CONFIRMED: DOJ has declined to charge Mark MEADOWS and Dan SCAVINO with contempt of Congress...

[demmiblue]

CONFIRMED: DOJ has declined to charge Mark MEADOWS and Dan SCAVINO with contempt of Congress for declining to testify to the Jan. 6 select committee.

Story TK w/ @joshgerstein @nicholaswu12

Matching scoop by @alanfeuer @lukebroadwater

The news was communicated to Congress by U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves, who delivered it in correspondence to House Counsel Doug Letter earlier Friday. The news came at the same time DOJ opted to charge Peter Navarro with contempt.

Link to tweet

[JohnSJ]

1. Why not?

[agingdem]

3. because they've flipped..

they've given the J6 committee what they asked for which was the point of the contempt charge...this does not exonerate them from the bigger picture, the coup...

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. Hope so.

[agingdem]

10. Meadows is in Garlands's sight..

the J6 committee contempt of congress referral is "small potatoes" compared to the blizzard of evidence against Meadows...and nothing says "cooperate or else" like Navarro's humiliating arrest..

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. Like I said, I cant WAIT to do this

I was wrong...

I was god damn wrong...

I was fucking wrong...
I was wrong...

I was god damn wrong...

I was fucking wrong...
I was wrong...

I was god damn wrong...

I was fucking wrong...
I was wrong...

I was god damn wrong...

I was fucking wrong...


For context I predicted neither trump or any high-up's would go to jail. Or even be indicted. I said this over and over in large part to MAKE THE POINT that we sure as hell BETTER be indicting them, and maybe get people mad.

Fingers crossed!

[BlackSkimmer]

13. Ditto.

All the way.

I hope we get to say this.

[JohnSJ]

27. Thanks. Excellent point

[UTUSN]

32. Oh, OK

[gab13by13]

2. Merrick Garland is an institutionalist,

he believes that conversations between a president and chief of staff are sacred.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. You've got a link to support that assertion, right? Nt

[gab13by13]

14. I know what an institutionalist is,

it is why Garland is defending the office of the presidency for Donald Trump v E. Jeanne Carroll in her defamation law suit. Garland did not have to defend Trump (the office) in the E. Jeanne Carrol case, but he did.

When DOJ indicts Navarro for seditious conspiracy or obstructing or impeding an official act of Congress get back with me.

The select committee has plenty of evidence of crimes from many people, too bad the select committee is just a legislative committee.

[agingdem]

9. not really..

the contempt of congress charge was a ploy to get them to flip, to get the documents they asked for..you can bet the J6 committee lawyers let Meadows/ Scavino attorneys know they really don't need their testimony because they already have a shit-ton of corroborating evidence, but it would be to their advantage to cooperate...

do not come down on Garland..he did the right thing...

[gab13by13]

18. What good will it do

if Navarro turns documents over to the select committee?

[agingdem]

19. because the DOJ has requested all

J6 committee documents be turned over...

[gab13by13]

23. The select committee refused.

[agingdem]

26. no..Thompson backtracked..

said he would turn them over after the hearings...

[Pobeka]

15. Perhaps not when they are conspiring to overthrow the government?

Everyone has limits.

[agingdem]

28. Garland knows the old rules no longer apply

when the president and the chief of staff conspire to overthrow an election/incite an insurrection

[BlackSkimmer]

4. Sadly, I'm not in the least surprised.

Where are all the posters who told us Meadows et al were going down?

[agingdem]

11. A contempt of congress referral is nothing compared

to DOJ felony conviction...one does not preclude the other...

[bucolic_frolic]

5. It would slow them down at this point

What they already have from them is sufficient. Subtly, they have rewarded those who cooperated and arrested those who didn't.

[agingdem]

17. a not so subtle warning

Jordan, Perry, McCarthy, Biggs, Brooks give us what we want or you're fucked..does the name Peter Navarro ring a bell??

[gab13by13]

20. Those people have a 50-50 chance they won't be indicted.

If the GQP takes back the House, those people are safe.

[agingdem]

25. it hasn't happened yet..

Biden is still the President and Garland is still Attorney General..relax..

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Meadows has much bigger things to worry about than a contempt charge. Nt

[BlackSkimmer]

16. Absolutely nothing is going to happen to him.

And you can "take that to the bank."

[agingdem]

21. not ready to make a deposit..

Garland's going after Trump..Meadows is talking but he will not walk..he was coup central, he shredded documents..that a federal no-no..

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. How about I just save it for later, in case you're proven wrong? Nt

[TeamProg]

22. Charging them with contempt might just SLOW too many things down. Meadows will be

charged with FAR MORE SERIOUS crimes!

(and for voter fraud for not actually living where he was registered, ooops)

[gab13by13]

24. Meadows is above the law.

[gab13by13]

30. When Republicans obstruct everything,

I can't understand why 10 GQP Senators voted to confirm Merrick Garland.

I can't understand why Mike Lee wanted Donald Trump to appoint Merrick Garland to replace James Comey.

I believe that Garland is an honest dedicated civil servant, but he is a self-avowed institutionalist.

[SoonerPride]

31. I'm shocked.

Shocked I tell you.