Maybe that DOJ letter did the trick

[bigtree]

WASHINGTON — June 17 The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack could start sharing some transcripts of witness interviews with federal prosecutors as early as next month as Justice Department officials ratchet up public pressure on the panel to turn over the documents.

Prosecutors have previously said that the committee planned to publicly release the documents requested in September.

“The select committee is engaged in a cooperative process to address the needs of the Department of Justice,” said a spokesman for the committee, Tim Mulvey. “We are not inclined to share the details of that publicly. We believe accountability is important and won’t be an obstacle to the department’s prosecutions.”

The letter on Wednesday came about two months after department officials sent their first written request for transcripts. On April 20, Mr. Graves and Kenneth A. Polite Jr., the assistant attorney general for the criminal division, wrote to the panel and said that some transcripts “may contain information relevant to a criminal investigation we are conducting.”

Prosecutors are also examining whether laws were broken in the weeks before the attack as Mr. Trump’s allies looked to far-fetched legal arguments and voter fraud conspiracy theories as they sought to keep him in power. Prosecutors have subpoenaed information related to some of the lawyers who worked on those efforts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/us/politics/jan-6-committee-transcripts.html

Link to tweet

[Ohio Joe]

2. What they are/have been trying to get here is pretty specific...

See here for more details:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216811794

[msfiddlestix]

4. ty.. n/t

t

[onenote]

3. You could not be more wrong.

The DOJ has been conducting more extensive investigations than the Committee and for a longer time. Take just one case -- the one against the Proud Boys. The original complaint was sworn out against one PB leader in February 2001 -- less than a month after the insurrection. A month later, a grand jury returned a four count indictment against the Ethan Nordean. The DOJ continued to investigate, leading to three superseding indictments returned by two different grand juries to which DOJ presented evidence. The case now has six defendants and nine counts, including the big one -- seditious conspiracy. To get to this point, DOJ collected a vast amount of testimonial and documentary evidence -- even breaking the encryption on phones owned by some of the insurrectionists. The amount of material that DOJ has had to turn over to the defendants pursuant a discovery order measures in the hundreds of thousands of pages.

All of this is public information -- you can review the history of the PB case (which is a necessary predicate to going after Trump for seditious conspiracy) here https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59704100/united-states-v-nordean/?page=3

Does that sound like the work of a bunch of trump loyalists? You should delete your post.

[msfiddlestix]

5. Looks like I stand corrected.

I'll just keep my perceptions to myself, and when all this fades into history, like the Mueller investigations/report...

I'll just remember how wrong I was.

thanks for the advice. I'll delete my post.

[KS Toronado]

6. Right here is an example of the difference between Ds & Rs

We can admit when we make an error, repugs will circle their wagons around a liar and make
all kinds of accusations in their defense and play the victim. Not picking on you msfiddlestix,
but admiring your truthfulness.

[Joinfortmill]

7. They'll work it out. For me, it was good news. It means DOJ is on this.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. This part from the tweet is interesting

DOJ explained that it cannot identify which witnesses made which statements because grand jury testimony is not public, which makes me think the committee is asking for this information.

I remember an article where supposedly Chair Bennie Thompson had a remark (I think to a reporter's question) of something along the line of the request being (paraphrased) "overly broad" and had not been made by someone they were familiar with. This was before his more widely reported comment about "not sharing work product".

So I think the issue is obviously of DOJ not being permitted to be specific about "WHO" due to that person being a subject of (or possibly a participant witness in) a grand jury vs the Committee (or more accurately, their staff) sifting through the statements from over 1000 people to transcribe and shovel over to DOJ.

As a note, part of Thompson's standard gavelling in and opening of the Committee business, has included this statement (taken from the CSPAN transcripts of the hearings, e.g., https://www.c-span.org/video/?520804-1/hearing-investigation-capitol-attack) -

PURSUANT TO HOUSE DEPOSITION AUTHORITY REGULATION CAN, THE CHAIR ANNOUNCES THE COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL TO RELEASE THE DEPOSITION MATERIAL PRESENTED DURING TODAY'S HEARING.

So I don't know if that means "immediately" or "upon request at some point in the future".

I do recall some commentary that DOJ was basically "working from the bottom up" and the J6 Committee apparently "from the top down".

[usonian]

9. The committee can't do fun stuff like hacking and offering plea bargains and so on.

And the DOJ can't talk about what they're doing. Yet.

[UTUSN]

10. Fine now let's get the cmte Report in Pentagon Papers format