Today marks two months since the House voted to hold Mark Meadows in contempt

[Silent3]

62 days have passed, but still the DoJ has not acted.

For all of those who ask that we all have faith in "the process", and have faith that the DoJ is doing its job, how do you explain this?

The case against Meadows is dirt simple -- as a matter of law at least, if not as a matter of politics.

No matter what claims Meadows might wish to make for executive privilege, no matter how he might plan to plead the 5th, the law is nevertheless clear that he must appear before Congress and, on a question-by-question basis, claim his reasons for not responding to each question.

No one gets to say, "Well, there's nothing I can or will answer, so I'm just not going to show up". That is plain and simple not an allowable legal option.

If pondering the not-so-weighty legal issues of Mark Meadows case is taking this long, why have any faith that the DoJ is pursuing charges against any upper-level, politically-connected people involved in the 1/6 insurrection?

Especially when you take into account that, no matter how secretive the DoJ might wish to be, they have no power to maintain secrecy once any investigation that might be going on gets to the phase of conducting interviews.

If the DoJ is waiting for the Congressional 1/6 committee to finish its work first, then the DoJ isn't doing its own job, and the DoJ isn't properly considering the importance of some speed in the pursuit of justice. Preparing a solid case is important, but "justice delayed is justice denied", and without any signs of interviews yet, the DoJ is at the very best moving at a glacial pace.

While the DoJ is supposed to be apolitical, sometimes politics can't be avoided. It provides Republicans a huge political advantage, and an opportunity to gain the power needed to subvert justice, to act so slowly that charges and convictions for insurrection are not meted out before the November elections.

I think it's already too late for any pre-November convictions to happen, and damned near too late for any pre-November charges to be filed. The closer November gets, the more likely the DoJ would actually delay filing any charges, for the ostensibly apolitical reason of avoiding an effect on the next elections.

We're well past the point where impatience with the DoJ can rightfully be compared to expecting life to be like an episode of Law and Order, or compared to Veruca Salt-like demands for instant gratification.

[Sneederbunk]

1. It appears Meadows knew nothing would happen.

[we can do it]

2. Get a hobby.

[Ocelot II]

3. Ignoring a subpoena is small potatoes. It's a misdemeanor.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Meadows hasn't been charged yet is that he is being investigated for far more serious offenses. No prosecutor is going to call a grand jury over a relatively minor crime when they are in the process of putting together evidence to present a grand jury with felony charges - but that takes longer.

[Silent3]

6. There are standing grand juries that don't need to be called, they are already convened...

...as a matter of course, handling numerous cases big and small as they come by.

The DoJ charged Bannon fairly quickly (by their standards of speed). And there's nothing to be gained by holding off the on the contempt charge while other charges are investigated.

You might call contempt "small potatoes", but it creates an enormously bad precedent if Congressional subpoenas are routinely ignored without swift accountability.

[Ocelot II]

8. Why would a prosecutor bother to present a small case to a grand jury,

whether standing or otherwise, when they are preparing a bigger case and could easily include the minor charge as icing on the cake, as it were? The complete presentation would be a bunch of felonies plus the desire to cover them up by defying a subpoena - there's your mens rea. It would be a much better grand jury case if they included the contempt charge with the others as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

[former9thward]

25. Grand juries are not required for federal misdemeanors.

[Ocelot II]

27. True, but why wouldn't they save the contempt charge to include

with other, more serious crimes as evidence of consciousness of guilt? Seems like a sensible move to me. Also, charging the subpoena matter now would give Meadows the right to discovery before he's charged with anything else. I think there's a well-considered strategy to hit him all at once.

[former9thward]

28. Ok but where we differ is that I don't think there will be any charges.

[Qutzupalotl]

4. They don't want to give Bannon any more info than they have to.

[Ohio Joe]

5. Empty Wheel has a pretty good explanation

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/07/why-to-delay-a-mark-meadows-indictment-bannon-is-using-his-contempt-prosecution-to-monitor-the-ongoing-january-6-investigation/

It's a worthy read.

[PoliticAverse]

7. The likelihood is that Meadows hasn't been indicted for contempt yet because the DOJ is pursuing

more serious charges.

[former9thward]

26. There is no evidence the DOJ is doing that.

[Beastly Boy]

9. I don't usually ask to have faith in the process. But when I do,

I ask to have more faith in the process than you do in idle speculations. That, BTW would include a speculation that the case against Meadows is simple, or that it begins and ends with contempt charges.

[Silent3]

10. A number of people have offered me strategic reasons for delaying contempt charges

And those reasons to perhaps have merit. The contempt issue, however, in and of itself, is simple.

Yes, often the law is more complicated that people without law degrees might imagine. But it isn't always complicated, and "it's complicated" far too often becomes a shield behind which the rich, privileged, and well-connected hide the special consideration they are treated with that the rest of us don't enjoy.

[Beastly Boy]

12. Can you tell whether prosecuting this case is complicated or not?

Neither do I. Admittedly, you are aware of possibility that it may be complicated. But in the same breath your OP states with certainty that the case against Meadows is simple. Not the contempt issue, but, in your words, "the case against Meadows". You don't know that, and neither do I.

The contempt charges may be simple. The case against Meadows? Unlikely. The law may not always be complicated, but it often is. As far as the prosecutions of the rich, the privileged and the well-connected go, I would rather have a DA who is more versed in the complications of the law than the attorneys for the rich, etc, etc. It's not special considerations that ordinarily allow them to escape convictions, it's botched prosecutions.

[Silent3]

15. I was singling out the contempt issue, by itself, as simple

The contempt issue, however, in and of itself, is simple.

As stated above.

[Beastly Boy]

16. I was referring to your OP

The case against Meadows is dirt simple -- as a matter of law at least, if not as a matter of politics.

I made it clear in my response that I am not conflating the contempt issue with the case against Meadows. In fact, that was my entire point: the Meadows case is unlikely to be limited to the contempt issue.

[Silent3]

17. In the context of the OP, I was, however, clearly referring only to the contempt charge

Other people brought other legal issues into the sphere of "the case" later in the discussion, and reasonably so, but that was not part of my initial context.

I have to hope that this is actually strategic, with important gains to be made later, because otherwise the delay only helps perpetuate the idea that people (at least well-connected people) can simply thumb their noses at Congressional subpoenas and get away with it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Would you prefer Meadows spend a year in jail, and Trump escape all charges?

Or can you manage to muster up the patience and understanding that Meadows is almost certain to be indicted on a much more serious felony charge, like seditious conspiracy?

Also, if Meadows was indicted for contempt now, he could use the discovery process to leak to other potential defendants on the state of the investigation, as Bannon is doing, except that Meadows has much more exposure, and the committee/DOJ have much more evidence on Meadows than on Bannon.

Remember, Meadows was in the room with Trump and the coup architects. The committee members have made statements in recent days implying that they no longer need the testimony of Meadows and the other coup architects, that they’ve got the goods on them all from the document dumps and testimony from high level aides, including Pence’s staff, who were also in the room when the coup was being plotted.

Lots of info regarding the strategic necessity of delaying Meadows’ indictment at this link:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/07/why-to-delay-a-mark-meadows-indictment-bannon-is-using-his-contempt-prosecution-to-monitor-the-ongoing-january-6-investigation/

[moniss]

13. While

DOJ goes slow the ongoing coup rolls on with voter suppression, seeking/taking control of positions that oversee elections, placing even more virulent right-wingers as judges, openly engaging in talk about the "need" to do violence to Democrats etc., refusing to condemn those right-wing extremists found to have large caches of weapons/ammunition, refusing to condemn those politicians who make statements or ads that reference using guns on opponents, enacting laws to limit what books/subjects/knowledge may be in schools/libraries, failing to condemn popular right-wing extremists conducting book burnings................and the list goes on and on.

Meanwhile the DOJ seems content to seemingly settle for mostly negligible penalties for the 1/6 insurrectionists while the planners/directors of the insurrection engage in what seems like almost daily witness tampering, obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence. I have no explanation. Perhaps they are terrified of facing in court the awesome legal skills of Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell et al. It could also be that they have decided upon the idea that it would be "best" for the people of America (ala Nixon) if they take this all on a very long schedule and as the months and couple of years roll by they can point to a few who breached the Capitol and got more than probation and hope that the stomach for "going further" has waned. The old "healing the country" crap while they tell us that the big guys have "learned their lesson" and won't do anything like this again.

[William769]

14. Not this shit again

[fightforfreedom]

18. What do you think Garland is doing?

Protecting criminals? Helping the coup plotters? Helping Meadows?

[hamsterjill]

19. Just know you're not alone in your thinking.

I never understand those who excuse the lack of action. What are they going to say when time runs out and nothing has been done? Ooooops?

Sorry but I’ve heard that excuse before. I want action now and a lot of better-informed people and scholars than I are crying out for the same thing.

[fightforfreedom]

20. When time runs out?

Garland is not on a time schedule, the committee is.

[Silent3]

21. Garland *should* consider himself on a schedule

Those responsible for 1/6 are still actively continuing the coup, still working to dismantle the safeguards that protect our democracy. While there’s not as clear a time limit for the DoJ as the Congressional committee, it definitely makes a huge difference for our democracy what comes out, or doesn’t, before November, and who is charged or convicted before the next election.

The DoJ is supposed to try to be politically neutral, but there is no neutral position when you’re fighting an anti-democratic threat. DoJ should be unabashedly pro democracy.

[hamsterjill]

23. Everything is on a time schedule.

That’s Trump’s playbook. Stall everything until he gets the people back in office that support him.

Can’t happen? No one thought he would ever be President. It can definitely happen. They cheat. They lie. They steal. I refuse to be surprised by them again.

[Silent3]

22. Thank you. While I might be able to buy the specific delay with Meadows...

…serving some reasonable strategic purpose, nothing makes sense (other than timidity and/or unequal justice) about other investigations and prosecutions taking so long.

[Scrivener7]

24. I agree totally.

[Brainfodder]

29. Going with no news is good news, especially with the Waddle Dump deluge of papers as of late?

The hole is getting deep AF!