Given a lot of factors that are patently obvious — the first of which is that I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer — I am trying to prepare myself for a possible disappointment if Attorney General Merrick Garland decides to indict the immediate past president of the United States.
The disappointment might lie in that Garland will not indict Donald J. Trump on the most serious crime on the table: seditious conspiracy.
Instead, Garland might try to bust up whatever criminal proceeding he would seek into a group of smaller offenses.
I am absolutely sure that Garland recognizes the staggering precedent he could set if he indicts Trump for inciting the insurrection of 1/6. No need to explain what that means.
Garland appears to be a meticulous, deliberate and thorough lawyer, one who has a stellar record as a prosecutor, I should add. He won a conviction of the madman who blew up the Oklahoma City courthouse in April 1995.
It well might be that Garland cannot win a conviction on the whole array of charges that loom in front of Donald Trump. That will be his call to make exclusively. He will not need, nor should he accept, any recommendations from the peanut gallery, where many others and I occupy prime seats.
This might be my way of preparing for a possible disappointment. I have declared my intention to accept whatever the AG decides. I just hope I don’t hurt my jaw when I am finished gnashing my teeth.