General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnd people wonder why we're skeptical about DOJ prosecuting trump et al. Ask James Clyburn:
Rep. Jim Clyburn on CNN: "People are concerned that the Department of Justice may have too many carryovers from the last administration and [is] not moving in order to do what's needed to protect this democracy."
Link to tweet
?s=20&t=dp63tPh2bM_aXcmIGAHZkg
onecaliberal
(35,391 posts)BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)K and r.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Certainly the DOJ could have trusted teams on the case, right?
I'm not certain how one protects democracy by not moving forward?
I have nothing but the highest respect for James Clyburn, but I'm not understanding the reasoning here.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)I wish it were.
But it's not.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)The DOJ's job is to prosecute crimes.
If crimes have been committed, how does the existence of "holdovers" have any bearing on whether TFG is prosecuted (or not)?
W_HAMILTON
(8,285 posts)And if you think a Trump supporter will gladly prosecute other Trump supporting criminals, well, need anyone remind you of how these assholes treated Hillary and her emails back in the day? While at the same time withholding information on the existence of an investigation into Trump and his Russian ties?
Garland should have cleaned house, and if he was not up for the task, Biden should have found someone else who was.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)The "reminders" about how HRC may have been treated are simply not germane to the discussion at hand.
I asked about James Clyburn's reasoning here, which I'm failing to understand.
I feel like the Republic was spared from a terrible fate by the actions of Rep. Clyburn--and he has my undying gratitude for that--but if this Tweet is accurate (probably not a good assumption to make) I'd like to understand where he's coming from.
W_HAMILTON
(8,285 posts)it's not like Garland knows the ins and outs of every single case. It would be impossible. And if you trust Trump lackies to uphold the law fairly, you must have missed the past half-decade of them showing that they absolutely will not do so.
And how the same departments that we are now relying on to prosecute Trump-supporting criminals, how poorly they treated Hillary is very much germane to this discussion since you seem naive enough to think that what Clyburn and others like myself have told you is very much something to worry about. If they would be openly and flagrantly biased against Hillary and pull that shit they did in 2016, why in god's green Earth do you think they suddenly found their morals now when it comes to prosecuting Trump supporters? The same guy they shit on Hillary for to help win the election in 2016 to begin with?
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)I don't need the insults or the "education."
Trumpists don't run the DOJ. Merrick Garland is in charge.
I'm interested in James Clyburn's reasoning here (assuming the Tweet accurately reflects his position).
Good grief.
W_HAMILTON
(8,285 posts)If you refuse to accept the answer, just say that rather than playing naive in post after post.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)You just keep going with the baseless insults.
The DOJ is not dominated by Trumpists. Merrick Garland is in charge.
Magoo48
(5,069 posts)Garland decides. If he assigns someone to a task and they refuse to do that task responsibly, then he fires them and assigns the task to someone who will do it responsibly. Is this not the case? If not, then Garland is the problem and he needs to be fired and replaced with someone who will do the will of the majority.
Response to W_HAMILTON (Reply #22)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)Are you saying Mr. Clyburn didn't actually say it?
That's, ummmmmm, an interesting take.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)I asked what Rep. Clyburns reasoning is here.
No one seems to want to try to flesh it out and I don't understand it myself.
I guess bickering and trying to divine ill-intent is earlier than reasoned discussions?
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)and they are actively quashing pursuit of charges or slow walking the process so as to run out the clock.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)and that Merrick Garland is the current AG?
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)Rep. Clyburn is much closer to the situation than you or I and if he voicing this concern it is justified.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)The DOJ is not in the hands of Trumpists.
So I'm baffled by the argument, even when it is being made by a person I deeply admire.
Response to SoonerPride (Reply #18)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fiendish Thingy
(17,832 posts)If you can name one, feel free to post it.
None of the top DOJ leadership are Trump era holdovers (Wray at FBI doesnt count), and it was widely reported that investigators/prosecutors with special skills and expertise have been brought in from outside the DOJ for the J6 team. The US attorney for DC, Matthew Graves, is not a Trump lackey either, and he has primary authority over most of the investigations, IIRC.
JanMichael
(25,157 posts)Why bother with civilization? At least firefighters put out fires and doctors have the Hippocratic oath. Paramedics will try to get your heart pumping and librarians will help you find a book I suppose.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)Name me one time the DOJ held high officials accountable. Nixon was pardoned. They cut a sweet deal with Epstein. W walked on war crimes. Iran contra snagged a few underlings but no one at the top. The S&L scandals. And the list goes on. "holdovers" are the least of the problems with DOJ.
Evolve Dammit
(18,285 posts)Response to Evolve Dammit (Reply #29)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Grasswire2
(13,681 posts)leftstreet
(36,218 posts)Solly Mack
(92,226 posts)Thinking you can simply weather authoritarian oppression until the good times come back around in however many years it takes for that to happen is some truly delusional thinking.
This isn't a case of two parties having differing views on how to achieve a shared goal for America.
There are no shared goals for America with people who would impose theocratic/authoritarian laws.
They tried to overthrow the government. They committed sedition. They engaged in insurrection. They attempted a coup - one that is still ongoing, as republican controlled states work to further those aims.
They are working overtime to suppress the vote and control election outcomes.
They are attacking black and brown people, women, and LGBT people both by eroding their rights and through actual physical assaults and murder.
They are creating laws based on their twisted religious beliefs.
They are denying and erasing history to boost the doctrine of white supremacy.
Free-market and don't regulate anything but the uterus Republicans are so determined to impose authoritarian rule they are even attacking corporations for not bowing down to their twisted thinking.
So, sure, go ahead, don't indict, don't prosecute, don't imprison - but also don't tell me how outraged/shocked/surprised/concerned you are by what happens next.
(And I'm not saying they won't - I'm saying the price for not doing so is deadly.)
Evolve Dammit
(18,285 posts)EndlessWire
(7,162 posts)I have high doubts about a trial of the ex POTUS. We have a precedent of pardon.
But, I'm starting to think that he could get indicted. That's assuming that some Grand Jury agrees and is nonpartisan. I would like them to allow him to float away on some yacht parked down in that particular marina, just waiting for him. Just never let him ever dock at one of our ports again.
I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to see a perp walk. But, that should include all those guys who participated in the Georgia phone call, and some others. I don't think that we would have a problem trying them all for sedition.
I am encouraged because Garland took the time to announce that he is watching the J6 hearings. He seldom speaks, but did say that. The J6 hearings are not adversarial and can't be used for that, but they can be used by Garland. The testimonials are all under oath.
Joinfortmill
(16,120 posts)Justice matters.
(7,409 posts)That means half of the Grand Jurees plus one.
I doubt DC GJs would be partisan. They go through strict selection stages.
milestogo
(17,251 posts)jalan48
(14,257 posts)is undermining an investigation of Trump? This is THE investigation of the century.
Ohio Joe
(21,894 posts)How nice
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/biden-s-justice-department-ask-nearly-all-trump-era-u-n1257100
The two that were allowed to stay, were limited to avoid giving repugs the opportunity to cry 'cover up'. A smart move.
pwb
(12,142 posts)some people say? We caught it from the pukes. There is no vaccine. Reading and listening is the only cure.
dalton99a
(83,700 posts)Response to dalton99a (Reply #23)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)He says people are concerned, what people? He doesn't say he is concerned. He said, MAY have too many carryovers. He said, not doing what is needed to protect democracy. What does he mean by what is needed? It may be his way of putting pressure on the DOJ.
If he has serious concerns about the DOJ he should be more specific. Don't ya think.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)I will take Rep Clyburn's judgment over yours, to be honest.
But please do go on.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)You are the one making something out of nothing. If he has evidence the investigation is being blocked by Trump holdovers, he should present his evidence to The American people. When people say things like, some people and may have, that sounds more like an opinion, not a statement of fact.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)Orrex
(63,845 posts)While the DOJ cheerleaders among us assert as proof of progress the lack of any evidence that DOJ is doing anything at all.
To recap:
Clyburn presents no evidence, so we must disregard his statement.
and
There is no evidence that DOJ is acting against Trump, so we must not suggest that DOJ is not acting against Trump.
Got it.
Joinfortmill
(16,120 posts)I think Garland is on it.
Joinfortmill
(16,120 posts)Response to SoonerPride (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)work for the DOJ in Washington?
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)Unless Garland literally fired everyone at DOJ and started over with a clean slate then the entire DOJ is an amalgamation of prior staff hiring.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Response to Just A Box Of Rain (Reply #48)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)instead of good faith explanations about what Rep. Clyburn's reasoning might be around this comment.
So sorry if I'm attempting to understand where a man I respect is coming from on this issue.
Is that too much to ask for?
Response to Just A Box Of Rain (Reply #55)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)I have a sincere question that I don't understand with respect to James Clyburn's reasoning here.
Since I have very great respect for the man I hope to gain further insight into his thinking.
If that's unreasonable, shoot me.
Response to Just A Box Of Rain (Reply #59)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)comprised of friendly liberal Democrats.
Response to Just A Box Of Rain (Reply #61)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)The committee might as well cancel the rest of the hearings and Garland should down all the investigations into Jan 6th. What's the point if Trump hold overs are going to block everything.
MarineCombatEngineer
(14,293 posts)I've given up engaging them. it's, IMO, useless and I've got far better things to do.
Orrex
(63,845 posts)The fact that Trump isn't lawyering up with a media campaign specifically attacking the DOJ is a pretty solid indication that he's not worried about any imminent DOJ action against him, so...
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to be concerned that DOJ is doing little or nothing, regardless of what the scolding cheerleaders among us have to say on the matter.
Response to Orrex (Reply #45)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)Lonestarblue
(11,457 posts)possibility of misinterpretation. Like you, I dont know what exactly Rep. Clyburn was hinting at, but I have made several comments here about the perceived slowness of the investigation. I have believed from the beginning that Garland should have appointed a Special Prosecutor to immediately investigate January 6 and the attempts by anyone to instigate the efforts to prevent Biden from taking office. That he didnt and that we are sitting here a year and a half later does not inspire confidence that anything is being done other than prosecuting the people who were on video violently assaulting those trying to protect the Capitol and the building itself. Indeed, the suspicion is that Garland did not want to investigate the higher ups because of potential political fallout and only started to do so because of the revelations of the January 6 Committee. If so, that means many more months of investigation and testimony before anything will happen, at which point we could be running into a presidential election with Donald Trump as a candidate.
We now know that there is a grand jury because Peter Navarro was summoned to appear at the end of May, but he is the only one known to have been subpoenaed so far. One person who was not even the closest one to Trump. We do not know whether people much closer to Trump have also been summoned, such as Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pence, Ginni Thomas, White House aides, anyone who was regularly in the White House to January 6. That sort of information tends to leak because people talk, and it is Navarro who released his summons to the news media. Navarro refused to appear so his trial is not scheduled until several months from now. And theres DOJs refusal to hold Mark Meadows in contempt for refusing to cooperate with the January 6 Committee, thus stymying part of its investigation.
There are so many questions to which we have no answers, such as who provided the inside information about which windows were vulnerable. We know some investigations are going on, and
Im sure Rep. Clyburn knows far more about what is happening than I do, but I interpret his remarks to mean that the DOJ is moving at a snails pace and he wants to see some public progress. Hes questioning whether the DOJ has the right people on the job. Again, a Special Prosecutor would have been able to choose people outside the DOJ and thus outside the Trump orbit to do this investigation. That he didnt lends credence to the suspicion that people inside the DOJ are slow walking the investigation because certainly all the Trump/Barr hires were not fired. Most of the US Attorneys were asked to resign, but most of the US Attorneys would have nothing to do with this investigation. I have long believed that members of the FBI are primarily Republicanagain, just speculation on my part based on past actions like those of the NY FBI that fed negative information to Rudy about Clintons emailsbut that is not evidence that they are hampering the investigation.
The apparent lack of progress by the DOJ causes a great deal of concern for many people, and I suspect Rep. Clyburn may simply be voicing his concern publicly because he too is frustrated and hopes to light a fire under Garland. Garland is certainly not a politician, but he is a top official in the Biden administration and the lack of any obvious progress in holding anyone other than the foot soldiers accountable for the very serious crime of insurrection can lead many people, myself included, to wonder whether Garland has the guts to investigate and possibly indict a former president. Garlands lack of any indictments of the planners of January 6 has allowed Republicans the bullhorn for 18 months with no pushback other than various Democrats denying that the election was stolen. That, too, must gall Rep. Clyburn because he knows the likelihood of losses in the midterms and wants to see some progress before then. And then we have a presidential election where Trump could be the Republican candidate. Too many people fear that he will get a pass simply because its too difficult to prosecute a former president.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)I too wonder if--given the nature of the investigation--whether naming a Special Prosecutor in the case wouldn't have been wise. Garland would be criticised either way, but I'd have leaned that way.
If, as you suggest (and what I have believed with admittedly little evidence to back it) most of the US Attorneys who were named by Trump are now gone, it still leaves me curious about Rep. Clyburn's comments here suggesting a slow-walking of the case.
If Clyburn is feeling frustrated by the lack of progress and how that might affect the midterms, he's not alone. I could not respect Jim Clyburn more. That's why I wanted to understand where he's coming from here.
Balanced against these frustrations, Garland has a big job to do and it is one he needs to get right. Prosecuting a former president will be hard. I'm convinced it is also something that needs to happen for the good of the Republic. A nation of laws, and all that.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Thank you again for your informative post.
MarineCombatEngineer
(14,293 posts)I see what you did there.
Good one.
Orrex
(63,845 posts)Well, not entirely. The subject line was pretty solid. After that? Not so much.
Orrex
(63,845 posts)Colbert
(46 posts)Clyburn seems concerned about carryovers from the previous administration holding the prosecution up. Really, that's the concern? If I were the prosecutor I'd be more concerned about getting a conviction, otherwise why bother? All is takes is one juror holding out to keep a conviction from happening. If you have a truly representative jury, 47% of the jurors will be Trump supporters (who are idealistically rabid). And you might be thinking, "Well, DC is really anti-Trump (he only got 5.4% of the vote in 2020)" - but that's the same rationale any competent defense lawyer would use for a change of venue. Do you really need, or want, a show trial ending in a hung jury?
Response to Colbert (Reply #70)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Colbert
(46 posts)Realistically and pragmatically, there's a very big difference. The average juror doesn't recognize these names of the five that have been through jury trials:
Thomas Webster
Guy Reffitt
Thomas Robertson
Dustin Thompson
Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli
... all of whom were convicted on "lesser charges" (I hate putting it that way, but they're far short of sedition or insurrection) based on indisputable video/photo evidence of violent acts committed on the Capitol grounds, backed by eye witness testimony. They're nobodies without thousands, much less millions, of dollars to defend themselves in court.
Whereas, Donald Trump is someone who's name only the most clueless individuals would fail to recognize. He wasn't on the Capitol grounds on January 6th. He's beloved by his supporters, and if there's a single Trump supporter on the jury, it would take incontrovertible evidence that Trump directly ordered an overthrow of the government (and I have serious doubts that a Trump supporter would convict even under those circumstances). Plus Trump has almost a quarter billion dollars of fundraising to spend on his defense (more will come pouring in if he's charged).
I'm well aware that the latest polling shows that 3 in 5 Americans think he should be charged. The question is, "How are you planning to keep the other 2 in 5 off the jury?" ... and failing to convict only makes his influence stronger.
That's not to say he couldn't be tried on some lesser charge - like fundraising in bad faith ... but I don't see him ever being convicted of sedition/insurrection by a jury.
Response to Colbert (Reply #77)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
meadowlander
(4,671 posts)and removes them, at least temporarily from the equation.
What's needed to protect this democracy is the prosecute the people who attacked it.
pecosbob
(7,892 posts)Gotta call 'em like I see 'em. Their record shows it.