The best argument I've heard for the Congressional Committee submitting a Trump criminal referral:

[BigBearJohn]

On MSNBC's "The Beat" today, Neal Katyal, the former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, gives several valid reasons in favor of the Congressional Committee submitting a Trump criminal referral:

"The key thing is just to take a step back and recognize how remarkable it is that a Congressional Committee now appears unanimous in concluding that Donald Trump committed federal crimes. And if 9 bipartisan members of Congress can agree on something like that, I'm pretty sure 12 of our own peers can as well."

"The very fact that you have a Judge Carter opinion means it is not politicized. He is a respected federal judge. [emphasis added]

"The Congressional Committee itself is not politicized. Liz Cheney is on it. Liz Cheney is as far from a Democrat as you can get. My fundamental message to Congress is: I know a referral is not necessary, but it's part of your job. Do your job! [emphasis added] Trump is going to say it's political no matter what, whether Congress refers or not, he says that about every federal judge who disagrees with him even though they are non-partisan and I don't think Democrats should be suckers or the Congressional Committee as a whole, which is bipartisan, should be suckers. Trump always preys on people's weaknesses and if the Congressional Committee doesn't make the referral, we know Trump is going to say he's been acquitted by the Congressional Committee and he's been cleared as innocent. Totally perfect, beautiful and the like."

[rampartc]

1. bipartisan? the committee contains no trump loyalists

the jury will have the same kinds of people as ruttenhouse and the michigan kidnappers = enough trumpists to wear out the decent people who want to end it.

[gab13by13]

2. It is bipartisan,

The Michigan case is apples and oranges. The FBI fucked up in the Michigan case. The kidnappers got off because they claimed entrapment.

I guess with the logic that we can never get an impartial jury our country is screwed, DOJ may as well only prosecute Democrats.

[KPN]

6. WTF? They aren't a party. They're a horde of

nutjobs, supremacists and grifters. They don’t deserve the respect that “bipartisan” would convey on them. They aren’t interested in building the nation, they are interested in destroying it and splitting the spoils among themselves. Fuck them. Do what is right for the nation. Refer TFG to the DOJ; condemn him and the frigging trumpists.

[kacekwl]

12. +10000

[rampartc]

18. they are interested in the innocence of their cult leader.

cheney and kinzinger are not considered republican by their caucus, and neither will be returning next year.

"bipartisan" in name only.

[Mr. Ected]

3. No referral means Trump will claim, ad nauseum, that he did nothing wrong

Have we learned nothing from the Mueller investigation and the 2 impeachment trials?

The American people have the right to see all the evidence placed before them. Let us make our own decisions. That's how this damned thing is supposed to work.

[kentuck]

4. They should send a criminal referral for contempt of Congress...

After they send a subpoena for him to appear and he refuses, then he would be treated like all his other friends who have been subpoenaed. He could not then claim that he was getting "partisan" treatment.

Also, this would not interfere with anything the DOJ was investigating at this time.

It would also put him on the defensive.

[Novara]

5. He's absolutely right

"...Trump always preys on people's weaknesses and if the Congressional Committee doesn't make the referral, we know Trump is going to say he's been acquitted by the Congressional Committee and he's been cleared as innocent. Totally perfect, beautiful and the like."

Exactly. So make the goddamned referral.

But don't do it until you have very public hearings a la Watergate, splashed across all TV screens so the public knows exactly what that motherfucker did and HOW it violates the Constitution left and right and HOW criminal it all is. Use the public's outrage to give the referral momentum.

If they just quietly sneak in a referral without laying it all out for the public - and the world - to see, THEN it will look purely political. OTOH, if the public and the world see how outrageous his crimes are, if gives them a little bit of cover. Sure, it will be called political no matter what. The mere existence of the CRIMES makes this political. But the public has a right to see how goddamned criminal this is. It's in the public's interest to lay it all out. And when the public gets outraged, the referral makes perfect sense and the DoJ can't NOT prosecute the motherfucker.

[kentuck]

7. I am sure the Committee is having similar discussions.

I still think he should be subpoenaed to testify before the Committee.

[The Jungle 1]

8. It only takes one republican and the jury is hung.

[kentuck]

9. That is the gamble you take in a democracy...

...which guarantees a trial. You cannot be frozen in such indecision. Would you want to be the juror that looked at all the evidence and found him "not guilty"?

The final judgement will be rendered by the American people.

[The Jungle 1]

10. Oh I understand how this works and I support it.

Prohibition was repealed because our government could not get a conviction.
Trial by jury is the citizens last stand against government oppression.
Jury nullification is part of the gig.
Sometimes I like, sometimes I don't. The filthy crook that is Cliven Bundy comes to mind.

[kentuck]

14. Simply getting him before a jury would be a victory.

A conviction would be a cherry on top.

[Emile]

11. Trump is going to say he's been acquitted by the Congressional Committee and he's been cleared

as in innocent.

Spot on!

[OneGrassRoot]

13. If I were on the committee...

I'd be screaming from the rooftops (in as professional manner as possible...lol) that he belongs in prison or at least never allowed to run for office again (nor his minions in power) because I would have ZERO doubt that if a Trumpist holds high office, they will put their perceived enemies in prison...or worse. I think most of us realize the foot soldiers on 1/6 would have caused grave harm to any Dems or "traitors" (i.e. Romney) had they caught them.

[Evolve Dammit]

15. Agree. Past due for a criminal referral. Conduct hearings while waiting, but get it to DOJ.

[Ohioboy]

16. If there is evidence of a crime and it's not referred it's akin to helping the crimimal

That's my 2 cents. Crime is crime, and no one should be above the law, regardless of politics.

[Septua]

20. No argument with that.

Supposedly, DOJ is already investigating, just hasn't announced it. Either way, there's enough known information proving a group of people devised a plan to overturn an election, obstruct the certification of the elected President and transfer of power.

Whatever legalese charge Garland comes up with relative to existing statutes, there has to be some indictments and trials or else, it will happen with every future fucking election that takes place.

Surely, Garland is aware of that...

[Septua]

17. The argument against a criminal referral

Katyal: "My fundamental message to Congress is: I know a referral is not necessary, but it's part of your job. Do your job! [emphasis added] Trump is going to say it's political no matter what, whether Congress refers or not"

It's really not Congress' job.

“Our job is … to look at the facts and circumstances around what occurred.

“A formal criminal referral from Congress in this situation could backfire. The Justice Department’s charging decisions should not be influenced by political pressure, and that’s how this might look,” said Ronald Weich, a University of Baltimore law professor and former assistant attorney general in the Obama Justice Department. “A referral could make it harder for the Department to prosecute.”

Congress has no power to initiate a prosecution; that decision rests entirely with the Justice Department. There’s no formal process for making such a referral; the select committee could choose to vote on one and directly send it to DOJ without a vote in the full House. But referrals have long appeared to have little bearing on DOJ’s charging decisions — the department rarely takes them up and other times has charged witnesses for lying to Congress despite no referral from the legislative body.

“It would have no legal effect, just political ones,” echoed Randall Eliason, a George Washington University criminal law professor. “And Congress wouldn’t be telling the DOJ anything it doesn’t already know, or that it couldn’t tell the DOJ without a referral. So I still feel like the costs outweigh any benefits.”

Garland emphasized Friday that he’s already aware of Carter’s ruling on Trump, telling reporters at a press conference that he had seen news coverage of the decision. He said that external factors would not influence DOJ’s prosecution decisions in relation to the Jan. 6 probe.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/04/jan-6-panel-trump-criminal-referral-00022470

Yes, Trump and troops will say it's political, partisan, a witch-hunt. But they've been saying all that from day 1 of the Committee creation. But without a criminal referral, the claims are political; Congress is just doing its job. With a referral, Congress oversteps its authority and the claims become fact.

[BigBearJohn]

19. Rep. Luria: Jan. 6 Committee Has 'Responsibility' To Refer Crimes To DOJ

[Brainfodder]

21. RIOTS if no referral, pretty damn obvious?

[Scrivener7]

22. If they have found the crime, and they announced they have,

they HAVE to refer.