So Mark Meadows flipped off the j6 committee

[Beachnutt]

after a subpoena and got away with it ? or did he ?
How many more will get away with it ?

[BlueJac]

1. To many.

[JohnSJ]

2. Same thing with Bannon. This is the example being taught to everyone. Ignore all subpoenas

[gab13by13]

6. Bannon's trial is set for the end of July,

DOJ prosecuted him because he wasn't a politician, wasn't associated with the White House.

Meadows criminal referral is day 68. Michigan AG's referral is day 40. National Archives referral, I am not keeping track of.

[JohnSJ]

16. True, thank-you. I forgot, the indictment was the end of last year

[InstantGratification]

18. Because

It is better strategy to hold fire on the contempt charge and build the case for an obstruction charge instead. A conviction on the contempt charge is likely to net Bannon a few months in jail, not the years he deserves. By filing the contempt charge against Bannon, it triggers the discovery process for the defense and gives Bannon insight into the evidence DoJ has against him. That makes the obstruction prosecution harder. Plus, Bannon is certainly sharing the information gleaned with all the "Team Trump" co-conspirators, making prosecution of all of them harder. He is literally trading the possibility of a few months in jail to act as "recon" for all the others to improve their chances against far more serious charges than contempt.

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/

[Mike Nelson]

3. I think...

... Democrats need to get tough on crime... this starts at the top. Meadows should be in jail, by now. I think I may have misjudged Garland - he seems too soft on crime. If people like Trump can get away with crime, why should anyone follow the law?

[wnylib]

14. Maybe you are misjudging

Garland now.

I don't know what his agenda is. Do you?

Do you expect him to publicize it?

[Joinfortmill]

15. Agree.

[quakerboy]

23. Just keep that powder dry

It doesn't matter if we all drown trying to hold it above the water in the meanwhile, just keep it dry.

[wnylib]

27. So many armchair AGs on DU that

it's hard to keep up with their expertise.

[emulatorloo]

36. And they have such "authoritative" statements, don't they?

[Mike Nelson]

31. I still...

... think I was misjudging him earlier. I think he may have decided to give the Republicans a break... he would avoid being called a "tool" for the Democrats and he could say there was a Committee and other prosecutors looking into Trump & Co.

... Meadows ignored a subpoena and was referred... still, there is no action. This sends a very bad message... the Republicans want this to drag on until they regain power. Then, the House committee will be shut down. That will happen quickly.

[wnylib]

37. Or maybe there is a reason for holding

off the prosecution of Meadows. He was involved in so much more than refusing to finish testifying.

[Kablooie]

4. If Rs take the house ...

There will be a massive increase in supoenas for their retaliatory investigations.
You can bet that anyone who ignores them will be punished severely right away.

[brooklynite]

30. You're saying Garland will respond to their criminal referrals more quickly?

[Magoo48]

5. Please, stop issuing subpoenas you are too timid to follow through on.

It is weak, it looks weak, the silence of the impotent, dishrag follow ups is discouraging. if you want us follow you, stand the fuck up and lead.

[gab13by13]

10. I totally disagree with your post.

The select committee is doing a fantastic job, is doing the best that it can. The select committee has tried to push DOJ to act. The select committee has no prosecutorial powers, it can only recommend prosecution. The DOJ has much more clout than the select committee. It can do search warrants, can force people to appear before a grand jury, it can get documents a lot easier than the select committee.

DOJ has dropped the ball, it is upsetting it allowed a pro-Trump fake company to have access to ballots, voter information, election materials and equipment. By not acting, these fraudits spread across the country perpetrating the Big Lie and leading to honest election officials being purged and replaced with Magats. Has the Cyber Ninjas turned over the documents a judge ordered them to turn over? Has the Cyber Ninjas paid the 50,000 dollar per day fine the judge imposed on them? Fuck no because they are a fake company with a mail box for an address and all that DOJ did was write them a stern letter which they totally ignored.

[Magoo48]

12. OK

I hope your optimism proves to be well founded.

[gab13by13]

20. I am not optimistic,

I think you are blaming the wrong people. The select committee at least is trying. When I see that the select committee has subpoenaed numerous fake electors that tells me one thing, DOJ is not acting on the Michigan AG's criminal referral. I mean why would the select committee subpoena fake electors if DOJ was already investigating it? There would be no need to interfere in an ongoing investigation.

[padah513]

7. Another one of these threads huh?

None of us know what's going on and no one has gotten away with anything

[Scrivener7]

9. .

[gab13by13]

11. See my post right above you.

[obamanut2012]

17. seriously

[fightforfreedom]

8. Here we go again.

[ShazzieB]

28. I know, right?

It's like bring forced to listen to the same song on an endless loop, a song I didn't even like in the first place. It stops playing periodically, but you never know when it's going to start up again. Ay-yi-yi.

[Emile]

13. This the same Meadows the DOJ got a criminal contempt referral for back in December?

Patience. .

[gab13by13]

19. Patience didn't work with Cyber Ninjas.

patience is a bad strategy when confidential documents are still missing from the National Archives, search warrants would be a better strategy before the documents are destroyed.

[Vinca]

21. Meadows must have a seriously weak spine. First, he hands over thousands of documents to the

committee like a normal person would, then it seems the Orange Wannabe King exerted his influence and told Mark he wouldn't be allowed at Mar-a-Grifto to kiss his whatever anymore if he talked to them. So they've got the goods, there might be a reasonable explanation for some of them, but Meadows refuses to tell them what that reason might be and potentially save his hiney because the apparent love of his life is in a snit.

[gab13by13]

22. I think MF45 made him an offer he couldn't refuse,

and it wasn't free membership at Mar-el-Loco.

[former9thward]

34. Two completely different legal issues.

One was records and documents which has been pretty much settled in the past. This is about conversations and thoughts which legally has not been settled.

[Septua]

35. That was what I was thinking

Thanks for the clarification.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

24. More impatience? Taking too, soooo long? I trust the top legal picks of Biden. Versus impatience.

Remember the impatience over Bannon…proud boys…etc. Etc…don’t feed the rw machinery with despair…keep despair there.

[mn9driver]

25. It's all about delay.

In 11 months the committee will be disbanded and there will be no more testimony or investigation.

That is what the GOP is banking on.

[Septua]

26. I lose track of details but...

..isn't the Meadows case waiting on a SCOTUS ruling relative to "privilege"?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-932/207669/20220107123309194_Active_154643692_3_20220106%20Meadows%20Supreme%20Court%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

[Emile]

29. I thought SCOTUS denied Trump's stay over the federal appeals court?

[Septua]

32. Maybe so

Like I said, I can't keep the lawsuits straight.

[former9thward]

33. The SC case was about records and documents.

The Meadows case (if it ever becomes one -- there is no case now) is about conversations, thoughts and intentions between himself and Trump. A totally different animal as far as courts are concerned.

[Ohio Joe]

38. Not that any of the doomers will read it but...

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/

I've posted it numerous times when these threads have come up but never gotten a single reply to it... Just more threads making the same complaint. It would be nice if someone would either give it a valid rebuttal or acknowledge it as valid.

[ShazzieB]

39. I'm not one of the doomers, but I'll comment. 😉

I must have missed the threads where you posted this before, as it is brand new to me. So I took a look, and after doing so, I definitely acknowledge it as valid.

I can't say for sure why no one has acknowledged it, but I can think of a couple of possibilities:

1. Sometimes things posted in the comments can get kind of buried. Not everyone reads all of the comments on every post. I suspect that people sometimes read an o.p. and maybe a few of the comments, then fire off an opinion, and don't always come back to see what's been posted since.
2. For those who do click on your link, this particular article is not easy reading. I didn't make it all the way through myself. I believe my reading comprehension is above average, and I found it to be heavy going. The first paragraph pulled me in, but I soon got lost trying to follow all the minutiae in the bullet points. I absorbed enough to be able to see that there is a lot of validity to the argument for delaying a Mark Meadows indictment, but I didn't need all that much convincing, unlike the doomers to whom your comment was targeted.

I suspect that those who are firmly convinced that the DOJ is not even trying to do its job might glance at this article but not read enough to fully comprehend the points it makes. The fact that no one has posted to refute it leads me to surmise that those who might be disposed to do so may be unwilling to put in the time and effort to fully understand the points made and compose a rebuttal. Either that, or they read enough to realize that it would be very difficult to rebut and move on.

l would suggest you consider posting this link in an an o.p., so that more people will see it. I think it's worthy of that, and I also believe it would be more likely to get some responses and maybe provoke a real discussion. Just a suggestion!

[Ohio Joe]

40. Funny you should say that...

I had the same thought and did so earlier today with even some more detail:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216378643

It has garnered little attention, though I plan to give it a kick for the evening crowd later

[ShazzieB]

41. Hey, great minds do think alike!

I just gave it errands.

No time to comment further right now, because I'm on the way out the door to Doan errannd.