D.O.J. is M.I.A.

[orangecrush]

Reuters identified more than 100 threats of death or violence made to U.S. election workers and officials, part of an unprecedented campaign of intimidation inspired by Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. The response so far: only four known arrests and no convictions.

.......

The death threats brought Staci McElyea to tears. The caller said that McElyea and other workers in the Nevada Secretary of State’s office were “going to f------ die.” She documented the threats and alerted police, who identified and interviewed the caller. But in the end, detectives said there was nothing they could do – that the man had committed no crime.

The first call came at 8:07 a.m. on Jan. 7, hours after Congress certified Donald Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in the November 2020 presidential vote. The caller accused McElyea of “stealing” the election, echoing Trump’s false claims of voter fraud. “I hope you all go to jail for treason. I hope your children get molested. You’re all going to f------ die,” he told her.

He called back three times over the next 15 minutes, each time telling her she was “going to die.”

McElyea, 53, a former U.S. Marine, called the Nevada Capitol Patrol and sent the state police agency a transcript of the calls, according to emails Reuters obtained through a public-records request. An officer contacted the man – who police would later identify as Gjurgi Juncaj of Las Vegas – and reported back to McElyea that their inquiry “might have pissed him off even further,” the emails showed.


https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-law-enforcement/

[littlemissmartypants]

1. I wonder if the voting rights bill does anything to protect poll workers?

If you don't have us, you can't conduct an effective and smooth election. The last time I worked the polls folks were fairly civil. There were a couple of outliers but nothing extreme. I am going to be optimistic about the future but time will tell.

[BigmanPigman]

2. My patience is running out.

I have lost all patience with the anti-vaxxers and the DOJ is really testing me too.

[shenmue]

3. I don't think you know how it functions

[BigmanPigman]

4. I may not be an expert on the DOJ

but I do know my level of patience and it is wearing thin.

[StarfishSaver]

6. What happens when your patience runs out?

[Demsrule86]

18. Patients for what? If you don't much about it how can you know what is supposed to happen.

[Tribetime]

62. Me too Bigman 👍

[Scrivener7]

11. Mine too, Bigman. It's been 8 months. There have been hoards of public attacks on our

Democracy. And they have been silent. Their silence emboldens the people trying to destroy our Democracy.

This thread will soon be swamped with ridiculous posts along the lines of "You OBVIOUSLY don't understand how things work" and "You didn't say exactly how the DOJ should proceed, so your concerns are irrational."

But our worry is not misplaced.

[kacekwl]

19. Yep. n/t

[Grasswire2]

30. You have the right to your opinion, and to voice it.

And you are not alone.

Those who want to make you feel like an outlier for saying this had best take a walk around social media.

I personally believe that adjudication of Trump and MAGAT crimes will be driven by pubic outcry -- that Joe is waiting for overwhelming demand to hold the traitors accountable (giving him some space to fix the economy and stabilize foreign policy).

And so I encourage every Democrat to speak freely. Make your demands known.

[CentralMass]

5. Hopefully there is more going on that we are aware of. Because it does seem awfully quiet.

[StarfishSaver]

7. Comey and Trump team notwithstanding, DOJ doesn't conduct its investigations in public

or provide regular updates to the public on the progress of its investigations. The fact that we're not hearing about them doesn't mean they're not happening.

When the investigations are complete and the cases are ready to take to trial, DOJ will announce indictments. In the meantime, it's a waste of time and energy for people to wring their hands assuming DOJ is "MIA" just because details about investigations aren't being shared with them in real time.

[Elessar Zappa]

8. Exactly.

I don’t know where people get the idea that the DOJ has to keep the public informed about the status of ongoing investigations.

[kacekwl]

20. Yes they should definitely be keeping us informed.

Not looking for intimate details but a country is looking for justice for so many things. Government agencies do and should give briefings on what they are doing.

[StarfishSaver]

22. DOJ gives regular briefings on their work

But they do NOT give regular briefings on investigations because even acknowledging that someone is under investigation can jeopardize the entire thing.

There is absolutely no reason that DOJ needs to keep us apprised of the status or even the existence of investigations it's conducting. Our curiosity and impatience do not supercede the need to ensure investigations are uncompromised. This isn't reality tv.

FYI, all government agencies conduct some of their business behind the scenes without public consumption, by necessity. Transparency in government doesn't mean full disclosure of all activities at every point in real time.

[Grasswire2]

32. I think it's a mistake to continually tamp down public outcry for justice in this moment.

Your efforts to do so run counter to what may be Biden's own strategy -- to wait for public outcry to drive the prosecutions.

I know you want to herd Democrats a certain way that will stop any expression of worry, of angst, of disappointment, of call for more action. I know you want to protect the administration.

But discouraging free expression of opinion from one's own party members is a little frightening, to me. Oppressive. I don't like it, and I don't think it helps Biden-Harris.

[lagomorph777]

39. +1000 And I hope Biden isn't just waiting for outcry will die down so he can get back to business.

[StarfishSaver]

40. No one is "tamping down public outcry"

Well at least, not among those of us who are trying to explain to you the details of what you're complaining about. Some of us are trying to educate the public so that their outcry is based on information and facts so that when they do speak up, they don't sound clueless.

And your continued insistence that I'm somehow "discouraging freedom of expression of opinion" is ridiculous (it's especiallyb laughable given your penchant for jumping into every thread I post in to tell me to stop expressing myself). I'm perfectly comfortable with people expressing their opinion. Providing information and encouraging people to educate themselves about what they're talking about is of value to some people. Obviously, it's not welcome to everyone, especially those who seem more interested in making noise than actually accomplishing anything.

[sheshe2]

45. Sorry, but...

Your efforts to do so run counter to what may be Biden's own strategy -- to wait for public outcry to drive the prosecutions.

Yet, Biden stated when he was running exactly the opposite of what you believe his strategy is. Biden stated this clearly many times.

Psaki said Biden did "something new" by allowing the Justice Department "to act independently on investigations."

https://news.yahoo.com/jen-psaki-said-biden-not-130550150.html

I know you want to herd Democrats a certain way that will stop any expression of worry, of angst, of disappointment, of call for more action. I know you want to protect the administration.

That is not what is happening here.

But discouraging free expression of opinion from one's own party members is a little frightening, to me. Oppressive. I don't like it, and I don't think it helps Biden-Harris.

I do not see one instance where the poster is discouraging your right to free expression, none. In fact the reverse could be said. What I do see is valuable information on how the system works.

[Scrivener7]

9. Yes, hopefully. But we are 8 months in and nothing has happened. I fear they are

pulling a Mueller on this. And if they do, our Democracy is finished.

(Cue the "Leave the DOJ ALONE! You just don't understaaaaaaannnndddd!!!!" posts.)

[CrackityJones75]

10. I am so sick of hearing these declarations.

If this then that. Because I say so.

Apparently due to any number of things our democracy is dead if x doesn’t happen exactly the way someone says it should.

[Scrivener7]

12. Noted. But histories teach us that democracies need to be protected or they stop.

Right now, our Democracy is on very thin ground. Every agency needs to do what they can to protect it.

[StarfishSaver]

13. If you think that prosecutions magically happen with no investigations,

then yes, "nothing has happened yet." But in the real world indictments and prosecutions don't spring forth fully formed out of thin air with no investigation or preparation. Plenty must be done before charges can be brought and as you and others have been repeatedly told, this is not done in public.

The fact that DOJ isn't giving you blow-by-blow updates of what and who they're investigating and how those investigations are going doesn't mean that "nothing has happened" - any more than everyone in the room disappears because you closed your eyes and covered your ears.

[Scrivener7]

15. Case in point.

[lagomorph777]

17. Yup. We have some folks here who would make great lawyers for terrorists.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Some people definitely don't understaaaaaaand.

No big deal. Everybody doesn't understand something. But most people know when they don't understand something and are open to changing their minds when exposed to new information about. That is obviously not the case for everyone.

[Grasswire2]

33. Even people who don't understand (I see your sarcasm above) have a right to speak their mind.

In America.

In the Democratic Party.

If I were a Biden-Harris staffer, I would ask you to chill out on your denigration of rank and file Democrats.

It's my (rightful) opinion that your attempts to herd rank and file Democrats and to shame some DU members for their expression of their opinions is counter-productive in this matter.

Let the people speak.

Let the people speak.

Garland doesn't need help (if help is attempting to suppress criticism).

[StarfishSaver]

41. For someone complaining so vociferously about not being able to "speak their mind"

You are doing an awful lot of speaking all over his thread.

I guess I should be flattered that you're devoting so much time and energy to responding to all of my posts.

[Grasswire2]

42. I never have a problem speaking my mind when I see someone attempting to bully others.

And I will continue that life-long practice.

I believe the attempted bullying here is especially counter productive when it seems to be in conflict with smart strategy -- to let public demand drive the adjudication of the crimes of Trump et al.

Don't you see that waiting for public demand gives Biden time and space for the agenda of Building Back America?

In time, when frustration reaches a certain temperature, Biden will drop the hammer.

And so telling people to NOT ask for adjudication, not speak with frustration, not be angry or critical is likely to be counter-productive.

Let the people speak. Let them holler. Let protests rise up in the people's spaces, virtual and real.

Maybe that's just EXACTLY what Biden wants.

It's called "cover."

[StarfishSaver]

43. We don't disagree about letting people speak

I am all for it. That goes for everyone. And since I have never told anyone here to stop expressing their opinion, I'm not sure why you're addressing this to me.

We do, however, seem to have very different opinions as to what constitutes "bullying." I don't think that challenging someone's opinion - especially when it's based on false assumptions is "bullying."

But I guess if someone is hyper-sensitive to having their view challenged by someone else expressing their opinion and/or is not interested in changing their opinion when presented with new information, such interactions may be intimidating enough to them to make them think they're being bullied.

[Grasswire2]

49. Maybe so. Maybe you think you aren't telling them to hush up.

You just mock them because they don't have the same alleged experience you do.

Mocking is bullying. Being hyper-critical of the opinions of certain others is bullying.

[orangecrush]

27. Stoooop it

[joetheman]

14. They are not MIA. They are showing who they mostly really are.

The AG can't do the job alone. There must be willing and honest subordinates.

[lagomorph777]

16. Garland has to go, if he can't put away these thugs and the Capitol thugs and their boss.

This situation is dire. If Garland doesn't want to take it seriously, he needs to be replaced.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Why do you think "Garland doesn't want to take it seriously"?

Do you have some inside information about what's going on (and not going on) inside DOJ that the rest of us don't know?

[lagomorph777]

24. It's becoming clear from the outside information, that the coup attempt is not taken seriously.

So many major offenders are being let off with a slap on the wrist, or no consequence at all. It's pretty obvious they are just sweeping it under the rug.

[StarfishSaver]

25. OK. I guess you would know.

Actually, you don't know. But whatever.

[lagomorph777]

26. If there's some super-secret plan to suddenly start making the thugs pay, when does it start?

They're letting them off now, with little or no consequence. This is out in the open. Released thugs are released thugs. They're not going to secretly un-release them.

[StarfishSaver]

36. I've repeatedly explained how plea bargains work and how they're being used here

You seem to be intentionally ignoring the facts and the law for some purpose.

But I'll try again.

Please tell us:

1. How many of the 600 defendants arrested have been rin connection with the insurrection have pleaded guilty?

2. Of those who have pleaded guilty, how many have been sentenced?

3. If anyone has been sentenced, what were their sentences?

4. Of those who have pleaded guilty, what are the usual sentences given in plea bargains for the same crimes?

5. Have the sentences imposed for these defendants been harsher, lighter or pretty much in line with those usual sentences?

6. What is the likelihood that any of these defendants would be convicted and receive harsher sentences if the prosecutors refused to let them plead out and instead went to trial?

[Grasswire2]

35. There you go again. nt

[Scrivener7]

28. Why do you think he does? Do you have some inside information about what's going on

inside the DOJ that the rest of us don't know?

Because there is no evidence to support your position.

[StarfishSaver]

31. Actually, there's plenty of evidence to support what I'm saying

Among other things, it has been publicly reported that DOJ has convened numerous grand juries in Washington, DC and elsewhere to investigate, hear evidence and approve indictments against defendants in the January 6 insurrection and other crimes that Trump and his allies have committed. That's going on right now, but grand jury proceedings are secret, so we're not going to hear what's going on in them until the grand juries hand down indictments.

And, no, I don't have any "inside" information. But I do have first-hand experience and knowledge about how DOJ works and how it conducts investigations.

I've worked in that space and know how investigations are handled and know first-hand that entire teams of U.S. Attorneys, assistant U.S. Attorneys, their lawyers, investigators and other conduct thorough and in-depth investigations that the public doesn't know anything about until indictments are handed down. I've been involved in some of these kinds of decisions in the past and know much of what is involved in making them - and know that most people on the outside looking in haven't a clue of everything that's going on.

So while I don't have any more information than any other member of the general public about what DOJ is doing regarding these investigations, I do have the experience and knowledge on which to base an assumption that an investigation is indeed taking place.

You, on the other hand, are assuming that because you don't know what they're doing, they're not doing anything, which is ridiculous on its face since your lack of knowledge of what they're doing is not proof that they aren't doing anything. And if you think it is, I invite you to provide a detailed summary of all of the other cases the Department is investigating - unless you believe that not only is the Department not investigating Trump, but they aren't investigating anyone or anything at all (which will surely come as a surprise to all of the people who are going to be indicted in the the coming weeks). Of course, you can't do that because that information is not provided to the public, either.

[Scrivener7]

34. All of which boils down to this, buried deep in your statement:

I don't have any more information than any other member of the general public about what DOJ is doing regarding these investigations

]

[Grasswire2]

38. +1000 nt

[Grasswire2]

37. So why do you attempt to shut down the opinions of rank and file Dems here?

Why does it bother you that any ol' nobody is allowed to freely express their opinion here, no matter how non-credentialed or inexperienced that person is?

This is a forum for all.

Every voice is legitimate; every voice counts.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Again, I have never tried to shut down anyone's opinion - which I think you know

But if I have an area of expertise and see people who do not have any expertise saying things that are flat out false about my area of expertise, I often will correct them. Some people appreciate learning new things - and also gathering new information that keeps them from sounding uninformed. Some people are offended by that. It's on them, not me.

Appreciation and respect for other people's expertise is one of the reasons I don't go onto medical websites and argue with doctors about medicine and insist that my opinion about how best to treat COVID is just as valid as theirs because "every voice counts."

Every voice is legitimate, and everyone has a right to their opinion, but every opinion does not carry the same weight - a reason that my opinion about how to repair a foreign engine is not as valid as that of a mechanic because I drive a car and listen to "Car Talk."

[NurseJackie]

46. Oh, boo-hoo! Nobody is doing that.

So why do you attempt to shut down the opinions of rank and file Dems here?

Oh, boo-hoo! That's ridiculous. Nobody is doing that. What is happening, however, is that these ill-informed opinions are being corrected and put into perspective. Things are being explained so that those who falsely believe the "DOJ is MIA" will have a better understanding of how things work in the real world.

Why does it bother you that any ol' nobody is allowed to freely express their opinion here, no matter how non-credentialed or inexperienced that person is?

Just because an opinion may be "freely expressed" doesn't mean that what's being said is correct. It also doesn't mean that wrong-headed presumptions are helpful in any way.

Every voice is legitimate; every voice counts.

But not every "voice" is correct. Pretending to be the victim doesn't help anyone's argument and it certainly isn't a valid excuse for presenting misinformation or smears based on their own misunderstandings and personal impatience.

These passive-aggressive and backhanded accusations that the Department of Justice is doing nothing is wrong and in the long run this type of naive impatience only serves to undermine the Biden administration.

Fact of the matter is this: This is REAL LIFE, it's not a three-act "Law & Order" TV-drama where the suspects are arrested and the case goes to trial after the first commercial break. Everyone wants instant gratification, but people just have to learn to accept reality and trust that the Biden administration and the Biden justice department know what they're doing.

[StarfishSaver]

47. ...

That pretty much settles it ...

[Grasswire2]

54. LOLOL.

You're relatively new here.

A disagreement doesn't just end when one party declares it settled.

Every voice here is valid. No one using a pseudonym can declare himself/herself superior.

Now, if people want to start posting their RL verifiable credentials, the opinions might carry more weight.

[StarfishSaver]

56. For someone who claims not to be interested in what I have to say

You spend an awful lot of time and energy following me around from post to post and thread to thread carefully analyzing my every word and making sure to comment on everything I say.

Perhaps I should be flattered, but I'm really just amused.

[sheshe2]

48. Thank you.

You said it far better than I could.

[StarfishSaver]

58. Jackie always says things better than most of us do

DU treasure.

[ripcord]

29. I can turn this around real easy

Biden hasn't said anything about the DoJ needing to step up their game and if he is good with it so am I.

[Marius25]

50. I'm really disappointed with this DoJ.

They're just not taking the threats to this country seriously enough imo.

[StarfishSaver]

51. What do you think they should be doing that they're not doing?

Please be specific.

[Grasswire2]

55. There you go yet again.

Just, for once, let someone say how they feel about matters.

[StarfishSaver]

57. And here YOU come again

Chasing me around the thread.

It's precious how you keep insisting that I'm not letting people express themselves, yet before anyone has a chance to actually express themselves to me, you jump in to put your two cents in - the same two cents you've been throwing at me all day - as if you think they can't speak for themselves.

It's also interesting that you think asking someone who claims that DOJ isn't taking threats seriously "What do you think they should do that they're not doing? Be specific" is bullying or oppressive. I guess you think people (at least those with whom you agree) should be free to speak their minds but no one else should be free to ask them to explain themselves.

[Marius25]

59. More serious charges for the insurrectionists.

Even Judges have had to criticize DoJ prosecutors for not charging the insurrectionists severely enough considering their attempts to overthrow the government.

More effort to go after the people in power. Lauren Boebert is still in Congress, still wrecking havoc on the country despite documented evidence of her giving tours to the insurrectionists the night before the attack, tweeting that that day was going to be a revolution, and live tweeting Pelosi's evacuation location.

Same with Greene, Cawthorn, Biggs, Gosar, Brooks, etc.

DoJ still isn't going after the Trump administration. There is no way they don't have enough evidence by now to start arresting/indicting people. Stephen Miller committed documented crimes against humanity. He will never face consequences. Jared Kushner was involved in the murder of Jamal Kashoggi and helped cover it up. No consequences.

Right-wing domestic terrorism is out of control, yet I don't see the DoJ going that hard after them. A lot of them are getting slaps on the wrist.

[StarfishSaver]

60. 600 people have been arrested

Do you know what each of them were charged with? Which ones of them should have been charged with more serious crimes?

What would "more effort to go after the people in power?" consist of? Do you know what DOJ is currently doing to "go after" them? Probably not since you likely aren't aware of what DOJ is doing in their investigations.

You also have no idea if that they aren't "going after the Trump administration" and you have not a clue whether they have enough evidence to charge them - not only don't you know what evidence they do and don't have, you probably don't know what evidence is required to bring charges and sustain a conviction in a criminal case.

You can claim all you like that this person or that person committed a crime and should have been arrested by now. But what may be sufficient proof of the commission of a crime to you or me is not necessarily sufficient to guarantee a conviction in a court of law

And, yes, some judges have criticized the charges against some of the defendants. But that has not been widespread since only a small fraction of the defendants in these cases have plead guilty at this point. It also should be remembered that many of the defendants who have been charged with lesser crimes can still be charged with more serious crimes as these cases proceed. Prosecutors often start off with lower charges just to get the person charged and arrested - and not risk getting the charges thrown out for lack of evidence because the case was brought prematurely - and then add more serious charges to the list when the evidence is secured.

The fact that you don't see DOJ going after anyone is meaningless - you probably have never seen DOJ go after anyone else, either, at this stage of any criminal investigation (except, maybe the Trump DOJ, but Barr and his team were criminals who abused their positions and power, so they aren't the standard for how investigations should be conducted). DOJ doesn't conduct its investigations in public and they don't jump out and arrest people before they have the evidence all lined up.

I know people get frustrated being told to be patient, but that's the best advice. Assuming that nothing is being done because we can't see it happening is not a rational approach when it comes to federal criminal investigations. And getting worked up and angry based on an irrational assumption isn't going to move this along any faster.

[Marius25]

61. So far, all the people that have been charged are getting slaps on the wrist.

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-slams-doj-not-seeking-enough-money-1-6-rioters-cost-taxpayers-half-billion-1617682

Judge Slams DOJ for Not Seeking Enough Money From 1/6 Rioters: Cost Taxpayers 'Half Billion'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/capitol-riot-defendants-lenience/2021/08/25/6331785e-01be-11ec-ba7e-2cf966e88e93_story.html

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/capitol-riot-jan-6-defendants-plea-deals-too-lenient

[StarfishSaver]

63. That's not true

Some of those charged may be getting "slaps on the wrist," but by no means all or even most.

It's easy, in the early stages of a process - especially a process that one isn't familiar with - to complain about how it's being handled. But as I and others have explained, it is impossible to assess how this is going at this stage of the process because we don't have enough information, either about what the prosecutors know and what evidence they have or about how they will develop over time. Assuming the worst - and assuming that President Biden's Justice Department is somehow incompetent, lazy or complicit - are not realistic assessments.

Just last week, people were harshly criticizing DOJ for "not doing anything" about the new Texas abortion law. When we tried to explain that they were probably preparing a strong response but it takes time, we were met with all manner of pushback and accusations that we were giving DOJ a pass and that they were never going to do anything. And when, as we predicted, DOJ came out swinging with a major lawsuit challenging the new law - a lawsuit that was praised by a wide array of legal experts as hard-hitting and well-thought-out - those same folks just shrugged and we've heard hardly a peep out of them about that since (although many of them are still attacking Garland and DOJ for what they believe is inaction in the criminal matters, just as they criticized his supposed "inaction" in the civil case).

We are at the very beginning of this process and there will be many twists, turns and developments. It is much too early to assume that DOJ is being too lenient or that people will not pay the price for their wrongdoing.

[orangecrush]

52. As they say

"Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining".

[Crunchy Frog]

53. Bookmarking this thread for future reference.