A question for the wait and see crowd,

[gab13by13]

Should the FBI be questioning the Mark Meadow's associate who sent the threat to Ms. Hutchinson? Should it wait so that the associate and Meadows can get their stories straight? Or maybe the associate will get a threat?

Maybe Mark Meadows, being a former Chief of Staff is off limits? DOJ has already failed to follow up on a criminal referral.

[Ohio Joe]

1. Does the DOJ know who that is yet?

As best I’ve heard this is something that just happened and happened in the scope of the committee’s work. If the committee has not given the DOJ the information yet… I’m not sure who they would talk to. I expect once they are given the evidence, they will do something with it… Until then, what do you think they should do?

[gab13by13]

3. Since you asked,

how many associates does Meadows have? Have the FBI talk to all of them and ask them. It is a crime to lie to the FBI.

DOJ has already refused to act on a criminal complaint for Mark Meadows.

[Ohio Joe]

6. So...

You want DOJ to act before a crime is given to them?

I believe what the committee is saying, there is no doubt in my mind. That does not make it evidence. Right now, we have seen an accusation with a claim of evidence. DOJ needs the committee to hand over what they have before they start bringing people in. A DOJ that starts questioning people based solely on the fact that they know someone is not serving justice. At the very least, they need the accusation given to them officially and not just done on tv or in the media.

Should the DOJ under tfg have begun an investigation every time he made an accusation? Should they have brought in anyone who knows Hillary just because tfg accused her of crimes?

[gab13by13]

2. Say what you want about the Mueller investigation,

Mueller charged Manafort with witness tampering and laid out the evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice and witness tampering. So way back with the Mueller investigation Trump and his mobsters have been intimidating witnesses. Merrick Garland chose to not indict Trump as "individual one, chose not to indict Trump for obstruction of justice, chose not to charge Trump with witness tampering. But Garland is defending Trump (the office if the presidency) in the E. Jeanne Carroll defamation law suit. He did not have to take that case, but he did.

[emulatorloo]

4. Apparently the threat was sent to Hutchinson the day before here testimony last week, right?

How do we know the FBI is not questioning them?

[Beastly Boy]

5. This is not a question for the wait and see crowd.

This is not even a serious question: it merely invites everyone, not just the wait ans see crowd, to prejudge and second-guess the FBI, and I, being the presumed guilty member of the aforementioned crowd, decline to take the offense intended by the question.

If one were to take your question seriously, however, the answer is obvious: yes. As soon as FBI meets the legal threshold to obtain a judge's approval to detain the Mark Meadows associate for questioning, and as long as such detention doesn't jeopardize whatever other investigations FBI may be conducting.

[gab13by13]

7. This is an interview with Barbara McQuade,

she is weak sauce, IMO, when it comes to going hard after Trump, so her opinion is substantial.

I apologize for Raw Story,

"Talking to that someone could be very valuable," McQuade added. "It is clearly an intermediary, and that person has some problems if they are conveying a message intended to tamper with witnesses. So talking to that person can get you to the person who made the statement, whether Mark Meadows or anyone else. In that way, prosecutors can work their way up the chain and use this charge as leverage to get cooperation for maybe bigger more substantive matters."

Watch below or at this link. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-witness-tampering-2657600351/

Donald Trump used witness tampering for the duration of the Mueller probe. Mueller laid out the evidence to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice and witness tampering and DOJ did nothing.

Excuse me for not being certain that DOJ will look into these cases of witness tampering since it did nothing with witness tampering in the Mueller probe.

Mueller even nailed Manafort for witness tampering.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

8. That was then,

this is now, a totally different DoJ, and that's all I have to say on this issue, I'm tired of arguing with the doom and gloom crowd here.

Have a great weekend.

[MineralMan]

10. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with Mueller.

You keep bringing that up. You know that was under a different AG than we have now, right? If so, why do you suppose AG Garland is doing the same things that were done then?

[MineralMan]

9. I don't know who the FBI is questioning. Do you?

I mean, maybe you have insider information, but you've given us no reason to think that is the case.

Neither the FBI nor the DOJ is making details of investigations public. Why? Because that only informs the bad guys that they need to get their stories straight.

Maybe you don't actually know anything about what the investigators are actually doing?