On August 22, 1996, at 3:20 p.m., I sat in on an office conference with Stephen Jones, Roger Charles and Don Thrasher. During the period surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing, Israeli agents used Michael Johnston’s law office.
Johnston is connected to William Northrup [sic] and Moshethal [i.e., Moshe Tal], who are both Israelis. Johnston knew them because of previous legal issues. The Bharboutis case involved an Iraqi immigrant and a cyanide plant in Florida.
Why were the two Israeli men in Oklahoma City at this time? They were preparing a report for their government.
It is believed that the Israelis are here to keep an eye on a certain Israeli faction in the United States.
— Amber McLaughlin, September 10, 1996, “OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH ROGER CHARLES & DON THRASHER (AUGUST 22, 1996)”
It is impossible to overestimate how popular Merrick Garland is in the American media. A simple Internet search reveals thousands of articles about him, the coverage ranging from positive to gushing. The first major wave of hagiography appeared when President Obama nominated Garland for the Supreme Court after the death of Justice Scalia; Republicans blocking his confirmation was a major issue in the waning days of Obama’s presidency.
But Merrick Garland was popular even before that, the press trumpeted Republicans, like Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, praising Garland going back to his time as a federal judge.
Last month, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demanded a “9/11 Commission”-style investigation into the “Capitol Siege” of January 6, 2001.
In a letter to her Democratic colleagues, Pelosi said a preliminary review by retired four-star general Russel Honoré indicated that a full commission was needed to ensure against another deadly breach of Congress.
“It is clear from his findings and from the impeachment trial that we must get to the truth of how this happened,” Pelosi wrote. “To protect our security, our security, our security, our next step will be to establish an outside, independent 9/11-type Commission,” she continued. The body will “investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex.”
When Merrick Garland is sworn in as Biden’s Attorney General, his first priority will be to bring cases against the Trump supporters involved in the “Capitol Siege” of January 6:
Garland will face the immediate task of overseeing hundreds of cases stemming from the Capitol riot on Jan. 6 — which led to Trump’s second impeachment. Democrats are likely to press him on his willingness to investigate or prosecute Trump and his allies in connection with inciting the rioters, while Republicans will seek to ensure that he wouldn’t use the Justice Department’s muscle to tamp down conservative ideas.
Especially notable is the piece’s framing that Garland will – and should – use the same tactics in the Capitol riot trial as he used in the Oklahoma City trial.
Merrick Garland huddled with the lead prosecutor on the case, he urged caution in presenting the massive amount of evidence from the wreckage. “Do not bury the crime in the clutter,” he said. Garland, then a top Justice Department official, was encouraging prosecutors to speed the trial along and jettison superfluous findings …
What were the “superfluous findings” in the Oklahoma City case that Garland wisely ignored as “clutter?”
Clearly, the Washington Post is encouraging Garland to not allow the coming trials of the Capitol Siegers to be “cluttered” by “superfluous findings.”
Some may characterize Garland’s coming prosecutions of Trump supporters as “Show Trials.”
But a better way to understand them might instead be to think of them as “Hide Trials.”
Here’s a theory: Garland – a trusted member of the establishment – is going to preside over the trials related to the January 6 Capitol Siege precisely because he can be trusted to show some things while hiding others.
So perhaps if we look back at what Merrick Garland hid during the Oklahoma City bombing trial – those “superfluous findings” – we can figure out what he’s going to hide during the Capitol Siege trials.
How did Merrick Garland come to be involved in the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh?
The Washington Post quotes Garland’s “mentor” – the Clinton official who started Garland’s career – telling this quite colorful – and perhaps moving – story:
Jamie Gorelick said she recalled sitting in a Justice Department office with Garland, who was then her top deputy, and watching television footage of first responders carrying wounded or dead children out of the wreckage. “He just said, ‘I’ve got to go. Please send me,’ ” Gorelick said.
“You know, it’s going to be bad enough they’re going to conspiracy theories,” Garland recalled saying at the time. “The defendant is going to complain he didn’t get an open hearing. The law requires an open hearing.” Garland said that he initially feared, because of reports of additional threats and truck bombs, that the Oklahoma City explosion was just the beginning of “some kind of rebellion or war.”
To understand Merrick Garland, what he has done – and what he will do as Attorney General – is to take a closer look at his “mentor” – Jamie Gorelick.
Jamie Gorelick spent a few weeks in the spotlight at the very beginning of the Trump administration when Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, hired her to navigate the complexities of having a personal relation of the President involved in White House policy.
Trump fans were confused by this choice. After all, Jamie Gorelick was a Clinton official, a Democrat, with close ties to Hillary Clinton, and was described by Trump’s strongest fans as a “Swamp Creature” – the exact kind of politician that Trump was supposed to get rid of.
Yet here, Trump’s own son-in-law is hiring Jamie Gorelick to assist him in getting set up in his father-in-law’s White House.
For her part, Gorelick said simply that she was “non-partisan” – part of an older school of attorneys that isn’t afraid to work for “both parties.”
She’s “non-partisan” in that sense.
Well, who is Jamie Gorelick? How did she come to work for Donald Trump’s family? And what really is her relationship to future Attorney General Merrick Garland?
Recent headlines announced Ivanka Trump would obtain a coveted office in the West Wing of the White House. Breitbart reported on March 20 that, according to Ivanka’s “ethics advisor,” she “will not have an official title, but will get a West Wing office, government-issued communications devices and security clearance to access classified information.” That is curious enough on its own.
But the stunning part is the name of the ethics advisor. The same person also advises Ivanka’s husband, Jared Kushner, who does have a formal position as a senior White House advisor. This new advisor’s name is Jamie Gorelick.
Readers of this blog will have no problem whatsoever figuring this out.
But let’s say you are a Trump supporter – let’s say you are worried about your own connections to the January 6 Capitol protests?
What does this mean? Merrick Garland, Jamie Gorelick?
A “9/11-style Commission?” The Oklahoma City bombing?
Over a protest at the Capitol that may have gotten a bit out of hand?
Well, let’s go down the rabbit hole. Who is Jamie Gorelick, anyway?