General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhere the Justice Department is headed
Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2022, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)
from CNN:
May 9 - Federal grand juries have met every day since mid-April in the downtown Washington courthouse, approving indictments related to January 6 nearly every day. Prosecutors assigned to these cases and law enforcement witnesses frequently pop in and out of the confidential proceedings.
As of last week, prosecutors have signed up more than 10 defendants as cooperators against Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, whose leaders are charged with separate conspiracy allegations. The case against the Oath Keepers has taken several steps forward in recent days, with two new cooperators against Rhodes and others announced in the past week.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has publicly professed the investigation would proceed methodically. In most criminal investigations, that often means prosecutors pursue less significant figures to plead guilty and potentially cooperate as they gradually build evidence for higher-profile cases. Garland specifically noted in January that the federal evidence-collection efforts would dig into both physical and digital evidence and money.
Federal investigators also have sought to bolster the conspiracy cases by drawing connections to violence that occurred at other rallies in the weeks before January 6, according to the sources and court filings. DOJ officials believe that could help prosecutors show there was a pattern of violence, and that the Capitol riot wasn't just a spontaneous event, sources say.
In court last week, prosecutors also disclosed how the Oath Keepers' leader Stewart Rhodes called an unnamed person on speakerphone from a hotel suite on the evening of January 6, asking to speak directly to Trump and urging the person to tell Trump to call upon groups like the Oath Keepers to "forcefully oppose the transfer of power."
Prosecutors have said they expect to bring more charges against people affiliated with extremist groups. Grand jury activity continues apace. And investigators are talking to a wide range of people, including organizers of pro-Trump rallies that preceded the US Capitol attack, while seeking information about attempts to impede the certification of President Joe Biden's electoral win.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/09/politics/oath-keepers-january-6-election-fraud-trump/index.html
...from May:
Federal investigation into Trump fake elector probe expands to multiple states
(CNN)Federal investigators have interviewed Republicans in Georgia about interactions with people in former President Donald Trump's orbit and his 2020 reelection campaign, as the Justice Department's sprawling criminal probe into efforts to put forth alternate slates of electors to displace Joe Biden electors expands to multiple states.
Investigators have sought answers this month from Gartland and others connected to the GOP in Georgia and in Michigan -- both in FBI interviews and in grand jury subpoenas for documents and testimony. Investigators are looking at whether the Trump campaign played a role in the submission of false election certificates, according to people approached by the Justice Department.
The federal probe's aggressiveness in the battleground states around the electors issue has not been previously reported. The DOJ has charged hundreds of rioters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and in recent months, investigators have broadened their scope, seeking information about people in more politically connected circles.
The subpoenas also seek any communications with more than two dozen named Trump campaign officials, attorneys and Georgia electors. CNN reported Wednesday that a recent subpoena related to the alternate electors sought communications with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Trump campaign lawyer Justin Clark, right-wing attorney John Eastman and others.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics/doj-georgia-republicans-trump-fake-elector-probe/index.html
There are other things to watch (Katelyn Polantz, CNNs senior reporter for crime and justice's read in on whats happened and what to expect) ...
CNN - As for complex investigations that cross more into elite political circles, we know the DOJ is asking witnesses not only about the Trump electors, but also about the organizing of the pro-Trump rally on January 6, and about members of the government who may have tried to obstruct the 2020 presidential vote result. Those investigations touch on many, many players potentially up to and including Trump.
Theres always been a bit of a disconnect between the public perception of this investigation and the actual steps being taken in it. Theres ample criticism of Garland being slow and not aggressive, but the Justice Department has charged more than 800 defendants and secured guilty pleas from more than a third of those. That is a massive undertaking for the adjudication of justice. It is the largest federal investigation in history.
The crime of the breach of Congress occurred on January 6, 2021, and it was shortly after the one-year anniversary that we saw the DOJs first seditious conspiracy charge land. That was also when we picked up indications that the investigation had expanded outside of just those on the grounds that day and into political circles.
As any prosecutor will tell you, investigations take time. The DOJ has five years, under the law, to investigate and prosecute as they see fit. We just reached the end of the first quarter.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/were-learning-a-lot-more-about-the-dojs-january-6-investigations/ar-AAYcc4j?ocid=BingNewsSearch
gab13by13
(21,283 posts)DOJ has to work its way from the bottom up. DOJ has to prosecute the pawns before it investigates the ring leaders. I say bull shit.
IF DOJ had information that Donald Trump tried to overturn the election in Georgia, tried to reverse the vote count, DOJ should have investigated that immediately. Ask any prosecutor what happens when investigations into crimes are postponed for a year or more. People's memory fades, evidence get destroyed, evidence gets doctored, perps of the crime have time to get their lying stories straight.
Name me one prosecutor who believes it is better to wait to investigate a possible crime.
DOJ should have known about the fake electors a year and a half ago because the National Archives refused to accept the fake documents. Once DOJ was aware that states were sending in bogus documents it should have opened up an investigation. The only reason that DOJ is investigating the fake electors is because the national Archives issued DOJ a criminal referral.
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)I know that was congressional.
bigtree
(85,984 posts)...more than two years, and wasn't actually completed because Nixon resigned.
Former chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, former domestic policy advisor John Ehrlichman, and former attorney general and Nixon campaign manager John Mitchell were tried and convicted in '75.
Scrivener7
(50,934 posts)apply here. Yet. It may in the future, but we don't know about any of that yet.
The ones who planned and executed the break-in, the actual crime, were convicted 7 months after the break-in.
Though when I point this out, the conversation always changes and I am told that it is silly to compare this to watergate, which I agree with.
bigtree
(85,984 posts)...sedition charges brought against them just last month, with trials as early as April.
The actual crime began in 1971.
Nixon and his staff recruited a team of ex-FBI and CIA operatives, later referred to as the Plumbers to investigate the leaked publication of the Pentagon Papers. On September 9, the "plumbers" break into the office of Daniel Ellsbergs psychiatrist, in an unsuccessful attempt to steal psychiatric records to smear Daniel Ellsberg, the defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press.
May 28, 1972
Liddys team breaks into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. for the first time, bugging the telephones of staffers.
June 17, 1972
Five men are arrested after breaking into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. Among the items found in their possession were bugging devices, thousands of dollars in cash and rolls of film. Days later, the White House denied involvement in the break-in.
January 30, 1973
Seven months after the break in, former Nixon aide and FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy and James McCord, an ex-CIA agent and former security director of the Committee to Re-elect the President are convicted for their roles in the break-in at the Watergate complex. They are found guilty of conspiracy, bugging DNC headquarters, and burglary. Four others, including E. Howard Hunt, had already plead guilty. Judge John J. Sirica threatens the convicted burglars with long prison sentences unless they talk.
(((These aren't senior WH aides. They're not even in the Executive Branch. It's John Dean blowing the lid off of the WH coverup which most people regard as analogous to anything Trump is facing. That's the level of convictions we're talking about here)))
March 21, 1973
In a White House meeting, White House Counsel John Dean tells Nixon, We have a cancerwithinclose to the Presidency, thats growing. He and Nixon discuss how to pay the Watergate bribers as much as $1 million in cash to continue the cover-up.
March 23, 1973
Watergate burglar James McCords letter confessing the existence of a wider conspiracy is read in open court by Judge Sirica. The Watergate cover-up starts to unravel.
April 6, 1973
Dean begins cooperating with Watergate prosecutors.
April 9, 1973
The New York Times reports that McCord told the Senate Watergate Committee that a Republican group, the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) had made cash payoffs to the Watergate burglars.
April 27, 1973
Acting FBI director L. Patrick Gray resigns after admitting that he destroyed documents given to him by John Dean days after the Watergate break-in.
April 30, 1973
The Watergate scandal intensifies as Nixon announces that White House aides John Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman have resigned. White House counsel John Dean is fired. (In October that year, Dean would plead guilty to obstruction of justice.) Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resigns. Later that night, Nixon delivers his first primetime address to the nation on Watergate, stressing his innocence.
(THIS is the point where the WH is in deep shit, not when the burglars got caught)
https://www.history.com/topics/watergate-scandal-timeline-nixon
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)bigtree
(85,984 posts)...we might yet see one in the hearing in the House with one or more depositions.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)He was pardoned by Jerry Ford who then lost to Jimmy Carter in no small part due to that. I don't necessarily think people would be happy with a pardon of Trump even though that means admitting guilt. I don't think Trump would accept a pardon. If we do nothing we are signaling that we could potentially allow this to happen again. And that is the precarious rock and hard place we find ourselves between.
bigtree
(85,984 posts)...he'll be prosecuted in this Democratic president's term.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)bigtree
(85,984 posts)Joe Biden says he would not pardon Trump
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)former9thward
(31,963 posts)Of course they ignore the fact the DOJ was controlled by the same party as those being investigated. They were investigating the boss with all the limitations that brings.
Currently we have just the opposite. But I guess that does not mean anything because it doesn't fit the timeline.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)He is standing on tradition I think.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)I personally do not see any significant indictments (for serious crimes) coming out of the DOJ for this episode. They will concentrate on the loser nobodies that no one knows or cares about.
bigtree
(85,984 posts)...
On Jan. 13, the Justice Department indicted 56-year-old Stewart Rhodes, head of the extremist group the Oath Keepers, and 10 others whom prosecutors say were the tip of the spear of the Capitol riot. The monumental lead count of the 17-count indictment alleges that he and his co-defendants, along with unnamed others, were part of a seditious conspiracy.
According to Harvard University law professor Laurence H. Tribe, the indictment of Rhodes and other Oath Keepers "confirms that the Justice Department believes the plotters of the Capitol siege specifically intended to overturn the election, prevent the lawful transition of power and shatter our democracy."
"In addition, the new conspiracy charge sends a message that the prosecutorial door to everyone involved in the seditious scheme has officially swung open," Tribe argues. "...it shows the Justice Department is indeed methodically working its way up the chain of command of what it believes to be an exquisitely organized, multipronged plot."
That crime is, in effect, treasons sibling. Under 18 USC §2384, seditious conspiracy is an attempt to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or... by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States. It is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
This historic indictment creates an enormous incentive for the defendants to cooperate with the government and help fulfill Attorney General Merrick Garlands Jan. 5 commitment to hold all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. Four other Oath Keepers (actually 10 to date) are already cooperating.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-indictment-puts-january-6-plotters-notice-ncna1287540
Scrivener7
(50,934 posts)executed the crime were convicted.
It took longer to get others, but they were convicted for hindering the investigation. So far, that doesn't apply here.
bigtree
(85,984 posts)...no one in the Executive Branch was implicated until John Dean testified against them.
The people you're bandying about were henchmen, ex CIA and the like.
The prosecutions didn't reach the Nixon WH until AFTER the coverup was revealed, much later. April 6, 1973 to be precise. When John Dean begins cooperating with Watergate prosecutors.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)We've had digital evidence of a crime since the day this happened.
bigtree
(85,984 posts)...I don't understand the implication of folks thinking they should skip over perps and just throw out charges like they're sure to stick.
As these reports tell us, the DOJ is looking at the link between the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers (who have just been arraigned at the apex of prosecuting actual participants in the Capitol breach), and connecting those prosecutions to Trump.
It's as if critics want to prosecute on the bits and pieces which are revealed in the press and in court appearances, and leave the rest that is just coming out of appeals, challenges, and testimony on the table.
It makes no sense to leave evidence behind and just push forward as if a guilty verdict by a jury is preordained. They're doing what good prosecutors do: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads., and it appears to be closer to Trump than it's been so far, even in this committee which has run into all of the same challenges, objections, and appeals.
AZSkiffyGeek
(11,001 posts)Look at how quickly Kyle Rittenhouse was charged for murder!
bigtree
(85,984 posts)...tainted evidence because of Congress's actions, unusable in court.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)They are Congress. What about the poison fruit from them?
bigtree
(85,984 posts)...no such conflict with the Jan. 6 committee's witness depositions.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)We don't know about what has been said or under what conditions. I read countless posts about various people who allegedly "have told everything" in their testimony. How do you know there was no immunity?
bigtree
(85,984 posts)...that simple.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)He's on a recording asking Brad Raffnesperger to find more votes in GA. It doesn't seem like they are interested in prosecuting him at all.
bigtree
(85,984 posts)... but the Brad Raffnesperger thing in GA. is being adjudicated right now by another grand jury.
Georgia elections official who harshly criticized Trump to testify to grand jury
Gabriel Sterling, a Republican, was the voting system implementation manager in Georgia during the 2020 election, which Trump lost. In press conferences on Dec. 1 of that year and Jan. 4, 2021, he harshly criticized Trump in response to what he said were false claims about voter fraud and threats to the state's election workers.
Now, a year and a half later, Sterling is set to address the grand jury considering whether Trump should be charged for his behavior in the days and weeks following his 2020 loss in Georgia.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/georgia-elections-official-who-harshly-criticized-trump-to-testify-to-grand-jury/ar-AAYbY5Q
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who former President Donald Trump asked to "find" 11,780 votes ahead of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, will appear in one of the House committee's upcoming public hearings
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/georgia-secretary-of-state-brad-raffensperger-to-testify-in-jan-6-hearing/ar-AAYfaRn
crickets
(25,959 posts)Novara
(5,837 posts)Here's a thought:
What if?
What if the orange motherfucker doesn't get convicted but everyone below him does? And I mean everyone, including the corrupt congresspeople who were doing his bidding as well as all the bubbas who participated in the coup. What if this is what wakes up the cult? What if they realize they were played, that they acted under his encouragement but he was just using them all the while, and they're the only people facing prison? So why the fuck would they follow an emperor with no clothes? Why would congresspeople support him if, when they do, they go to prison? Why would bubbas do his bidding if they go to prison?
Is that even remotely possible?
Ah hell, even if it isn't, it's enjoyable to imagine him losing ALL of his support and being ignored.