small-business
owners,
teachers
and yoga
instructors,
who
gathered
in
Washington
to
protest
or try
to stop
the
congressional
certification
of
President
Biden’s
victory.
“There’s
no grand
conspiracy
that the
FBI
found,
despite
arresting
hundreds
of
people,
investigating
thousands,”
said
Jonathan
Turley,
a George
Washington
University
law
professor.
In his
speech,
Garland
sought
to frame
the Jan.
6
investigation
— the
biggest
in the
FBI’s
history,
in terms
of the
sheer
number
of
defendants
and
suspects
— in the
larger
context
of
criminal
prosecutions,
in which
the
severity
of
charges
and jail
sentences
are
based on
the harm
caused
by
specific
conduct,
and the
speed
with
which
individuals
admit
their
guilt.
“In
complex
cases,
initial
charges
are
often
less
severe
than
later
charged
offenses,”
Garland
noted,
adding
that in
recent
weeks
“we have
seen
significant
sentences
that
reflect
the
seriousness
of those
offenses
— both
in terms
of the
injuries
they
caused
and the
serious
risk
they
posed to
our
democratic
institutions.”
Federal
prosecutors
in D.C.
announced
last
week
that
they
have
charged
more
than 725
people
with
assault,
resisting
arrest
and
other
crimes
in
connection
with the
events
of Jan.
6. About
165
people
have
pleaded
guilty,
the U.S.
attorney’s
office
said. In
his
speech,
Garland
ticked
through
the
damage
they
inflicted:
attacking
officers
with
pipes,
poles
and
chemical
agents,
and
destroying
journalists’
equipment.
He read
the
names of
five
police
officers
who
responded
that day
and have
since
died,
and
called
for a
moment
of
silence
in their
memories.
Stanley
Brand, a
former
House
counsel
who
represents
some
Jan. 6
defendants
and
witnesses,
called
the
speech
“vintage
Merrick
Garland,
a
classic
discussion
of
criminal
justice
101 and
due
process,
which is
what I
would
hope and
expect,
even
though
I’m
representing
some of
these
people.”
The
speech
was a
“textbook
explanation”
of the
prosecutorial
system,
Brand
said.
“This is
the
largest
criminal
investigation
in the
history
of the
United
States,
and a
lot of
it
happens,
like an
iceberg,
under
the
surface.
That’s
necessary,
that’s
our
system.”
Garland’s
speech
also
ventured
beyond
the
events
of Jan.
6. He
spent
significant
time
addressing
threats
against
election
workers
and
others,
saying
the
Justice
Department
would
prosecute
those
who make
illegal
threats
but also
would
work
within
the
bounds
of the
First
Amendment.
“The
Department
has been
clear
that
expressing
a
political
belief
or
ideology,
no
matter
how
vociferously,
is not a
crime,”
Garland
said.
He said
the
department
had
charged
more
people
in
criminal
threats
cases in
2021
than in
any year
in at
least
the last
five.
But
officials
have
also
struggled
to make
cases;
for
example,
a task
force
formed
last
summer
to
investigate
threats
against
election
workers
has yet
to make
an
arrest.
Garland
vowed to
protect
people’s
voting
rights,
and he
sounded
the
alarm
about
efforts
in some
states
to audit
results
or have
state
lawmakers
throw
out
voters’
choices
entirely.
“But as
with
violence
and
threats
of
violence,
the
Justice
Department
— even
the
Congress
— cannot
alone
defend
the
right to
vote,”
Garland
said.
“The
responsibility
to
preserve
democracy
— and to
maintain
faith in
the
legitimacy
of its
essential
processes
— lies
with
every
elected
official
and
every
American.”
This is
a
developing
story.
Please
check
back for
updates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|