Lawfare Blog reports, Garland Appoints Special Counsel to Lead Trump-Related Investigations:
On Nov. 18, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that he has issued an order to appoint John (Jack) L. Smith to serve as special counsel for the Department of Justice to conduct two ongoing investigations related to former President Trump. Smith will oversee the investigation into whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the 2020 presidential election and certification of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, 2021, as well as the investigation into the unlawful removal of classified documents and other presidential records from the White House to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.
“Good afternoon, I’m here today to announce the appointment of a special counsel in connection with two ongoing criminal investigations that have received significant public attention,” Garland said.
“The first, as described in court filings in the District of Columbia, is the investigation into whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021,” he said. “The second is the ongoing investigation involving classified documents and other presidential records, as well as the possible obstruction of that investigation, referenced and described in court filings in a pending matter in the southern district of Florida.”
“I’m joined today by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves and Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Kenneth Polite,” Garland said. “Assistant Attorney General for National Security Matthew Olsen could not be here. He is currently in Germany representing the department at the G7 home affairs and security ministerial.”
“U.S. Attorney Graves has been ably leading the investigations into the events leading up to and on January 6,” he said. “He and dozens of assistant U.S. attorneys and other prosecutors have taken on the monumental task of conducting over 900 prosecutions in defense of our democratic institutions.”
“Criminal division prosecutors under the able leadership of Assistant Attorney General Polite have played a significant role in those prosecutions,” Garland said. “Assistant Attorney General Olsen has been ably leading the team responsible for investigating the matter involving classified documents and other presidential records, as well as the possible obstruction of that investigation. All of the career prosecutors assigned to these matters are conducting their work in the best traditions of the department of justice.”
“I also want to recognize the efforts of the many FBI agents and other law enforcement personnel who are assigned to these matters,” he added. “They are working courageously and steadfastly and are serving our nation honorably. I am grateful to them. We all are.”
“The Department of Justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution,” Garland said. “Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate in the next election and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel.”
“Such an appointment underscores the department’s commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters,” he continued. “It also allows prosecutors and agents to continue their work expeditiously and to make decisions indisputably guided only by the facts and the law.”
“The special counsel will conduct parts of the first investigation I just mentioned,” Garland said. “The investigation into whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or with the certification of Electoral College vote held on or about January 6.”
“This does not include prosecutions that are currently pending in the District of Columbia or future investigations and prosecutions of individuals for offenses committed while they were physically present on the Capitol grounds on January 6,” he added. “Those investigations and prosecutions will remain under the authority of the U.S. authority for the District of Columbia.”
“The special counsel will also conduct the investigation involving classified documents and other presidential records, as well as the possible obstruction of that investigation,” Garland said.
“Today, I signed an order appointing Jack Smith to serve as special counsel,” Garland announced. “The order authorizes him to continue the ongoing investigation into both of the matters that I have just described and to prosecute any federal crimes that may arise from those investigations.”
I was described by Steve Bannon (and, sigh, many others) as a pit bull. Jack Smith makes me look like a golden retriever puppy. So tenacious and fearless. And apolitical and ethical.
— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) November 19, 2022
For those concerned that the appointment of a Special Counsel will delay things: just the opposite. Jack is a super fast, no-nonsense, and let's-cut-to-the-chase kind of guy. And now, with less DOJ bureaucracy in decision-making, the investigations can move faster.
— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) November 19, 2022
“Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor,” Garland said. “He began his prosecutorial career in 1994 as an assistant district attorney with the New York county DA’s office. In 1999, he became an assistant U.S. attorney for the eastern district of New York, where over the course of 9 years he prosecuted matters ranging from gang murders of police officers to civil rights violations.”
“From 2008 to 2010, he served with the international criminal court where he supervised war crimes investigations,” Garland continued. “In 2010, Mr. Smith returned to the Justice Department to serve as chief of the public integrity section, where he led a team of more than 30 prosecutors who handled public corruption and election crimes cases across the United States.”
“In 2015, he agreed to serve as the first assistant U.S. attorney for the middle district of Tennessee, later becoming the acting United States attorney,” he added. “Most recently, Mr. Smith served as a chief prosecutor for the special court in the Hague charged with investigating and adjudicating war crimes in Kosovo.”
“Mr. Smith will begin his work as special counsel immediately and will be returning to the United States from the Hague,” Garland said.
“Throughout his career, Jack Smith has built a reputation as an impartial and determined prosecutor who leads teams with energy and focus to follow the facts wherever they lead,” Garland said. “As special counsel, he will exercise independent prosecutorial judgment to decide whether charges should be brought.”
“Although the special counsel will not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the department, he must comply with the regulations, procedures and policies of the department,” he said. “I will ensure that the special counsel receives the resources to conduct this work quickly and completely. Given the work to date and Mr. Smith’s prosecutorial experience, I am confident this appointment will not slow the completion of these investigations”
“The men and women who are pursuing these investigations are conducting themselves in accordance with the highest standards of professionalism,” Garland said. “I could not be prouder of them. I strongly believe that the normal processes of this department can handle all investigations with integrity, and I also believe that appointing a special counsel at this time is the right thing to do. The extraordinary circumstances presented here demand it.”
“Mr. Smith is the right choice to complete these matters in an even-handed and urgent matter,” Garland concluded. “Thank you all.”
Lawfare continues:
Smith is a longtime federal prosecutor, formerly serving as chief prosecutor for the special court in the Hague and as chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section.
After Garland’s announcement of his appointment as special counsel, Smith issued a statement in which he affirmed that he “will exercise independent judgment and will move the investigations forward expeditiously and thoroughly to whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate.”
You can read the order, and Smith’s statement, respectively, below:
Statement of Special Counsel Jack Smith
WASHINGTON – Following his appointment by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today, Special Counsel Jack Smith made the following statement:
“I intend to conduct the assigned investigations, and any prosecutions that may result from them, independently and in the best traditions of the Department of Justice. The pace of the investigations will not pause or flag under my watch. I will exercise independent judgement and will move the investigations forward expeditiously and thoroughly to whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate.”
###
Neal Katyal, who helped draft the special counsel rules as a young Justice Department lawyer in the late 1990s, disagrees with Garland’s decision. A Special Counsel is neither required nor necessary under the special counsel rules. Despite Garland’s assurance that the investigation will move “expeditiously,” this will almost certainly result in further delay in obtaining justice.
If there's anything we've learned, it's that Trump&his base will criticize anyone who goes against his wishes. It doesn't matter if it's Merrick Garland,Jack Smith,or even his own Vice President. They attack anyone who disagrees &a special counsel does nothing to change that fact
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) November 18, 2022
On Friday’s edition of MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House,” former solicitor general and legal analyst Neal Katyal sharply criticized the decision by Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate former President Donald Trump, calling it inconsistent with DOJ standards and protocols. ‘Tantamount to rewarding Donald Trump’: Legal analyst slams Merrick Garland for special counsel move:
“I don’t think it’s needed under the regulations and I think it risks delaying this investigation needlessly,” Katyal told anchor Nicolle Wallace. “One of my first jobs at the justice department was drafting these regulations, and really the appointment of a special counsel is primarily about a circumstances in which you’re fearing a cover-up, in which you’re worried that the attorney general is being asked to investigate, perhaps, the president who appointed him or some other high-ranking executive branch official and you’re worried that investigation will get truncated, short-circuited through a cover-up or something like that.”
“Here, however, that investigation has already largely happened,” said Katyal. “Particularly with respect to the Mar-a-Lago stolen documents piece. The January 6th one, I think, is somewhat different. But the investigation’s happened. And so to me, I don’t see what the case is for a special counsel. Attorney General garland said it was because of a conflict of interest, because Trump has announced that he’s running and Biden is evidently running in ’24, as well. That, to me, is tantamount to rewarding Donald Trump for all of the maneuvers that he’s making, including announcing his election right now. You know, I don’t really get it.”
I don’t really get it either. Merrick Garland is letting Donald Trump play him out of his fear of appearing “political.” The right-wing media is always going to say this! Fuck them. The final decision on prosecuting Trump always rests with the AG anyway, not the Special Counsel. So grow a pair Merrick The Mild. Stop worrying about appearances in the right-wing media and fearing the GQP Hooligans in Congress. You have a job to do, so do it!
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The T4ump/Kushner crime families do their criming in public all day long and get to live in mansions.
Massive tax fraud, extortion, calls for violence, backroom deals with murderers.
Man, I once spent three days in the Santa Cruz jail because I didn’t pay a fifty dollar fine for an open beer on the beach too close to some parked cars.
It’s almost as if there are two Americas.
I don’t know Glenn Kirschner’s standing with the BfA’s Esquires but he’s always struck me as a straight shooter who doesn’t mince words and knows of which he speaks. Here is yesterday’s take on Jack Smith’s Special Prosecutor appointment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuXt4tK_Xj4
And today’s take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh7lfmo-viw
Today’s take seems right to me but I don’t get cable or satellite and am not a lawyer so what do I know?
I generally find Kirschner to be well-informed and reasonable, even if I don’t always agree with him in every particular. The appointment of Jack Smith is frequently compared to Robert Mueller’s appointment. I don’t think there is any parallel. First, the move to appoint a Special Counsel is perfectly appropriate and wise. I support avoiding the appearance of impropriety. It won’t stop such attacks, but it insulates the prosecution against such an impression amongst reasonable people, including the courts.
Second, I think Jack Smith is a totally bad-ass case-maker and veteran prosecutor of criminal orgs, white-collar crime, electoral fraud, and war crimes – Smith will move quickly to initiate criminal cases against every entity or person against whom a prosecution might be successful. We are going to see significant movement very soon since the investigation has discovered enough to start making cases against the highest levels of the Trump Administration. Garland would not have appointed, and Smith would not have accepted if they had not decided that Trump would be the ultimate target of all the prosecutions.
I think Kirschner’s lament about the time it has taken is mistaken. The wheels of justice turn slowly and methodically. The legal system has ground out the legal basis for charging and taking testimony from insiders of a former President that were needed for a successful prosecution and now we are moving into the phase of actually traveling the road to accountability that the DOJ has painstakingly built over the past two years of litigation and investigation.
This may be out in the (field of one’s choice) but is it conceivable that:
Merrick Garland has been keeping Jack Smith up-to-date on the progress of the investigations?
If so, can Jack Smith quickly indict not only the Vulgar Talking Yam but also sitting Members of Congress?
If sitting Members of Congress are indicted could that be used as a basis for Nancy Pelosi to start expulsion proceedings against those indicted Members?
I’m seeing a possible scenario where expulsion proceedings happen, the accused Sitting Members are allowed to defend themselves and let the expulsion vote chips fall where they may. And while the under indictment, Members of Congress cannot be seated in the next Congress until their proceedings are resolved.
Sure, the Repugs will shriek and rend their garments but they’ve been doing that for so long that America just may have become inured to their histonics.
Chuck Rosenberg, a former United States Attorney and senior FBI official, explains at Politico, “Merrick Garland Doesn’t Need a Special Counsel for Trump”, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/11/17/trump-investigations-special-counsel-justice-department-00068062
(excerpt)
[U]ltimately, appointing a special counsel is unnecessary and it could be far more problematic than keeping the investigation in normal DOJ channels.
[U]nlike an independent counsel who is, well, independent, a special counsel reports to the attorney general and is bound — as Mueller was — by DOJ rules, regulations and policies. If the lapsed independent counsel statute permitted someone to stray too far, the special counsel regulation may have kept them too close. So, do we need a special counsel to oversee an investigation of Trump, as he makes another bid for the White House while under extraordinary legal scrutiny?
This two-decade-old special counsel structure solved one problem (too much autonomy) and arguably replaced it with another problem (too little autonomy). Put another way, does DOJ have a conflict that precludes it from handling its probes within normal channels? I think the answers are “no and no.”
First, this investigation was opened — and is being worked — in standard Justice Department fashion. Garland has made few public comments about the case, but he did say in March that the work of DOJ “will continue to build until we hold everyone accountable who committed criminal acts with respect to Jan. 6.” Handing it off to a special counsel now seems unlikely to eliminate any perceived conflict — already incurred — from the investigation. And, it might have the unintended effect of slowing it down, even if only temporarily.
Second, President Joe Biden has insisted — as all functional adult presidents before him — that there be a strict wall between the White House and DOJ on the latter’s criminal investigative and prosecutive work. That wall is appropriate and necessary, and it seems not to have been breached in this administration, including in DOJ’s investigation of the president’s son, Hunter Biden.
If DOJ develops reliable evidence that Hunter Biden committed a crime, then he should be charged with that crime. DOJ can credibly do that work without resorting to a special counsel, and it can similarly continue to investigate Trump. Remember, this is also the same Justice Department that recently announced it would not prosecute Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, for purportedly violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This Justice Department makes principled determinations every day. There is no reason to think it cannot do so here, free of political interference.
Third, Trump is (quite obviously) no longer president, even if he is now a candidate for that office. The Justice Department’s policy to avoid election year interference is inapplicable at this point. We are not “near” the time of an election, and the investigation is not for the “purpose” of interfering in that election. And, to the extent that Trump is using his candidacy to stymie the DOJ investigation and to shield himself from legal accountability, Garland cannot let that influence his decision. Subjects of criminal investigations — such as Trump — do not get to make investigative or prosecutive decisions for DOJ.
Fourth, the special counsel regulations — and former Attorney General William Barr’s misleading public summary of the Mueller report — demonstrate that a special counsel may not have enough actual independence to give an attorney general the separation they may want. It is not clear that Garland would purchase much distance between himself and a special counsel, because Garland would still oversee the work and remain responsible for any final determination. Stated another way, Garland would be attacked and blamed — by one side or the other, or both — for any decision that came from a special counsel’s investigation.
Fifth, Garland should retain full responsibility for investigations into Trump — without appointing a special counsel — because he is, like Mueller, a deeply principled, honorable and thoughtful man. I trust his stewardship of DOJ and his judgment in this matter. And I trust the collective judgment of career investigators and prosecutors. DOJ enjoys the biggest and best collection of legal and investigative talent on the planet, with tons of big case experience. It seems odd to take a difficult case out of their capable hands at this juncture. Indeed, DOJ has already been working on the Jan. 6 investigation for almost two years.
Further, in this highly contentious climate, could any appointed special counsel convince partisans that an investigation of Trump — perhaps the most polarizing figure in American history — is independent and unbiased? What, exactly, would DOJ gain in perception by handing the case off to someone else? If Trump and his cronies attacked the esteemed Bob Mueller — and they did — who as special counsel could possibly convince them that Trump was not being “persecuted?”
I envy Garland neither his job nor his decision, but it is clear we are best served without a special counsel. It is the right move for the Justice Department and for the pursuit of justice.
Would you consider creating an account on MASTODON, for all those that have left Twitter. I so far have been copying the link and spreading the word. Robert Reich, Mehdi HAssan are both on Mastodon! Generally seems to appeal to people who are blessed still with a discerning brain. TANKS!
https://ohai.social/invite/pmjugi7F
Perhaps. I will investigate Mastadon as an alternative. I don’t want to move us to an echo chamber, but I also disapprove of the reinstatement of Trump. He should be banned for life.
“So grow a pair Merrick The Mild. Stop worrying about appearances in the right-wing media and fearing the GQP Hooligans in Congress. You have a job to do, so do it!”
Good luck with that . . .
I disagree. Garland has a perspective most lack – a view from the bench. The audience for moving the prosecution to a special counsel is not the public – it’s the courts and the judges that constitute them.