Security yesterday put out 160-page simulation of a so-called prosecutor s memo, that s the kind of document that they will prepare for him, and he will prepare for the attorney general. it goes through everything. including all of the reasons they could lose, because they have to find, in order to come forward, not just that he s guilty, but that they re likely to win. that s part of d.o.j. guidelines. but i want to emphasize, he ll be absorbing more than creating. but given what we ve spoken about, and the enormity of this, the unprecedented nature of it, a former president, who is running for president again, the question i heard time and time and time again, before this decision was made, on whether or not to actually appoint a special prosecutor, was this, harry litman, why would anybody take this on, given the politics surrounding it? it s a great question. and i m certain, it s one thing for merrick garland who is the
Take the view that the attorney general s job was limited and that it wasn t his job to decide about grace. but that was the view of the special watergate prosecutors as well. if this situation, if facts are sufficient to indict, then the attorney general has only one option and that is to indict. what do you think, danya? i think, the timeline i take ian s point. i think that s probably exactly right, in the normal course. but as embedded in your earlier question, this case is a unicorn in some ways and the doj cannot proceed in a way, as it normally does, which is a bottom up approach, pick off the low hanging fruit, cooperate up, take its time. there is a timeline here. there is an emergence here, because of the upcoming elections and because of doj guidelines, which also do not allow for prosecutions and overt investigations when there
As well. if this situation, if facts are sufficient to indict, then the attorney general has only one option and that is to indict. what do you think, danya? i think, the timeline i take ian s point. i think that s probably exactly right, in the normal course. but as embedded in your earlier question, this case is a unicorn in some ways and the doj cannot proceed in a way, as it normally does, which is a bottom up approach, pick off the low hanging fruit, cooperate up, take its time. there is a timeline here. there is an emergence here, because of the upcoming elections and because of doj guidelines, which also do not allow for prosecutions and overt investigations when there is a pending campaign or election. all right, ian bassin and danya perry, that was really illuminating, thank you both, enjoy your weekend. coming up, the political effect of the january 6th hearings. is the evidence actually getting to trump voters? resonating with them? some evidence it is.
I think our job as citizens is to, you know, watch and wait and see how they call it, but as far as the considerations that drive that decision, you know, you re dealing according to doj guidelines, you re dealing with the seriousness of the offense as a major consideration. well that, i think, addresses itself when you think about what was this about? it was about destroying our democratic system. and a second major consideration is the importance of deterrents. well, we ve got active efforts to steal the 2024 election going on right now, deterrents is absolutely critical. and the third major leading consideration is the culpability of the person that you re looking at. here we re getting the evidence of extraordinary personal culpability by donald trump. so i think i think the considerations that weigh in favor of prosecution are being
Administrative review to a criminal investigation. it was first reported the new york times. it s being conducted by u.s. attorney john durham. this move gives durham the power to subpoena witness testimony and documents to convene a grand jury and to file criminal charges. as the times notes, it s likely to raise alarms that president trump again is using the justice department to go after his perceived enemies. at this point it s not clear what potential crime he s investigating and a doj spokesperson declined to comment. federal investigators need only a reasonable indication that a crime has been committed to open an investigation, a mush lowch standard than that required for a search warrant. but there must be a factual basis, a mere hunch is insufficient. that s according to doj guidelines. the administrative review of the russia probe began in may after attorney general barr said he had conversations that led him