Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 09:20 AM Jun 2022

No signs of a DOJ investigation?

emptywheel @emptywheel
14 months after DOJ seized 16 of Rudy's devices, 11 months after DOJ ensued they could get a privilege review on Trump materials, 9 months after Judge Oetken ordered Rudy privilege review go through April 2021, ...

... 9 months after Sidney Powell's associates went to the press about subpoenas, 7 months after DOJ subpoenaed Bannon's lawyer's comms going back BEFORE Jan6 Committee, 6 months after Mark Meadows started making materials accessible to DOJ, ...

...5 months after Lisa Monaco stated clearly they were going after the fake electors, and 2 months after Ali Alexander ran to the press about HIS subpoena, @neal_katyal says there's no evidence of any of that.


Neal K. Katyal in NYT:



thread:



Katyal's opinion piece
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/opinion/future-criminal-case-against-trump.html
36 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No signs of a DOJ investigation? (Original Post) bigtree Jun 2022 OP
Paywall at NY Times Tetrachloride Jun 2022 #1
It is Neal Katyal's piece and he's been pretty vocal about thinking DOJ is "on it"... hlthe2b Jun 2022 #3
ty as always for your well considered remarks and links Tetrachloride Jun 2022 #5
I have a free subscription until Dec. 2023 Sympthsical Jun 2022 #18
No paywall link Nevilledog Jun 2022 #28
Just my opinion... kentuck Jun 2022 #2
Neil has as much as alluded to this. Garland/DOJ needs the public to be at least "prepped' for hlthe2b Jun 2022 #4
Very good point. OLDMDDEM Jun 2022 #6
Why would Trump sign an agreement admitting to crimes? brooklynite Jun 2022 #15
the agreement could then be held by the courts and not made public. OLDMDDEM Jun 2022 #17
Why would there be a "secret" agreement? This isn't the way criminal justice works. brooklynite Jun 2022 #19
Never mind OLDMDDEM Jun 2022 #20
I did some study on this OLDMDDEM Jun 2022 #32
But he hasn't, and he won't.... brooklynite Jun 2022 #33
I agree with you OLDMDDEM Jun 2022 #34
"Found" doesn't mean "The Committee decides" brooklynite Jun 2022 #35
I understand that. OLDMDDEM Jun 2022 #36
Perhaps not only the public needs to be informed and prepared... OneGrassRoot Jun 2022 #7
DOJ isn't coordinating their investigation with Congress bigtree Jun 2022 #9
I agree with all of this Novara Jun 2022 #16
I think you make a good argument. Irish_Dem Jun 2022 #14
+1, ... in this case "no surprises" is better than allowing MAGA Media to set the narrative for TFG uponit7771 Jun 2022 #24
Takes time to get the lower tier Trumpers to fess'up and implicate others higher up the food chain. machoneman Jun 2022 #8
Plus the DOJ convened Grand Jury(ies) in February Fiendish Thingy Jun 2022 #10
yep, and much of this testimony can be folded into those prosecutions bigtree Jun 2022 #12
Great posts by emptywheel. She's on top of all this. Thanks for posting n/t emulatorloo Jun 2022 #11
she's a great follow on Twitter NewJeffCT Jun 2022 #13
according to a senior doj official..... getagrip_already Jun 2022 #21
the online news director for The New Yorker said that? bigtree Jun 2022 #22
I am now hopeful . . . . . Stinky The Clown Jun 2022 #23
I saw you snarking it up in another thread with that line bigtree Jun 2022 #25
Do you really think I am unaware of that? Stinky The Clown Jun 2022 #26
it's not really a strong point bigtree Jun 2022 #27
Strong enuf to cause you to reply. Stinky The Clown Jun 2022 #29
that old reply? bigtree Jun 2022 #30
yeahsurewhateverseeyabye Stinky The Clown Jun 2022 #31

hlthe2b

(102,254 posts)
3. It is Neal Katyal's piece and he's been pretty vocal about thinking DOJ is "on it"...
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 09:34 AM
Jun 2022

Very difficult to do justice to the full piece in this snip, but some days I appreciate the exorbitant $$ I pay for digital access to NYT and WAPO. Sorry... I get it.

snip....


But we’ve seen no signs of such an investigation. Ordinarily, 17 months after a crime, one would expect to see some signs of an inquiry. Witnesses before grand juries wind up talking to the media, for example, or those witnesses may file court actions to try to block the investigation. None of that appears to have happened.

Then again, this isn’t a normal investigation. Mr. Garland has known from the start that Congress is investigating the whole set of facts involving an attack on its own seat of government, and he may have made the conscious choice to hold off until he sees what Congress has developed.

Public hearings serve a subtle function. They permit the minds of the American people to acculturate to the facts and evidence. By laying out the facts that explain what Trump did, the Jan. 6 hearings can in advance help acclimate the public to why the Justice Department has to take criminal action against the former president. The hearings may afford the department a deeper and public explanation of its reasoning than an indictment out of the blue would offer. Public sentiment of this kind could help insulate the department against a claim that it is politically motivated. These hearings may prove to be a bridge between the Justice Department and the public.

--snip--
Now consider that elusive third audience: the eyes of history. On the one hand, Mr. Garland has to fear being seen as political, and on the other, he knows that the rule of law requires him to bring an indictment if the evidence shows Mr. Trump committed one of the most serious crimes against the United States in our history. Trying to game history is a notoriously fraught enterprise, but it seems certain that if Mr. Garland is to be the first attorney general to bring criminal charges against a former president, having the facts surfaced first by a bipartisan congressional committee would be enormously helpful and provide an evidentiary record that the public today, and historians in the future, could examine.

Sympthsical

(9,073 posts)
18. I have a free subscription until Dec. 2023
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 10:36 AM
Jun 2022

I just had to go back to college to get it.

Which, oddly, is probably much cheaper.

kentuck

(111,092 posts)
2. Just my opinion...
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 09:32 AM
Jun 2022

But I think the DOJ has looked at this investigation very differently than investigations in the past. They have decided to let the Congress investigate the matter because they were better equipped to get the information out to the public. And the public needed to be persuaded as much as possible before the DOJ indicted anyone, otherwise it would have been seen as nothing more than a political ploy by Joe Biden's Justice Department.

Also, they expect the Committee to turn over all their evidence to the DOJ very soon so they can continue the criminal part of the investigation.

This was not a common investigation. It required a different approach, in my opinion.

hlthe2b

(102,254 posts)
4. Neil has as much as alluded to this. Garland/DOJ needs the public to be at least "prepped' for
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 09:36 AM
Jun 2022

what may follow and they benefit immensely from the work Congress has done/is doing. The 01/06 Committee is providing the best "cover" from accusations of political prosecution that they can hope for.

OLDMDDEM

(1,573 posts)
6. Very good point.
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 09:38 AM
Jun 2022

I have to agree with you. I believe Trump will be indicted, however, I do not think there will be a trial. I believe the DOJ will have him sign papers agreeing to the different frauds committed, and an agreement that he will not be eligible to hold public office ever again.

brooklynite

(94,535 posts)
15. Why would Trump sign an agreement admitting to crimes?
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 10:27 AM
Jun 2022

And said agreement wouldn't make him ineligible to run for office; it could only capture his agreement not to run.

OLDMDDEM

(1,573 posts)
17. the agreement could then be held by the courts and not made public.
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 10:34 AM
Jun 2022

I agree with you. A convict can run for president but if this form is signed and agreed to, doesn't it become part of his agreement that he is a convict and part of the terms of this agreement is that he cannot run for office.

OLDMDDEM

(1,573 posts)
20. Never mind
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 10:46 AM
Jun 2022

If he signs an agreement that he did x,y, and z, then he is a convicted felon. Whether the agreement is secret or public, I don't really care, shows he did what the good guys say he did. He would want it not made public because of his huge ego. That is all.

OLDMDDEM

(1,573 posts)
32. I did some study on this
Thu Jun 16, 2022, 12:55 PM
Jun 2022

If it is proven he incited the insurrection, he would be disqualified from holding office again.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:​

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

OLDMDDEM

(1,573 posts)
34. I agree with you
Thu Jun 16, 2022, 01:32 PM
Jun 2022

But, if he is found to have instigated the insurrection, he would be ineligible to hold public office again. I believe I am reading the 14th Amendment correctly.

I agree with you about the other day, but this section would eliminate any doubts about his eligibility.

OneGrassRoot

(22,920 posts)
7. Perhaps not only the public needs to be informed and prepared...
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 09:45 AM
Jun 2022

but any potentially rational, currently serving Republican politicians. I hadn't thought about that until just now, but no doubt many congresspersons and other elected officials are being exposed to this information, perhaps for the first time if they've chosen to be ostriches thus far, not to mention the new information being brought forth by the committee. The bipartisan nature of the committee could reach more than the general public...perhaps.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
9. DOJ isn't coordinating their investigation with Congress
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 09:49 AM
Jun 2022

...they have their own evidence stream which is obviously enhanced by the work Congress is doing.

DOJ is limited by the way their cases move through courts. They need their grand juries to produce indictments, and they need perps to feel the weight of courts to compel more testimony, as well as obtain documents and other communications which further their prosecutions.

What the committee offers DOJ are ready-made depositions and testimony which would be a waste of time to duplicate, which they can add to their own pile of evidence and advance their continuing investigation. Some of what Congress is producing may well be the first DOJ has seen, but there is certainly a body of evidence DOJ isn't revealing outside of court.

That may be why the Jan. 6 committee hasn't yet released witness transcripts to the DOJ, and why prosecutors are watching the hearings for something which would add to their prosecutions and investigations.

The caution in sharing the material may be prudent, as prosecutors would be compelled to share any evidence they have with perps in discovery.

Also Chairman Thompson makes the testimony of the day available after each hearing, and DOJ can use that in their prosecutions without any fanfare.

Novara

(5,842 posts)
16. I agree with all of this
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 10:27 AM
Jun 2022

I noted that last night Lawrence O'Donnell quoted Garland as saying that he "and the J6 prosecutors are watching" the hearings. My ears perked up at "and the J6 prosecutors."

They're taking notes and getting ready to kick some ass.

uponit7771

(90,336 posts)
24. +1, ... in this case "no surprises" is better than allowing MAGA Media to set the narrative for TFG
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 12:10 PM
Jun 2022

machoneman

(4,007 posts)
8. Takes time to get the lower tier Trumpers to fess'up and implicate others higher up the food chain.
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 09:45 AM
Jun 2022

That said, one can bet both the DOJ and the committee have followed this playbook, granting immunity or suspended sentences in a trade for details.

While this method does produce results, many a 'small fry' will totally or near totally escape justice. I'd like to see ALL of these cretins convicted and jailed yet in the quest to get the 'big boys', many will not be charged. Guess that's what it takes to move up the food chain.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,606 posts)
10. Plus the DOJ convened Grand Jury(ies) in February
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 09:50 AM
Jun 2022

Confirmed by WaPo and NYT that they are calling witnesses from these categories:

Fraudulent electors scheme;
VIP section and planners of Stop The Steal rally;
Trump’s “inner orbit”

Lots of evidence of an investigation, just not lots of detailed public information.

As it should be.

NewJeffCT

(56,828 posts)
13. she's a great follow on Twitter
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 10:10 AM
Jun 2022

one of the sharpest legal minds out there, though she will deny it if you mention it (I did mention it & she replied to me that she was not)

getagrip_already

(14,743 posts)
21. according to a senior doj official.....
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 11:06 AM
Jun 2022

Well, according to a reporter who interviewed one, it's a last resort. They are afraid of swinging and missing.

Don't even ask what the first resorts are. It's disgusting.

https://www.rawstory.com/merrick-garland-jan-6-2657512768/

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
22. the online news director for The New Yorker said that?
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 11:48 AM
Jun 2022

...must be true (if RawStory reports it), and we should hang everything we actually know on that dubiously secondhand account of those two words.

Good catch.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
25. I saw you snarking it up in another thread with that line
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 12:42 PM
Jun 2022

...but this won't take years, it'll move at the pace of the court system, which will likely be months, with a lot of action in the coming weeks.

Bannon is in court today, Navarro Friday.

DOJ got arrests of the Oath Keepers in January and the cooperation of several in the following months.

Those arrests and that cooperation with DOJ led to the arrest of several Proud Boy participants in the Capitol invasion on June 6, and the reported cooperation of several of those perps, one more said just yesterday to be helping prosecutors.

'We the people' are mostly informed by Congress. That's their job.

The job of the DOJ is winning cases in court, which isn't an open process where they tell everyone listening, (proponents and perps alike) every detail of their investigations and prosecutions for them to second-guess and advantage themselves with.

Any smart prosecutor would be well aware of what Congress is doing right now, and adjust their investigations and actual cases they're working, right now in grand juries and courts, to the release of information by the congressional committee which the Chairman would not make available/has not made available to the DOJ before the hearings have revealed it all.

Every revelation, every interview, deposition, or testimony made public by Congress in the hearing is also going to be made available to actual perps in court through the press or through demanding that evidence in 'discovery' motions to the court.

Every document and other communications the DOJ presents in court, especially those involving the president will need to overcome challenges which don't take years, but may take weeks and even months to adjudicate through the courts.

Every piece of evidence needs to be processed through a court, somewhere, and that process takes time, and isn't as assured as presenting something in a hearing without consequence.

It takes more time than making a snarky post, for instance, or writing full length articles, as the pundits have, on their opinion of what DOJ is doing and should do. complete with something they heard someone say.

The DOJ's case against the Jan. 6 perps is in court, not just waiting for Congress to finish their presentation to 'tell us what's going on,' but to actually make that case to a judge and jury without putting on a show which will give everything away before they bring all the hammers down.


...from DOJ:

Monday, June 6, 2022
Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach

New Charges in Superseding Indictment

WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment today charging five members of the Proud Boys, including the group’s former national chairman, with seditious conspiracy and other charges for their actions before and during the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Their actions disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the presidential election.

The defendants include Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, 38, of Miami, Florida, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys; Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Washington; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Florida; Zachary Rehl, 37, of Philadelphia, and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, New York. All previously were indicted and remain detained. They pleaded not guilty to charges contained in earlier indictments.

The superseding indictment adds two charges to the earlier indictment: one count of seditious conspiracy, and one count of conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging any duties. All defendants now face a total of nine charges, and Pezzola faces an additional robbery charge. The defendants are scheduled to appear for a hearing on June 9, 2022, in the District of Columbia

According to court documents, the Proud Boys describe themselves as members of a “pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world, aka Western Chauvinists.” Through at least Jan. 6, 2021, Tarrio was the national chairman of the organization. In mid-December of 2020, Tarrio created a special chapter of the Proud Boys known as the “Ministry of Self Defense.” As alleged in the indictment, from in or around December 2020, Tarrio and his co-defendants, all of whom were leaders or members of the Ministry of Self Defense, conspired to prevent, hinder and delay the certification of the Electoral College vote, and to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States. On Jan. 6, 2021, the defendants directed, mobilized, and led members of the crowd onto the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol, leading to dismantling of metal barricades, destruction of property, breaching of the Capitol building, and assaults on law enforcement. During and after the attack, Tarrio and his co-defendants claimed credit for what had happened on social media and in an encrypted chat room.

A sixth defendant, who was earlier charged with the group, pleaded guilty on April 8, 2022. Charles Donohoe, 34, of Kernersville, North Carolina, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers.

read more: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-an-0


and, from January:

January 13, 2022
Leader of Oath Keepers and 10 Other Individuals Indicted in Federal Court for Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses related to U.S. Capitol Breach

WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment yesterday, which was unsealed today, charging 11 defendants with seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, which disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress that was in the process of ascertaining and counting the electoral votes related to the presidential election.

According to court documents, Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, 56, of Granbury, Texas, who is the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers; and Edward Vallejo, 63, of Phoenix, Arizona, are being charged for the first time in connection with events leading up to and including Jan. 6. Rhodes was arrested this morning in Little Elm, Texas, and Vallejo was arrested this morning in Phoenix.

In addition to Rhodes and Vallejo, those named in the indictment include nine previously charged defendants: Thomas Caldwell, 67, of Berryville, Virginia; Joseph Hackett, 51, of Sarasota, Florida; Kenneth Harrelson, 41, of Titusville, Florida; Joshua James, 34, of Arab, Alabama; Kelly Meggs, 52, of Dunnellon, Florida; Roberto Minuta, 37, of Prosper, Texas ; David Moerschel, 44, of Punta Gorda, Florida; Brian Ulrich, 44, of Guyton, Georgia, and Jessica Watkins, 39, of Woodstock, Ohio. In addition to the earlier charges filed against them, they now face additional counts for seditious conspiracy and other offenses.

Eight other individuals affiliated with the Oath Keepers, all previously charged in the investigation, remain as defendants in two related cases. All defendants – except Rhodes and Vallejo – previously were charged in a superseding indictment. The superseding indictment has now effectively been split into three parts: the 11-defendant seditious conspiracy case, a seven-defendant original case, and a third case against one of the previously charged defendants.

In one of the related cases, the original superseding indictment, charges remain pending against James Beeks, 49, of Orlando, Florida; Donovan Crowl, 51, of Cable, Ohio; William Isaacs, 22, of Kissimmee, Florida; Connie Meggs, 60, of Dunnellon, Florida; Sandra Parker, 63, of Morrow, Ohio; Bernie Parker, 71, of Morrow, Ohio, and Laura Steele, 53, of Thomasville, North Carolina. The other case charges Jonathan Walden, 57, of Birmingham, Alabama.

The three indictments collectively charge all 19 defendants with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. Eighteen of the 19 defendants – the exception is Walden – are charged with conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiring to prevent an officer of the United States from discharging a duty. Eleven of the 19 defendants are charged with seditious conspiracy. Some of the defendants are also facing other related charges.

read more: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-10-other-individuals-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy

Stinky The Clown

(67,798 posts)
26. Do you really think I am unaware of that?
Wed Jun 15, 2022, 02:58 PM
Jun 2022

I'll stick with my snark. Easy to understand and makes the point very clearly. Even you got it after checking in on me.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No signs of a DOJ investi...