DOJ follows suit.

June 6, 2022.

No audio version.

          I am traveling on Monday and have only about thirty minutes to research, write, and publish the newsletter. Apologies for the brevity (and any errors).

          The DOJ filed an amended (“superseding”) indictment against the leaders of the Proud Boys alleging “seditious conspiracy.” The superseding indictment is here: US v. Nordean, et al. Read pages 8 through 23 to see the minute-by-minute description of the “acts in furtherance of a conspiracy” to interfere with the count of electoral ballots on January 6, 2021. Seditious conspiracy cases are notoriously difficult to prove, but the detail in the superseding indictment suggests that the DOJ has the evidence necessary to convict the defendants.

          The timing of the superseding indictment indicates that the January 6th Committee is putting pressure on the DOJ to pick up the pace of its own efforts to prosecute those involved in the insurrection on January 6th. Good! The upcoming hearing on Thursday of this week will likely increase the pressure on the DOJ exponentially. The Brookings Institution has published a guide to the January 6th hearings titled, Trump on Trial: A Guide to the January 6 Hearings and the Question of Criminality. Per the report, it considers the following questions (among others):

          [W]hether Trump as a matter of law conspired with his outside counsel John Eastman, administration lawyer Jeffrey Clark, and others to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 by scheming to block the electoral count on January 6, 2021 and to subvert the Department of Justice’s election enforcement work.

          Spoiler alert: The answer is “Yes,” Trump did conspire with Jeffrey Clark and others to block the electoral count on January 6th, thereby violating at least two federal criminal statutes. Let’s hope that someone in the DOJ pays close attention to the conclusions of the Brookings Institution and the January 6th Committee. With any luck, Trump should be the subject of a criminal indictment next week. (A guy can hope, can’t he?)

Concluding Thoughts.

          Josh Marshall is the editor and publisher of Talking Points Memo, one of the best resources for people who want thoughtful and unbiased reporting on political news. I am a paid subscriber to Talking Points Memo, so I get to see Josh’s “behind the scenes comments.” (More about that in a minute.) On Monday, Josh wrote a deeply thoughtful op-ed about how Democrats could use the upcoming ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health to win in November. See Josh Marshall, Opinion | Democrats Can Win This Fall if They Make One Key Promise - The New York Times.

          As Josh argues, Democrats should make one key promise in every Senate and House race:

The campaign message is clear: If you want to protect Roe, give us those majorities. If this is your passion, here’s where to channel that passion. These are the Senate seats we need to hold (in New Hampshire, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada) and here are the ones we need to win (in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and possibly in Ohio, Florida and North Carolina).

          There is more to Josh’s argument, but that is his thesis, backed by polling and analysis.

          After Josh published his op-ed, he reviewed the comments posted by Times readers—many of whom were Democrats. Josh describes the comments in his behind-the-paywall editor’s blog. He says, “The level of self-defeating ignorance on display almost defied comprehension.” Josh said he stopped reading the comments and put the whole episode behind him.

          I have two observations. First, Democrats excel at (1) picking apart good ideas advanced by those trying to find a solution, (2) identifying nuances that don’t matter, and (3) declaring defeat before engaging in the battle. Don’t be that person. The Democratic Party has a surplus of people who are experts in predicting doom. We need people who are willing to lead, even when the odds are long. If you see someone trying to lead the way, a little support can go a long way.

          Second, in many major media outlets, a dedicated cadre of defeatists are willing to share their doomsaying—because it is the easy and lazy way to predict the future. After all, bad things happen with such frequency that predicting bad outcomes is an easy bet—but not helpful. If you can, provide a counterweight to reflexive doomsayers by jumping into comments sections with positive statements about what we can do to change the outcome (if you sincerely believe in the positive case). If you do that, you move from “predicting” a bleak future to bending the future to our will.

          Talk to you tomorrow!