So when will Mark Meadows be arrested?

[gab13by13]

I'm just an internet lawyer but it seems to me that Meadows committed voter fraud. We had a case of a former felon voting when she believed it was allowed, that didn't matter, she was convicted.

Here we have Mark Meadows fraudulently filling out a form, fraudulently voting, not a mistake on his part like it was with the former felon. We have the added evidence of intent with Meadows which should make it a slam dunk case.

I bet many will think this is a rhetorical question, when will Meadows be arrested?

Oh and day 83 since the select committee sent the Meadow's criminal referral to DOJ.

What would happen were Meadows a Democrat? Has this even been reported by the MSM?

Maybe DOJ is taking so long because it is planning on charging Meadows with more serious crimes than ignoring a subpoena? Ya think?

[FoxNewsSucks]

1. Even if your last line were true,

why the hell would they not charge everything they possibly can as soon as they can? Seems like that would put increasing pressure on the defendant.

[gab13by13]

3. Disclaimer;

I just put that last line in there so the "Be Patient" crowd didn't have to.

[spanone]

2. I'm coming to the conclusion the 'No one is above the law' is an American Fairy Tale.

[onecaliberal]

8. THAT IS 💯

[TheBlackAdder]

21. A Fractured Fairy Tale.

.






.

[spanone]

23. Bwahahahahaaa....

[Cracklin Charlie]

4. I've heard it said...

That having Meadows under indictment would give the other bad actors insight into the workings of the DOJ with regards to this case.

Folks like Stone, Bannon, and Flynn would be very interested in knowing how the government is building cases against them.

[gab13by13]

10. What case, what cases?

Steve Bannon has no case, his trial is set for the end of July. Bannon had no dealings with Trump or the White House.

Here is all that DOJ has to do. Do what the select committee just did. John Eastman claims lawyer client privilege or executive privilege, or whatever other privilege to keep from testifying. The select committee laid it all out with documentation why those privilege's don't apply. You can't invoke privileges if your activities were criminal.

DOJ can do the same thing with Meadows, were it to chose to prosecute.

[gab13by13]

5. Remember when Romney voted in Massachusetts

so he could vote for Brown? With all of his wealth and houses, he claimed he was living in his son's basement.

[doc03]

6. He won't be nt

[blueinredohio]

12. Right there with you doc.

[doc03]

18. I have come to the conclusion the Jan 6th committee

is slow walking their hearings to come close to the election. The DOJ won't do anything close to the election.
What was it the Comey Rule where he used that excuse for Trump but dropped Hillary's e-mails the week before.

[SoCalDavidS]

7. Never

That is the answer, same as with TFG and his merry band of criminals.

[Chainfire]

9. Any second now. Hold your breath while you wait for it. ;)

[gab13by13]

11. Doctor tells me not to,

I have a mild case of sleep apnea. the truth.

[Chainfire]

20. So, are you going to listen to a doctor or a plumber on a medical issue?

You can't trust the men and women of science.

[Sneederbunk]

13. Garland is on it.

[Hoyt]

14. Unless they find he voted in two places, probably never on that charge.

[gab13by13]

15. Good to know,

My voter district is bright red, I'm going to register in another district where a Democrat has a chance to win.

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. Are you aware of a little thing called "discovery"?

Once Meadows is charged with anything, even jaywalking, due process entitles him to discovery of all evidence the government has against him. Meadows can then share this evidence with his currently unindicted co-conspirators. Bannon is already doing this, but the evidence against Meadows is far more massive, and directly implicates Trump.

IMO, DOJ shouldn’t indict Meadows until they can charge with the most serious charges they feel they can get a conviction on.

I’m guessing you already knew this, since you are an “internet lawyer”.

In the meantime, state charges for voter fraud would seem appropriate, and wouldn’t carry the same discovery risk as federal charges.

[gab13by13]

19. So what if DOJ has to show all evidence?

If DOJ has a good case let them see the evidence.

If DOJ were investigating we wouldn't see the select committee subpoenaing so many people directly involved in the coup.

Being an internet lawyer, I understand that I wouldn't want to interfere in an ongoing DOJ investigation.

For example; the Michigan AG gave a fake elector referral to the Feds, 55 days ago, since then the select committee has subpoenaed numerous individuals involved in the fake elector scheme. If DOJ was doing an investigation why would the select committee get involved in an ongoing investigation?

We do know that DOJ is investigating the stolen, flushed, eaten, burned, cut up, confidential documents, right? Tell me we know that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. So you'd rather see Meadows get indicted for a small offence, and the others get off?

Because that’s the risk- with discovery, Meadows can share what the feds do have…and what they don’t have as far as evidence, and the implications for charges for co-conspirators.

The Archives has made a referral to DOJ re: destruction of presidential records and mishandling of classified information- that’s all we know so far. Violations of the PRA carry a maximum 3 year sentence. Again, are you in a rush to charge Trump with anything, or do you have the patience to wait for more serious charges? (Fraud and seditious conspiracy have much longer max sentences than these smaller crimes).

Eastman’s privilege challenges should be resolved soon, and then His goose, and likely Trump’s, will be cooked. I don’t think Eastman has the same level of loyalty to Trump that Stone has, and I don’t think he can afford the defense for seditious conspiracy charges (and Trump ain’t paying for it).

If DOJ were investigating we wouldn't see the select committee subpoenaing so many people directly involved in the coup

You don’t know that- the Watergate committee and DOJ investigated the same crimes simultaneously, and subpoenaed some of the same witnesses.

[lastlib]

17. Today would be good....

Two months ago would be better...... Maybe Lady Justice broke her sword...? (or just lifter her blindfold?)

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. Two months ago, there wasn't a tenth of the significant physical evidence and testimony as now

The SCOTUS ruling on Trump’s privilege challenge was 6-7 weeks ago, and since then, thousands of documents have come into the committee’s possession, including the memos re: seizing the voting machines. Also, in the past two months, the committee has heard testimony from Pence’s staff, some of whom were in the room when the coup was being planned.

So, indicting two months ago would have omitted all that evidence.

[MineralMan]

25. When there is a warrant issued for his arrest, after he is indicted.

How's that?