If Garland charged Meadows with contempt, it would be as a witness, not a defendant.

[fightforfreedom]

Right now Meadows is only a witness who is refusing to testify. Charging him with contempt would be small potatoes. Meadows is a big fish in the investigation. Garland may be waiting to see if he can charge Meadows with much more serious crimes as a defendant.

I'm not sure, maybe charging Meadows as a witness now, could somehow complicate things if you wanted to charge him as a defendant later for more serious crimes.

Think about it, it makes sense.

[Scrivener7]

1. "Maybe, might be, could be, don't know but, it looks like, soon."

All of it is worthless bullshit.

Handcuffs or it didn't happen.

[Beastly Boy]

9. I pray every day that we don't end up with a DOJ that thinks like this

"Handcuffs or it didn't happen" is too much of a Pinochet territory for my taste.

[Scrivener7]

11. That's nice, dear.

[Beastly Boy]

13. Flattery will get you nowhere, sweetie.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. See today's post on emptywheel.net

It explains in detail why rushing to indict for contempt could harm the entire investigation and prosecution.

Hint: it has to do with discovery, and how Bannon is using it to inform other potential defendants about the state of the investigation.

[fightforfreedom]

16. Thank you.

[Ocelot II]

3. Exactly. Prosecutors try to bring all possible charges at once,

not only for the sake of efficiency, but because the aggregated crimes are more persuasive to a grand jury than piecemeal charges. Why charge only the relatively minor crime of ignoring a Congressional subpoena, which is a misdemeanor, when adding it to other crimes and charging them all at once is much more likely to lead to a long, detailed, "speaking" indictment?

[gab13by13]

5. I agree, time for a special grand jury.

[gab13by13]

4. Someone needs to explain,

why the select committee is considering offering immunity to people like Jeffrey Clarke? Sounds to me if they do that it sure messes up that super secret DOJ investigation.

Mark Meadows is a Big Fish, create a special grand jury and show the evidence to jurors just like they did for Watergate.

How many people here at DU truly understand the serious condition our democracy is in?

[FBaggins]

7. Probably politics

A DOJ prosecution of Clarke probably doesn't hit the front pages with any real info until after the election. They may be willing to offer him immunity to get something on the record in the coming months.

[Beastly Boy]

12. Are you sure a special grand jury was called for Watergate?

If I recall correctly, there were three grand juries empaneled to hear cases related to Watergate, but I don't think any of them were special grand juries.

[fightforfreedom]

14. I heard someone on the news bring up a good point which is true.

The jan. 6th committee has moved very quickly with their investigation because they knew they were on a timeline. They have to finish before the election.

Garland is not on a timeline, he can afford to take his time. It may seen like Garland is moving slowly because the committee has moved at such a very fast pace. It is normal for a criminal case this large to take a long time.

[FBaggins]

6. Ok... I thought about it. It doesn't make any sense.

How is he supposed to charge him with refusing to testify as a defendant?

Never heard of the 5th Amendment?

[fightforfreedom]

10. He will be charging him with much more serious crimes as a defendant.

Not for refusing to testify. Now does it make sense.

[FBaggins]

18. Nope. Still doesn't make sense.

You’re always a defendant when you’re charged with a crime.

Not is there any reason to not charge one crime just because you are investigating some other crime that you might charge

[lame54]

8. Except for the waiting part...

Time is not on our side

[rso]

15. DOJ

Time may be short when it comes to the 1/6 Committee, but the DOJ remains in our hands until at least 1/2025.

[rso]

17. DOJ

Time may be short when it comes to the 1/6 Committee, but the DOJ remains in our hands until at least 1/2025.