351 Days Since The Jan 6 Insurrection, 285 days since Merrick Garland took office

[berni_mccoy]

It is now more important than ever for the American People to know that the organizers of the Jan. 6 Conspiracy against the U.S. are going to be held accountable.

To date, not one organizer of the insurrection has been charged with a crime.

While 726 out of the several thousand insurrectionists have been prosecuted, it won't matter if the American People believe the organizers can get away with it. Already, millions of Trump Supporters are planning another violent insurrection, should Trump not win in 2024.

Justice can never be served if those responsible aren't charged, starting from the very top.

A strong reminder that Mueller had already indicted the following individuals in less time than Garland has been in office:
Papadopoulos - 2 counts of false statements - 140 days - Plead guilty, served time, pardoned by Trump
Rick Gates - 2 counts of conspiracy against the US - 164 days - Plead guilty, served time
Paul Manafort - 2 counts of conspiracy against the US - 164 days - Plead guilty; found guilty by trial; serving time
Michael Flynn - 1 count false statements - 198 days - Plead guilty; pardoned by Trump
Richard Pinedo - 1 count identity fraud - 267 days - Plead guilty; served time
Alex van der Zwaan - 1 count: false statements - 276 days - Plead guilty; served time; pardoned by Trump
13 Russians and 2 foreign corporations - multiple counts - 276 days - outside U.S. jurisdiction

[LizBeth]

1. My progressive educated young people are watching.

[lame54]

2. In Garland's attempt to remain apolitical...

There will be nothing more political if he ignores this

[dem4decades]

4. Then he should appoint a Special Counsel and stay out of it

[onenote]

18. the problem with appointing a special counsel:

To appoint a special counsel he would have to attest to there being a conflict of interest in having the Biden Justice Department handle the investigation, which would spill over to all of the cases DOJ already has brought.

Not going to happen.

[dem4decades]

20. Durham was appointed, I don't recall anything being spilled over in other DOJ cases.

[onenote]

23. Durham was appointed specifically to investigate the investigators

"The Special Counsel is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, Ill.

I don't recall DOJ bringing any prosecutions that overlapped the Durham investigation, which may be why there was no spill over issue.

[berni_mccoy]

24. Garland could easily manufacture an excuse.

[berni_mccoy]

5. That's a good point. The crime in itself is political in nature

As are many other crimes. And if Garland thinks it’s too political for him to pursue, that’s exactly what special prosecutors are for.

[doc03]

3. Merrick Who? nt

[Sneederbunk]

6. The Committee is about to serve a plate

to Garland that he cannot ignore. His days of skating will be over.

[berni_mccoy]

7. I hope you are right.

[NurseJackie]

8. Yawn. Un-rec. 👎

To date, not one organizer of the insurrection has been charged with a crime.

Good! I'm very pleased to know that the DOJ is doing a thorough and professional job... dotting the I's and crossing the T's... that is EXACTLY how it should be done.

Nothing should be rushed to satisfy the impatience of the blogosphere and other assorted characters on Twitter and elsewhere.

[Bev54]

13. Exactly, how long has Vance being investigating Trump?

[edhopper]

38. The investigation

subpoenas and Grand Jury were all public while Vance was at work. We have heard nothing from Garland about ANY investigation. Were are the witnesses? Were are the subpoenas? Where is the Grand Jury?

[NurseJackie]

21. I can't stand Tribe either... he's just as bad as the rest of the handwringers...

... on Twitter and elsewhere online.

maybe you should take a break from this place and get some much needed rest.

Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do. It's not about me.

[berni_mccoy]

22. That's fair. Apologies for overstepping

I wish you well this holiday season.

[George II]

26. Yes Jackie. your poor little eyes are tired, maybe you should take a break from this place?

Personally, I like your presence here on DU.

[hlthe2b]

27. I have NOTHING but respect for Laurence Tribe--who, btw, was Professor to student Garland.

I don't know what the AG is doing behind the scenes any more than anyone else. I'm hopeful & aware of the complexities. I likewise acknowledge that in previous DOJ administrations, a tight seal was erected around high-profile investigations and time-intensive, detailed inquiries, so this could be a seemingly "extreme" return to "normalcy"-- reflecting little else. That said, most of the former US DAGs I've heard interviewed and former DOJ high-level employees have echoed concerns that DOJ is not investigating/pursuing the highest level of misconduct for 01/06 or the previous administration, including Trump. They may all be wrong. I certainly can't say.

But, I find your degrading and derogatory comments toward Tribe totally inappropriate. He is no fool and certainly no uninformed handwringer. He most certainly has the right to express his views and has more than earned benefit-of-the doubt. His NYT and WAPO editorials are met almost uniformly with praise from his most highly regarded constitutional legal colleagues. So, disagree with what none of us can know on the outside in terms of what is ongoing at DOJ, but Tribe certainly has both the reason and expertise to comment on the constitutional outlines of a case to be made--as well as the consequences of not doing so.

[NurseJackie]

28. Nobody said otherwise...

I have NOTHING but respect for Laurence Tribe

Good to know.

who, btw, was Professor to student Garland.

Yes, I know... that's often repeated. The implication is that he's "smarter than Garland" or some sort of all-knowing "god". But that's a fallacy for so many obvious reasons.

He most certainly has the right to express his views

Nobody said otherwise, did they? Even though it's a fallacious argument, he certainly does have a right to his opinion.

But, I find your degrading and derogatory comments toward Tribe totally inappropriate.

That's too bad.

as well as the consequences of not doing so.

Handwringing. Enough already.

Happy Holidays! 🎄🍷🍷🤶

[hlthe2b]

29. I usually enjoy conversing with you and I too wish you Happy Holidays.

I just find your intense disdain and disrespectful attitude toward Tribe impossible to reconcile with your normal posting behavior. I'd be no less disturbed if you did similarly towards Obama or Biden or Pelosi or other noted Dems/Progressives based on nothing more than their speaking out to an issue for which they hold the most expertise.

It is curious that you are so disdainful of among our most accomplished constitutional experts in the country. That is all.

[NurseJackie]

30. There's nothing "intense" about it. Actually my feels are all rather "matter of fact".

Last edited Fri Dec 24, 2021, 09:48 AM - Edit history (1)

There's nothing "intense" about it. Actually my feelings are all rather "matter of fact". The only thing that's intense are the reactions to the fact that I'm not among those who consider him to be some sort of infallible and omnipotent legal "god".

It is curious that you are so disdainful of among our most accomplished constitutional experts in the country.

There's nothing "curios" about it either. He and others who engage in this type of armchair quarterbacking and second-guessing of the Biden administration (having ZERO involvements in what's actually going on) are undermining Biden and Garland by publicly and repeatedly calling into question their abilities, their knowledge, their integrity, their experience, their mental capacity, their judgement, their interest, etc.

Why should my objection to that be regarded as a curiosity?

[hlthe2b]

31. I did not misspell "curious" as "curios" so I don't know what you are trying to convey but

it seems no longer to be a cordial discussion at this point, so. Bye.

[NurseJackie]

32. That was my accidental misspelling.

so I don't know what you are trying to convey but

The quotations were to indicate my observation of your word-choice, not your spelling. If I was of the mind to poke fun at spelling, I'd have included a ''(sic)'' notation... but I didn't, because that was not the intent.

it seems no longer to be a cordial discussion at this point, so. Bye.

I've been nothing but cordial with you. Yet everything I type or say (or accidentally misspell) is cause for concern, or offense, or suspicion. Look inward before judging or accusing. --- Yes, okay. Bye.

[hlthe2b]

33. Ok.

Thanks for explaining. The general tenor of your previous comments led me to believe you were directing snark at me. I apologize for mistaking your intent. Have a nice Holiday.

[NurseJackie]

34. ...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

37. I still have a second edition of Tribe's Con Law treatise in my library

That treatise helped me do well in con law, First amendment and some other courses

[treestar]

9. How are the two cases so much the same

that the timing should be identical?

[berni_mccoy]

15. You're 100% correct

Mueller had a fixed budget and was constrained by a corrupt DOJ. Garland should be moving much much faster.

[triron]

19. Good point.

[treestar]

35. Don't see how you can be this sure

Maybe you would like your work judged too. I’m sure I can se use if I think you are doing a good job

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. Rather sitting around counting days and fuming, why not educate yourself?

Emptywheel.net has a wealth of information and analysis of the complexities of the January 6 prosecutions.

Have you checked it out yet, or do you prefer to continue to rage in the darkness?

[NurseJackie]

11. Oooh-oooh-oooh! I know! I know!

It's the second option! Right?

[berni_mccoy]

14. Rather than making nasty comments on a message board

Projecting your own uneducated assumptions, maybe you should try asking me if I do.

Because I do follow empty wheel, and if you actually applied critical thinking to what they have written, you’d realize that it is their assessment of what is known publicly about the prosecutions of the insurrectionists and not the DOJ’s.

[JanMichael]

12. 347 days Mr McCready, We're being buried beneath the avalanche of your inadequacies

[berni_mccoy]

16. Nice.

I’ll keep this link in mind when Garland hits 347 days and none of the organizers has been held accountable.

[George II]

25. Whose inadequacies are those?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

36. Under normal DOJ procedures, the DOJ keeps investigations confidential

I applaud AG Garland for restoring this procedure to the DOJ. Something is going on at the DOJ. This video was put together to be used by the DOJ

Link to tweet

This week, the Department of Justice released a three-hour video showing rioters fighting with police at the Capitol on Jan. 6, CNN reports.

According to CNN, the confrontations between police and rioters on the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol were the most violent on that day.

"The video, taken from a Capitol security camera, does not have sound. It starts as officers retreat, helping each other as they stumble inside and washing their eyes out with water from chemical spray," reports CNN. "Rioters crowd in behind them, coordinate efforts to attack and push through in infamous moments that have haunted the public, and officers, ever since."