Trump is Going To Jail! Or IS He? Breaking Down Merrick Garland’s Interview

Is Attorney General Merrick Garland‘s exclusive interview with NBC News’ Lester Holt a bombshell in which Garland practically bellows “LOCK HIM UP!” — or a meaningless collection of boilerplate that he’s said before? Let’s separate the tomatoes from the tomahtos.

Amid heightening chatter sparked by the January 6 hearings, Team Lock Him Up has been on an emotional rollercoaster trying to read between the lines of Garland’s investigation. Hopes spring up with bombshell revelations and reassuring patter from Garland, then get dashed by the emergence of a May memo continuing a policy restricting investigations involving candidates for office, then rise again on still other revelations and tempting pull-quotes.

Then there’s the other side of the Rorschach Test, Team Meh, whose pulse never gets above 80 because everything Garland says is stuff he’s said before, and amount to one big, fancy dodge.

So who scored big in Garland’s exclusive interview with Holt, which aired on Tuesday night’s episode of NBC Nightly News (mandatory credit)? Let’s break it down.

Holt began the interview by asking about the hearings in the most general — and useless — terms.

“Just, as an American, can you tell me what your impression was of what we heard?” Holt asked.

MERRICK GARLAND: It’s an important part of democracy, that every American recognizes the truth of what happened on January 6th and the area of time surrounding it. I think that this is an important part that we not downgrade or suppress how important that day was and I think that the hearings did an extremely good job of reminding us and for people who didn’t know in the first place, telling us how important that day was. And what a risk it meant for our democracy.

Score one for Team Meh, although this does evoke a fine moment for Team Jail from a few weeks ago when Garland told reporters “I am watching, and I will be watching all the hearings, although I may not be able to watch all of it live. And I can assure you that the January 6 prosecutors are watching all the hearings as well.”

Along those lines, Holt then asked “Is the committee offering you anything in terms of an informal road map? Are you learning things you didn’t know?”

GARLAND: The Justice Department has been doing the most wide-ranging investigation in its history. And the committee is doing an enormously wide-ranging investigation as well. It is inevitable that there will be things that they find before we have found them. And there is, it’s inevitable that there will be things we find that they haven’t found. The Justice Department has from the beginning been moving urgently to learn everything we can about this period, and to bring to justice everybody who was criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another, which is the fundamental element of our democracy.

Team Meh will correctly point out that Garland just got done saying this exact same thing — the “everybody who was criminally responsible” part –last week, and that it’s just another version of the “no one is above the law” mantra that’s been kicking around since Nixon. But Team Prison can fairly point out that context matters — when Garland said this last week in response to a direct question about Trump. And he said it a bunch of times.

Here, the context is similarly meaningful, and Garland adds an element that Hold picked up on in his next question:

HOLT: You said you’re moving quickly at this. There’s been a lot of criticism, a lot of pressure that the DOJ is kind of behind the power curve here, behind the committee, not moving quickly enough on what appears to be solid evidence in some cases.

GARLAND: As I said, we have been moving urgently since the very beginning, we have a huge number of prosecutors and agents working on these cases. It is inevitable in this kind of investigation that there’ll be speculation about what we are doing, who we are investigating, what our theories are. The reason there is this speculation and uncertainty is that it’s a fundamental tenet of what we do as prosecutors and investigators is to do it outside of the public eye. We do that for two important reasons. One is to protect the civil liberties of people and events that we’re investigating. And the second is to ensure the success and the integrity of our investigation.

This is nearly the same thing he said to reporters last week, and it does read like an elaborate and standard dodge. It can also be read as a stealth effort to reassure Tem Jail that even if they can’t see the wheels, the wheels are turning.

Next, Holt asked about the January 6 committee issuing a criminal referral, a contentious issue even within the committee:

HOLT: Would a criminal referral from the committee carry a lot of weight, would it be welcomed by the Department of Justice?

GARLAND: So I think that’s totally up to the committee. We will have the evidence that the committee has presented and whatever evidence it gives us, I don’t think that the nature of how they style, the manner in which information is provided, is a particular significance from any legal point of view. That’s not to downgraded or to or disparage it. It’s just that’s not what, that’s not the issue here. We have our own investigation, pursuing through the principles of prosecution.

This is a deceptively innocuous exchange, and it demonstrates an aspect of this debate that has been overlooked. On its face, the response is ambivalent, but all of Garland’s statements can be evaluated not just on the basis of what he is or isn’t saying, but what he could have said and didn’t.

In this case, Garland is very conspicuously not waving off a criminal referral from the committee, which he could have done without running afoul of DoJ standards by noting a need to avoid even the appearance of political consideration.

Speaking of political considerations, Holt raised the specter of division with his next question:

HOLT: You said, in no uncertain terms the other day that no one is above the law. That said, the indictment of a former president, a perhaps candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart. Is that your concern, as you make your decision down the road here, do you have to think about things like that?

GARLAND: Look, we pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for events surrounding January 6, for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable, that’s what we do. We don’t pay any attention to other issues with respect to that.

HOLT: So if Donald Trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don’t move forward?

GARLAND: I’ll say again that we will hold accountable anyone who was criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer, legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.

Yes, this sounds familiar, because he said it last week, and earlier in the interview. The context here is even more on-the-nose. And consider what he could have said, but didn’t. At no point does Garland soften the ground in the slightest for the possibility Trump might not face justice. Not even a hint.

Holt wrapped up the January 6 chunk by asking about the pressure building for an indictment:

HOLT: How is your department dealing with the pressure? Every day you wake up, there’s a column in a newspaper talking about what you will do and when you will do it.

GARLAND: The only pressure that I, my prosecutors, or the agents feel is the pressure to do the right thing. That’s the only way we can pursue the rule of law, that’s the only way we can keep the confidence of the American people in the rule of law, which is an essential part of our democratic system.

Garland has been saying this for months as well, and it’s another one of those ink blots that can look different depending on who’s looking at it. But again, Garland resists adding anything that might cut against swift justice for Trump, like citing the policy about investigations near or during elections.

Based just on what Garland is saying, Team Jail has a lot of reasons to feel encouraged, and if you add other factors like recent developments in the investigation, I wouldn’t bet against them.

There is one more factor to consider. Garland is speaking to multiple audiences whenever he weighs in on the investigations into the insurrection. That includes the 400-lb. Audience of One in the Room. If that guy is listening, he’s got to be hearing that Garland is coming for him.

Watch above via NBC News.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.