Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

fightforfreedom

(4,913 posts)
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 08:59 AM Feb 2022

The mystery surrounding Mark Meadows.

Last edited Sun Feb 6, 2022, 10:01 AM - Edit history (1)

The silence surrounding Meadows is deafening. It has been nearly two month's since Garland received a criminal referral from the committee. The Question is, why hasn't Garland responded ( one way or another) by now. It is reasonable to assume Garland could have made a decision by now.

If Garland decided not to indict Meadows, why hasn't he released a statement saying so? Why the silence?

I have no idea what Garland is up too, however I do know this.

We know Garland is investigating some people, parts of the attempted coup. He is investigating, charging people who stormed the capital. He is investigating the fake electors from at least two states. If Garland is investigating parts of a coup, doesn't he have to investigate all aspects of the coup? Aren't they all connected?

We know Meadows was a main player in the attempted coup. He was by Trump's side during the entire planning of the coup. He knows everything. He was involved in everything. He was Trump's errand boy during the planning of the coup. If we know that, so does Garland.

It is reasonable to assume Garland is investigating Meadows. Is this the reason for Garland's silence? I do not know.

If we could learn the reason for the silence surrounding Meadows, that would tell us a lot of what Garland is up to when it comes to the entire investigation.

32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The mystery surrounding Mark Meadows. (Original Post) fightforfreedom Feb 2022 OP
Are we hoping Meadows is a target of an investigation. That would be good Walleye Feb 2022 #1
Speculation is worthless. Handcuffs or it didn't happen. Scrivener7 Feb 2022 #2
Yep. (n/t) OldBaldy1701E Feb 2022 #5
Turn Meadows and the walls will come tumbling down. fightforfreedom Feb 2022 #17
Sure. Just around the corner. Rah rah. Scrivener7 Feb 2022 #21
The Meadow will soon be malaise Feb 2022 #3
Think you mean mowed as in nothing left but stubble. Yep. kr PufPuf23 Feb 2022 #26
This message was self-deleted by its author malaise Feb 2022 #4
Maybe there is a memo somewhere that says hydrolastic Feb 2022 #6
Or anyone too high up in government. Or former government. dem4decades Feb 2022 #8
You're right, but when you think about it that thinking is totally backward. Scrivener7 Feb 2022 #9
People are funny, especially when the press works it's anti-democratic magic. dem4decades Feb 2022 #16
+1 2naSalit Feb 2022 #18
If sitting reps are indicted on actual charges it invites future rep political prosecutions bucolic_frolic Feb 2022 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Feb 2022 #28
Well, I think that is not true... 2naSalit Feb 2022 #19
Investigation is to fit facts to violations of the law bucolic_frolic Feb 2022 #7
Especially if there is... 2naSalit Feb 2022 #20
Stop and think about the mountain of evidence that has surfaced since the beginning of the year. Fiendish Thingy Feb 2022 #11
Yes sir. The handwringing over...when will heshethem be indicted? What's taking so long?? Alexander Of Assyria Feb 2022 #13
You get my point. fightforfreedom Feb 2022 #15
What "Presidential Records Act"? former9thward Feb 2022 #24
18 USC § 2071 Fiendish Thingy Feb 2022 #25
If you want to believe "reports" by anonymous sources that is your right. former9thward Feb 2022 #30
The report wasn't anonymous, sources include Meadows' lawyer and the National Archives. Nt Fiendish Thingy Feb 2022 #31
Maybe you can link to those reports. former9thward Feb 2022 #32
Or nonexistent investigations. Heard of anybody fighting subpoenas? dem4decades Feb 2022 #27
During Watergate, more than 20 went to jail, but there were some high level plea bargains... Sancho Feb 2022 #12
Because edhopper Feb 2022 #14
Sure I read Meadows gave some documents. Silence signifies cooperation? Don't want to excite magats Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2022 #22
My opinion (which is one person's only) is Meadows is singing like a bird! Dan Feb 2022 #23
That would be a dream come true for me. fightforfreedom Feb 2022 #29

Response to fightforfreedom (Original post)

dem4decades

(11,244 posts)
8. Or anyone too high up in government. Or former government.
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 09:33 AM
Feb 2022

If Garland doesn't move on the Trump cabal before midterms the enthusiasm for voting D will diminish.

People will be like, why bother.

bucolic_frolic

(42,676 posts)
10. If sitting reps are indicted on actual charges it invites future rep political prosecutions
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 09:35 AM
Feb 2022

So we may not see justice for those currently sitting until they lose at the ballot box.

Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #10)

2naSalit

(86,061 posts)
19. Well, I think that is not true...
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 11:34 AM
Feb 2022

Because there are a few in prison who were were sitting when indicted.

Trafficant comes to mind but there are others and there will soon be a whole lot more.

bucolic_frolic

(42,676 posts)
7. Investigation is to fit facts to violations of the law
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 09:30 AM
Feb 2022

and selective prosecution could still allow some to escape if the focus is to nail the top of the pyramid.

I suspect the top will, if it comes to that, not one person but a group of them tied together. It is more difficult for them to fight charges and evade consequences that way.

2naSalit

(86,061 posts)
20. Especially if there is...
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 11:36 AM
Feb 2022

A Grand Jury investigating them for a RICO charge, which I think would be fantastic.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,369 posts)
11. Stop and think about the mountain of evidence that has surfaced since the beginning of the year.
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 09:44 AM
Feb 2022

The longer Meadows isn’t indicted for contempt, the more likely DOJ will indict for more serious charges, including violations of the Presidential Records Act, which Meadows has desperately been trying to retroactively comply with, sending his personal emails and Texts to the archives.

Those records, once in the hands of the archives, will be available to both DOJ and the committee. To indict Meadows for contempt now would likely halt the turnover of those records.

That was reported just this past week.

The reason for Garland’s silence? DOJ doesn’t talk about ongoing investigations.

 

Alexander Of Assyria

(7,839 posts)
13. Yes sir. The handwringing over...when will heshethem be indicted? What's taking so long??
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 09:51 AM
Feb 2022

It’s hilarious.

The Silence of The Lambs…going to slaughter. It’s deafening. People gotta open their own two ears and shut off the Twitter clatter.

Coming to a courtroom near you, soon. Justice.

The Twittersphere has little collective clue clue as to how law and prosecutions work…patience is not a thing on social media. Might as well be rocket science.

Meadow is going down, just like Bannon, and Proud Boys and 700 + J6 tourists.

 

fightforfreedom

(4,913 posts)
15. You get my point.
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 10:17 AM
Feb 2022

Garland knows Meadows is a big player in the attempted coup. Garland needs people like Meadows to turn, to make a plea deal. If Garland can build a case against Meadow's, bring serious charges against, I believe Meadow's would sing like a jail house rat.

If I know Meadows is a cowardly, weak, backstabbing SOB, who would turn on his own mother to stay out of jail. I would want to build a case against him.

Maybe this explains Garlands silence on the committee's criminal referral. Maybe Garland see's it as a hindrance to the case he is building.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
24. What "Presidential Records Act"?
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 12:41 PM
Feb 2022

If you are referring to the Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22) Act, it is not a criminal law. No one is going to be indicted for that. Whether the DOJ talks about an investigation or not is besides the point. The people associated with the investigation, witnesses and their lawyers do talk. This idea their is some triple secret investigation going on is nonsense.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,369 posts)
25. 18 USC § 2071
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 01:29 PM
Feb 2022
Under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records “filed or deposited” in “any public office” --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)). Supervisors who direct supervisees to violate this statute can themselves be found guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) (United States v. Salazar, 455 F.3d 1022, 1023 (9th Cir. 2006));


Regarding Meadows specifically:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/09/national-archives-meadows-trump-524043

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/meadows-apparently-screwed-up-turning-over-trump-era-records-to-national-archives/ar-AARGx3w

If the PRA is no big deal, and nobody ever gets indicted, then why have there been numerous reports in recent weeks that Meadows is desperately trying to comply with the act retroactively?

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
32. Maybe you can link to those reports.
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 09:17 PM
Feb 2022

The reports from his lawyer where he says is client is "desperately trying to comply with the act"

Sancho

(9,065 posts)
12. During Watergate, more than 20 went to jail, but there were some high level plea bargains...
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 09:48 AM
Feb 2022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category eople_convicted_in_the_Watergate_scandal

https://www.history.com/news/watergate-where-are-they-now

When the walls came tumbling down, and folks were facing jail, many reduced their sentence with guilty pleas. It would be good if one or two actually came out and put the orange idiot away.

edhopper

(33,208 posts)
14. Because
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 09:54 AM
Feb 2022

Garland doesn't want to look "political".
All Republicans are going g to get a pass.
It's going g to end with the actual rioters.

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,789 posts)
22. Sure I read Meadows gave some documents. Silence signifies cooperation? Don't want to excite magats
Sun Feb 6, 2022, 12:09 PM
Feb 2022

If I were an Insurrectionist cooperating, I sure wouldn't make a big noise about it for fear of magats shooting my children as revenge.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The mystery surrounding M...