Skip to content

Merrick Garland’s Former Law Prof: ‘Strong Evidence’ DOJ Will Soon Issue a Trump Indicment

As talk heats up that Donald Trump will soon announce his intention to run for president in 2024, CNN is reporting that there is ‘strong evidence’ Donald Trump may soon be indicted over January 6.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed Attorney General Merrick Garland’s former Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe over the potential of an impending Donald Trump indictment. Watch:

“So based on what we know now, Professor Tribe, do you believe the US Justice Department will try to bring an indictment against the former President related to these events of January 6th?” Blitzer asked.

“Well, I wish I knew, but Merrick Garland is a friend and a former student of mine,” Tribe replied. He is an honest man, he’s serious. He said, you go to the top, if that’s where the evidence points, and that’s certainly where it’s pointing now. And there’s indication, certainly from the searches and seizures of both John Eastman and of others, strong evidence that the Justice Department is not stopping with the foot soldiers, it’s going to the Generals.

“And the biggest General of all, of course, is Donald Trump,” Tribe went on. “I do think the odds are he will be indicted.”

“And so you think, Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States will indict the former President of the United States?” Wolf asked.

“If I had to guess, that would be my guess,” Tribe said.

“What are the main hurdles right now, Professor Tribe, to pursuing an actual indictment of Trump?” Blitzer queried. “If you were making a case against the former President, where would you be concerned?”

“Well, I would be concerned, of course, with the possibility of a hung jury, someone who basically believes with Trump, that he can do no wrong, but I would think that it would be worth having an indictment anyway,” Tribe said.

“I certainly recognize that indicting a former President would generate lots of social heat, perhaps violence, but not indicting him would invite another violent insurrection,” the law professor claimed.

“I would be weighing two terrible choices, but it is clear to me, if I were the Attorney General, which is worse?” Tribe went on. “It is worse to say that a President of the United States can hold on to power, do whatever it takes in order to prevent the transition, a peaceful transition of power for the first time in our history and get away with it, because once that has happened, democracy is at an end.”

After January 6, a Department of Justice prosecutor claimed that former President Donald Trump could be charged for his alleged role in the Capitol riots.

“It’s unequivocal that Trump was the magnet that brought the people to D.C. on the 6th,” federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin said on ’60 Minutes.’

So does that mean that Trump is “criminally culpable for everything that happened during the siege, during the breach?” Pelley asked.

“We have plenty of people– we have soccer moms from Ohio that were arrested saying, ‘Well, I did this because my president said I had to take back our house.’ That moves the needle towards that direction,” Sherwin argued.

“Maybe the president is culpable for those actions,” the prosecutor insinuated. “But also, you see in the public record too, militia members saying, ‘You know what? We did this because Trump just talks a big game. He’s just all talk. We did what he wouldn’t do.’”

“In short, you have investigators looking into the president’s role?” asked Pelley.

“We have people looking at everything, correct,” Sherwin replied. “Everything’s being looked at.”

The news media has been pushing for Donald Trump’s prosecution for the Capitol riots since January 6th.

“Trump must be prosecuted,” the Week argued in January. “Trump can and must be prosecuted,” the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin opined. “Trump must be prosecuted, or we should just admit presidents are above the law,” Business Insider proclaimed.

A former high-ranking FBI official said that it is unlikely that Trump’s speech could qualify as “incitement” by any reasonable legal standard, as Just the News reported.

“For speech to meet the threshold of incitement, a speaker must, first, indicate a desire for violence and, second, demonstrate a capability or reasonable indication of capability to carry out the violence, according to Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI,” said former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI.

“I didn’t hear a single word about — or anything that would trigger a reasonable person to believe that he was inciting— violence,” he said. “He even used the words ‘peaceful’ and ‘respectful.’”

If the Department of Justice presses for Trump’s prosecution after the Jan. 6 committee’s partisan hearings, America will truly be entering dangerous new territory.

Syndicated with licensed permission from Becker News. Follow Becker News on Telegram.

Current Founder, CEO and Chief Editor of Becker News. Former Writer & Associate Producer at Fox News for #1 top-rated prime-time cable news show. Former Director of Viral Media and Senior Managing Editor for award-winning startup website IJReview, which grew to a readership of 20-30 million Americans a month. Led editorial and social media team that was #1 ranked news & politics publisher on Facebook for story engagement. Writer whose thousands of digital articles have been read by over 100 million unique users.

Leave a Reply