comment: >
  
  Thanks for the answer!
context: Why should any of us have any faith that Trump will be held to account given the inaction last several years? >
  
  I understand where you’re coming from. And if by “held to account” you mean charged with crimes, there’s no guarantee that that will happen. And I certainly wouldn’t take anything on faith. However, I do believe that Trump will be charged this year in at least one of the jurisdictions investigating him – that is, Georgia, New York, and the two DOJ probes into Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago.  
  As far why we haven’t seen charges out of Georgia yet, that’s because there’s been a special grand jury sitting there that couldn’t bring charges; and now that that special grand jury is over, Fulton County DA Fani Willis has said recently that decisions are “imminent,” meaning she could be bringing charges through a regular grand jury that can do so. Again, that’s not a guarantee that Trump will be charged there (saying nothing of what the result would be if he is), but it helps a bit to explain the timeline of why hasn’t been charged there yet if he will be.  
  In New York, we also have recent reporting that the Manhattan DA’s office has a grand jury looking into Trump now. So, again, like Georgia, that doesn’t guarantee that Trump will be charged there, either, but it helps to explain why he hasn’t been charged there yet if he will be.  
  DOJ is a bit of a different story, because the investigations there haven’t been playing out in public like some of the state action. Yet I don’t think that that’s an indication that charges won’t come via special counsel Jack Smith’s probe, but rather that the department prefers to operate quietly and then only announce a decision when it’s ready. It wouldn’t surprise me if charges come from the DOJ this year in addition to both Georgia and New York.  
  None of that really answers the question of why anyone should have faith regarding what will happen to Trump, but hopefully it provides a bit of perspective as to what might happen. >
  
  I guess the more apt question would be, why is this taking so long for what are what appear to be very cut and dry cases. The snails pace that this has been going at, only leads people to believe that he will never be held accountable, and the apparent inaction is one thing that is hurting the country as a whole.  If you talk to most people, they either believe he did nothing wrong, or the government is protecting him by not prosecuting. >
  
  
  I guess the more apt question would be, why is this taking so long
  
  Because the gears of justice turn very slowly when the person doesn't admit guilt. Which is pretty good for 99% of scenarios since you want to be really sure you aren't imprisoning someone innocent, so there's a high burden of proof and more important than that even there are very strict procedures and rules to be followed so that everything is "fair".
  Like the issue is that Trump will just blatantly not follow the rules, then deny that he isn't, then just refuse, then deny again, etc. So it's taking forever, because you can't just throw out the rules and say "fuck it, you're obviously guilty" even when it's so blatant, no matter how good an idea that seems, it would just be used for evil.
  There's only one way for quick judgement, and that's taking it into your own hands. >
  
  The case in GA against Trump is pretty cut and dry. He’s on tape threatening the AG to overturn the election. Again, this is ON TAPE. 
  This isn’t complicated, it doesn’t take years to develop a case for this. 
  I assume that in the end no one wants to charge a sitting and/or former President. Am I wrong? >
  
  It’s a fair question. As I mentioned in a previous answer, we have some insight into why charges haven’t come yet from Georgia (if they are coming). A special grand jury, which couldn’t legally bring charges, was looking into the matter. Now that that special grand jury is over, we are awaiting DA Fani Willis’ “imminent” decision (in her words at a recent hearing) of whether she is bringing charges through a regular grand jury, and against whom.  
  And on the question of sitting presidents, we know that the DOJ has a policy of not charging sitting presidents. However, that policy does not apply to state prosecutors. >
  
  Appreciate the response. >
  
  Trump committed many crimes, LIVE ON TELEVISION, confessed to others, LIVE ON TELEVISION, and when questioned in interviews, doubled down on his confessions, justifications for his actions.
  If this man is not tried for his crimes it sets a precedent: This will no longer be a country of laws, but a country of men. Weak, stupid men, who can't even drink a glass of water, or use a ramp properly. 
  What is it that makes DA's offices so afraid of him? >
  
  Is Merrick Garland using an actuary table to schedule his investigation(s) into Trump? It feels like he's trying to run out the clock on Trump's lifespan, rather than indict. >
  
  Is there any chance that Trump will actually be indicted in any of his multiple cases? Most of this sounds pretty clear cut, but then all of the investigations lead nowhere >
  
  How might Trump’s access to high level intelligence, including potentially compromising information on US political leaders, during his presidency be influencing the decision of DOJ and other justice offices (e.g. NY and GA) on whether to prosecute him? >
  
  Interesting question. I think the short answer is: that won’t really be a factor. The question will be how the facts line up for each potential charge. Your question does, however, lead me to think about the Mar-a-Lago investigation (one of the two DOJ probes, the other being Jan. 6). Because there, the general issue of classified/national defense information forms the factual backdrop of a potential criminal case that could come from that investigation. But ultimately, in all of the several probes into Trump, I think it will be more about the direct question of how the facts line up with the specific text of each criminal law at issue. >
  
  Will there ever be charges? Every week, a news article from any outlet in some form says "_____ charges for Trump may be coming soon" >
  
  I see the issue of "intent" come up a lot with respect to the classified documents investigation. Can you give an explainer on intent and how it factors into what laws may or may not have been broken? >
  
  Sure, and the Mar-a-Lago case is a good example. One of the laws at issue there applies against a person who “willfully retains” the material. In the Trump case, that aspect isn’t really a close call, given, among other things, Trump’s fight over whether to give materials back to the government. That’s a potential distinction between the Trump situation, on the one hand, and what we know about the Biden/Pence situations, on the other hand. In any event, prosecutions in classified information cases generally come not only when there might technically be a provable case, but when there’s some sort of additional factor at play, such as obstruction of justice. And that’s certainly a distinguishing factor in the Trump case as opposed to the Biden/Pence examples we’re seeing play out. >
  
  Thanks for the answer! >
  
  On a scale of 1 to 10, (1 being no consequences at all, and 10 being a new Russian conscript his 1st day in Ukraine) how screwed is he? >
  
  Hell, I can answer that one. Zero. The answer is zero. >
  
  Followup: Are there sentencing guidelines for each of the charges? >
  
  I’m interested to know what will happen to Trump should charges be brought in Georgia or NY. If he’s arrested does that legally bar him from running? Or would there be a situation where he runs for office while in a cell? 
  I don’t think that will happen but history is full of crazy stuff. >
  
  Good question. Perhaps surprisingly, being charged with crimes would not legally bar Trump from running for president. Of course, you could think of practical/political reasons that would stop a person charged with crimes from running for office, but there’s not a legal bar.
  And I don’t think the possibility is too far-fetched, either. That is, I think there’s a decent chance he’ll be charged with crimes, and I also think that that alone wouldn’t stop him from running for office again. If anything, the threat of criminal conviction could provide further motivation for him to run, in an attempt to regain the legal protections that kept him from being charged while he was in office previously. But I agree that history is full of crazy stuff, and we’re about to live through the next crazy chapter, one way or the other. >
  
  Could the Supreme Court potentially derail any Trump indictments or convictions? >
  
  In my years of studying and observing the Supreme Court, I have learned that the answer to the question of “could the Supreme Court do” something is usually yes. However, we have reason to think that the Supreme Court isn’t necessarily in the tank for Trump, per se, as opposed to generally being aligned with the goals of the Republican party more broadly. For example, the court declined to take on the many lawsuits that could have worked toward overturning the 2020 election in Trump’s favor. There’s no doubt that Trump would take any legal challenge he can all the way up to the court if needed, but I don’t have reason to think that a majority of the court is eager to help him, though of course he might have some justices on his side (perhaps, for example, Thomas and Alito). >
  
  I’m curious about your transition of prosecutor to journalist. I’m inferring you are an idealist and dedicate yourself to working towards meaningful change. Did you feel you’d have more impact as a journalist? Looking for some insight into what causes burnouts for good prosecutors! Also I’m sure you didn’t hear it enough in your position, so thank you for your public service! >
  
  Realistically, if Trump is indicted, when can we expect it to happen? >
  
  Hello.  What is your opinion on the media coverage of Trump?  Trump seems to get more coverage than anyone else, including the current Biden administration, long after Trump has been out of office. >
  
  Why was a special counsel named two months after it turned out Biden had classified, but it two more than a year for a special counsel be named for Trump's case? >
  
  Can and how this affect GOP members in the house or Senate? >
  
  There’s been some speculation that Trump may be a confidential informant budding from his long-documented relationships with those associated with Russian mafia. It might explain the way he’s been able to skirt virtually any kind of real accountability for decades. Do you think this is possible? >
  
  With the NY AG able to show Trump Org acted in a criminal fashion, what excuse can Bragg have for dropping the case and not indicting Trump? >
  
  When would a judge bump the punishment of home confinement up to time in a slammer for the orange one. >
  
  Groups are suing to keep Trump off the ballot with the 14th amendment, is it likely they will be successful?
  Why wasn’t this invoked for the 100 + Congress people that refused to certify Biden’s Presidency?
  Subverting the will of half the country and some of these people were re-elected; does the 14th amendment have any actual use, shouldn’t it be used by Attorney Generals, as those Election cases were thrown out in court? >
  
  How do you feel about working for an employer (Comcast) which is lobbying against a policy (net neutrality) that has near unanimous support among the public ?
  How do you feel about being part of a media norm which reinforces polarity among citizens and fails to provide coverage of the issues that a vast majority of the public agrees upon that Congress does not implement ? >
  
  When handcuffs? >
  
  I consider myself moderate, maybe even leaning conservative.   Certainly not anti government in any way, but believe in people working, and prefer low spending by the government.
  After watching DOJ, Congress, and other parts of government just twist themselves into pretzels to NOT charge Trump with anything; well, I think our government has largely failed.  When people watch the President and congressmen actually try to overthrow the government, and there are no repercussions... well, it breeds distrust. >
  
  Hey Jordan, thanks for doing this AMA - my question has already been asked by others, so on a lighter note:
  If you were a sandwich, what kind of sandwich would you be and why? >
  
  What pressures do you feel as a writer, someone with a public profile when considering writing about someone who is so blindly and foolishly revered by his cult that they'll attack people? >
  
  On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the strength of the cases (meaning likleihood of sucessful prosecution) against Trump in GA, NY and DOJ? >
  
  Why should any of us have any faith that Trump will be held to account given the inaction last several years? >
  
  I understand where you’re coming from. And if by “held to account” you mean charged with crimes, there’s no guarantee that that will happen. And I certainly wouldn’t take anything on faith. However, I do believe that Trump will be charged this year in at least one of the jurisdictions investigating him – that is, Georgia, New York, and the two DOJ probes into Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago.  
  As far why we haven’t seen charges out of Georgia yet, that’s because there’s been a special grand jury sitting there that couldn’t bring charges; and now that that special grand jury is over, Fulton County DA Fani Willis has said recently that decisions are “imminent,” meaning she could be bringing charges through a regular grand jury that can do so. Again, that’s not a guarantee that Trump will be charged there (saying nothing of what the result would be if he is), but it helps a bit to explain the timeline of why hasn’t been charged there yet if he will be.  
  In New York, we also have recent reporting that the Manhattan DA’s office has a grand jury looking into Trump now. So, again, like Georgia, that doesn’t guarantee that Trump will be charged there, either, but it helps to explain why he hasn’t been charged there yet if he will be.  
  DOJ is a bit of a different story, because the investigations there haven’t been playing out in public like some of the state action. Yet I don’t think that that’s an indication that charges won’t come via special counsel Jack Smith’s probe, but rather that the department prefers to operate quietly and then only announce a decision when it’s ready. It wouldn’t surprise me if charges come from the DOJ this year in addition to both Georgia and New York.  
  None of that really answers the question of why anyone should have faith regarding what will happen to Trump, but hopefully it provides a bit of perspective as to what might happen. >
  
  I guess the more apt question would be, why is this taking so long for what are what appear to be very cut and dry cases. The snails pace that this has been going at, only leads people to believe that he will never be held accountable, and the apparent inaction is one thing that is hurting the country as a whole.  If you talk to most people, they either believe he did nothing wrong, or the government is protecting him by not prosecuting. >
  
  
  I guess the more apt question would be, why is this taking so long
  
  Because the gears of justice turn very slowly when the person doesn't admit guilt. Which is pretty good for 99% of scenarios since you want to be really sure you aren't imprisoning someone innocent, so there's a high burden of proof and more important than that even there are very strict procedures and rules to be followed so that everything is "fair".
  Like the issue is that Trump will just blatantly not follow the rules, then deny that he isn't, then just refuse, then deny again, etc. So it's taking forever, because you can't just throw out the rules and say "fuck it, you're obviously guilty" even when it's so blatant, no matter how good an idea that seems, it would just be used for evil.
  There's only one way for quick judgement, and that's taking it into your own hands. >
  
  The case in GA against Trump is pretty cut and dry. He’s on tape threatening the AG to overturn the election. Again, this is ON TAPE. 
  This isn’t complicated, it doesn’t take years to develop a case for this. 
  I assume that in the end no one wants to charge a sitting and/or former President. Am I wrong? >
  
  It’s a fair question. As I mentioned in a previous answer, we have some insight into why charges haven’t come yet from Georgia (if they are coming). A special grand jury, which couldn’t legally bring charges, was looking into the matter. Now that that special grand jury is over, we are awaiting DA Fani Willis’ “imminent” decision (in her words at a recent hearing) of whether she is bringing charges through a regular grand jury, and against whom.  
  And on the question of sitting presidents, we know that the DOJ has a policy of not charging sitting presidents. However, that policy does not apply to state prosecutors. >
  
  Appreciate the response. >
  
  Trump committed many crimes, LIVE ON TELEVISION, confessed to others, LIVE ON TELEVISION, and when questioned in interviews, doubled down on his confessions, justifications for his actions.
  If this man is not tried for his crimes it sets a precedent: This will no longer be a country of laws, but a country of men. Weak, stupid men, who can't even drink a glass of water, or use a ramp properly. 
  What is it that makes DA's offices so afraid of him? >
  
  Is Merrick Garland using an actuary table to schedule his investigation(s) into Trump? It feels like he's trying to run out the clock on Trump's lifespan, rather than indict. >
  
  Is there any chance that Trump will actually be indicted in any of his multiple cases? Most of this sounds pretty clear cut, but then all of the investigations lead nowhere >
  
  How might Trump’s access to high level intelligence, including potentially compromising information on US political leaders, during his presidency be influencing the decision of DOJ and other justice offices (e.g. NY and GA) on whether to prosecute him? >
  
  Interesting question. I think the short answer is: that won’t really be a factor. The question will be how the facts line up for each potential charge. Your question does, however, lead me to think about the Mar-a-Lago investigation (one of the two DOJ probes, the other being Jan. 6). Because there, the general issue of classified/national defense information forms the factual backdrop of a potential criminal case that could come from that investigation. But ultimately, in all of the several probes into Trump, I think it will be more about the direct question of how the facts line up with the specific text of each criminal law at issue. >
  
  Will there ever be charges? Every week, a news article from any outlet in some form says "_____ charges for Trump may be coming soon" >
  
  I see the issue of "intent" come up a lot with respect to the classified documents investigation. Can you give an explainer on intent and how it factors into what laws may or may not have been broken? >
  
  Sure, and the Mar-a-Lago case is a good example. One of the laws at issue there applies against a person who “willfully retains” the material. In the Trump case, that aspect isn’t really a close call, given, among other things, Trump’s fight over whether to give materials back to the government. That’s a potential distinction between the Trump situation, on the one hand, and what we know about the Biden/Pence situations, on the other hand. In any event, prosecutions in classified information cases generally come not only when there might technically be a provable case, but when there’s some sort of additional factor at play, such as obstruction of justice. And that’s certainly a distinguishing factor in the Trump case as opposed to the Biden/Pence examples we’re seeing play out.