So, the DOJ Has an Active Grand Jury Empaneled Regarding January 6

[MineralMan]

We found that out when VP Pence's Chief of Staff emerged from the courthouse, where he had just given testimony to it.

I don't know about anyone else, but that was the first I had heard of that Grand Jury. As usual, DOJ is keeping its cards close to its vest, which is how it is supposed to operate.

What could that witness at the Grand Jury have been testifying about? Well, about what happened in the Capitol on January 6. That would be what they wanted to know.

So, apparently, AG Garland's DOJ is on this and has gotten far enough to be presenting evidence to a Grand Jury. We didn't know that, although some of us figured there were activities underway at the DOJ that weren't being shared with the public. The DOJ does not routinely announce that a Grand Jury is hearing testimony about something. We don't hear about it until indictments are issued by that Grand Jury.

I didn't hear about it, and didn't know about it until yesterday. It is a big deal.

I'm hopeful that this new information will quell the constant naysaying regarding the DOJ and what it is doing. I hope it will also reassure people who don't have confidence in Merrick Garland. I hope it will give us all hope that things are moving along in the right direction. Those are my hopes.

[empedocles]

1. Good set of hopes

[Shoeless Louis]

62. Yep, 'Hope' is sure doing some heavy lifting in this post.

[calimary]

64. Well I have hope! Hope that I've been totally wrong about Merrick Garland.

Nobody would be happier to be wrong about that - than ME!

No news was NOT good news, for me. This, on the other hand, just might be.

[PJMcK]

2. The GJ is a good hint that something is happening

AG Garland’s comments, although banal, are also hopeful.

I’m still uncertain about Trump & Co.’s legal peril and my pessimistic side is unconvinced that they’ll face Justice. But your opinions, MM, are more than respectable so I’ll trigger my optimistic side and share your hopes.

[MineralMan]

5. I, too, don't know how this will all turn out.

I have believed all along, though, that the DOJ, led by AG Garland, is on the job. It's not a simple, cut-and-dried case, by any means. We all think or know that Trump deserves to be in prison, but it's another matter to convict him of something that will send him there. No charges will be officially made until the DOJ believes it can successfully prosecute, and that's a good thing. So, they're building their case. If they try him and he doesn't get convicted, they can't try him again, so they get just one opportunity.

They're being careful because they have to be careful, complete their investigation, and not issue indictments and arrest warrants until they firmly believe they can get the conviction. So, that's what they're doing, and what they have been doing all along. They're not sharing all of that with us, because that would mean sharing it with their targets.

We're impatient. I'm impatient, but I'm keeping that to myself, in the strong hope that due diligence is being done. I'm glad to see evidence that such is the case.

[Warpy]

20. The DOJ has never been particularly communicative about its cases

unless an AG is grandstanding over something.

I have a feeling Garland is finally tired of being accused to playing with this Game Boy while the country is being dismantled around him.

One hopes the GJ is productive, especially around the fake elector plot, and that a flurry of indictments ensue.

I'm not optimistic about a TFG indictment during this presidential term. It will happen, just not right now.

[gab13by13]

3. Actually there is more than one grand jury empaneled.

[MineralMan]

6. Yes, so I have assumed.

I don't expect to be notified of them, though. I trust that the DOJ is doing its job, and see evidence of that more clearly now.

[gab13by13]

71. Why assume? It's public knowledge.

[MineralMan]

72. I don't presume to know how many grand juries are convened.

I know about the ones that are reported, but not about those that are not.

I assume there are others, but I don't presume to know that for a fact.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

93. That is my understanding also

[Novara]

4. They have SEVERAL grand juries related to Jan 6

This explains a lot: https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/07/16/what-doj-was-doing-while-everyone-was-whinging-doj-wasnt-doing-anything/

[MineralMan]

7. So it appears.

[Botany]

8. And the FBI has searched Clark's house and siezed Eastman's phone

Both whom were big players in the 1/6/21 attempted coup and Manafort was pulled off a plane
that was about to take off for Dubai, UAE which has no extradition treaty with America. I think
that Peter Navarro has had his home searched by the FBI too and some Proud Boys/Oath Keepers
are now chatting with the Feds.

[MineralMan]

9. Yup. Things have been happening.

It's good to read about them here, too.

[Raven123]

10. The only reason we know id because someone photographed him near a courthouse, I understand

Good for Garland keeping a low profile on this. Can’t be accused of poisoning a well a jurors by being too public with his investigation. Very professional.

[MineralMan]

13. Yes, exactly.

I agree.

[cutroot]

11. When Garland investigated Timothy mcveigh

Zero leaks,100% conviction,zero returns on appeals

[MineralMan]

15. That is a great example of how the DOJ is supposed to operate.

Thanks.

[onecaliberal]

12. I just figured a DOJ that has been investigating wouldn't be shocked by Hutchinson's

Testimony.

[MineralMan]

14. Yes. We're seeing the committee hearing on TV.

We're not seeing the DOJ's activities that way. I doubt the DOJ was shocked at anything from the committee, which is also keeping a lot of what it has heard out of the public eye.

The committee can do as it wishes, but the DOJ has to maintain silence about what exactly it is doing, until indictments and warrants are issued. That's crucial to its success.

[onecaliberal]

16. There were many reports that the DOJ has been shocked by the evidence being revealed by J6 witnesses

I am not insinuating in any way that the DOJ and committee are the same. Clearly the committee can’t bring charges.
There are way to many highly respected Dems in congress and former DOJ officials that share my concerns.
I get the caution on some level, but let’s be real. No one thinks this garbage person and his cancerous politics are on the level.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

17. Maybe I missed it,

but reports from who?
Any reports from top level DoJ personnel?
Who said this inside the DoJ?
Was it some of the Mango Menace's DoJ holdouts that AG Garland hasn't yet purged looking to discredit AG Garland and the DoJ?
Besides some Dems and former DoJ officials, who in any position of authority has said they were surprised?

[MineralMan]

18. Reports from within the DOJ?

Or reports from outside of it? I suspect the latter. Unnamed sources are quoted by pundits, and we are supposed to accept those reports as truth. Sorry, but I don't pay much attention to third-party anonymous sources. Nope.

So, if you know of someone with a name, actually in the DOJ, who is reporting that people there are shocked, please link to something to that effect. I will go to the link.

[onecaliberal]

21. I suspect you've heard the reports. NO ONE said the reports were from inside.

Acting like concerns from the outside are unwarranted or silly is less than helpful. Time IS running out and that is a fact.

[MineralMan]

23. I see. So there is nobody at the DOJ who has said that

publicly. I'm not surprised.

I take all "reports" such as that as speculation, frankly. I'm interested in demonstrable facts by actual people who know. It's too easy to come up with things to "report" when you make your living writing about "reports."

Now, when someone reports that VP Pence's Chief of Staff gave testimony to a Grand Jury, that gets my attention. Random reports by news commentators without attribution do not get my attention. Those get my skepticism.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. +100. nt

[onecaliberal]

33. Do you feel better now?

Was the reporting from someone inside the DOJ about pence COS testifying? No it wasn’t.
I can’t keep up with the cherry picking of believable and unbelievable reports. People who have done the job DO know the inside of DOJ. They are most qualified to make observations. There are trusted people I listen to:
I won’t be reprimanded for having concerns. You can pass my comments right on by.

[MineralMan]

59. Well, I read all comments to any thread I have started.

I try to reply to all of them. If you'd like me to ignore your comments, I have nothing to suggest but that you not participate in threads I start. If you do, though, I will read what you write and probably reply. That's my habit. I don't want to ignore anyone who takes the time to respond to one of my posts.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

61. Are any of these trusted people currently inside the DoJ and know what's going on?

AFAIK, no one within the DoJ has said they were surprised by testimony coming out of the J6 hearings, only "reports" from outside the DoJ.

[DLCWIdem]

99. The DOJ asked for the J6 transcripts

Right aftervthe hearing the DOJ asked for the J6 transcripts and not in a nice manner. It's like the DOJ suddenly sat up which is what prompted these news reports

[MarineCombatEngineer]

25. So, IOW,

there are no reports coming from inside the DoJ?
Just from without?
Got it.

[MineralMan]

30. Confusing Rumors with Facts Is Common.

Happens all the time, I guess.

Reports, for me, are meaningless unless some actual source has been identified.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

31. +100. nt

[Novara]

43. If anyone in the DOJ is "shocked" by the J6 hearings, ...

... what, specifically are they "shocked" about? Maybe it was the ketchup on the wall?

I mean, if anyone is going to repeat unsubstantiated accounts, let's hear some specifics. What, exactly was so shocking and who did it shock?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

45. Exactly!!!! nt

[MineralMan]

58. Indeed!

[Joinfortmill]

19. Me too. Never doubted it. Massive case

[wryter2000]

22. Nothing quells the constant naysaying at DU.

It's a competitive sport here.

On edit: stupid spell correct.

[MineralMan]

24. True enough.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

28. Ain't that the truth. nt

[TeamProg]

32. Adam Schiff would be admonished by some here for questioning the DOJ's pace. n/t

Let the games begin !!

[TeamProg]

40. In Adam's own words.. A J6 committee member. Someone IN THE KNOW!

July 15th !!
Rep. Adam Schiff “Concerned” DOJ Hasn’t Pursued Trump on Efforts to Overturn Election | The View

From March:
Rep. Schiff: DOJ Needs Do Its Part To Hold Trump Accountable

From June 5th
Schiff calls DOJ decision not to charge 2 Trump aides "deeply troubling"

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/schiff-calls-doj-decision-not-to-charge-2-trump-aides-deeply-troubling/

[wryter2000]

46. QED n/t

[TeamProg]

48. What is QED? n/t

[wryter2000]

50. Quod erat demonstrandum

Which was to be proved. It's often put at the end of a math proof.

[TeamProg]

57. id quod probandum est

locutus est vel perdere sedem tuam

[eieio]

78. ? re: latin quote

Greetings
Just to clarify, is the highlighted text in your post a description of the latin phrase you indicate? I've had no success tracking down this exact phrasing in any of my latin reference books, nor thru googling the interubes. Thx for your time & attention. MAM

[TeamProg]

80. that which must be proved

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=english+to+czech+language

[TeamProg]

81. eieio - that's a great moniker!

Vetus Macdonaldus villam habebat
E i ee i o *
Et in praedio suo habuit boves
E i ee i oh*
Cum moo-moo hic
Et moo-moo est
Hic moo, illic moo
Ubique moo-moo
Vetus Macdonaldus villam habebat
E i ee i o *
Vetus Macdonaldus villam habebat
E i ee i o *
Et in praedio suo habuit pullos
E i ee i o *
Cum gloci-orci hic
Et gloci-orci ibi
Hic glocla, illic glomerata
Undique gloci-orci
Vetus Macdonaldus villam habebat
E i ee i o *
Vetus Macdonaldus villam habebat
E i ee i o *
Et in fundo suo habuit aliquos porcos
E i ee i o *
Cum oink-oink hic
Et oink-oink ibi
Hic oink, illic oink
Ubique oink-oink
Vetus Macdonaldus villam habebat
E i ee i o *



I have too much time on my hands, apparently.

Super smoky outside, back home under fire advisement.

"Oak Fire" out this way.


Welcome to DU!

[burrowowl]

96. LOL! Snort!

You might!

[Novara]

49. That could very well be a little strategy.

Adam Schiff is very, very smart. But he seems to be sort of a lone wolf here, and maybe that's for a strategic reason. Has anyone thought maybe he said these things so that the orange fuck is mollified into thinking he's not being investigated? Or maybe he's doing this so people get outraged (well, THAT worked) and contact the DOJ and demand that they do something: https://www.justice.gov/contact-us


However, while some of you have been whining: https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/07/16/what-doj-was-doing-while-everyone-was-whinging-doj-wasnt-doing-anything/

[CaptainTruth]

56. I'm not a member of the "Because I don't see it, it doesn't exist" crowd.

That kind of thinking can get you killed at railroad crossings.

[TeamProg]

66. No sane person would be. But have you ever, even once, coasted through a 4 Way STOP sign?

Did you know that there is a scientific study (argument) going on that says, basically, if something cannot be measured, even for just a split second of time, then it does not exist for that split second.

[jaxexpat]

98. Parlor games for theoretical physicists..........Another brandy, Albert?

"Have you seen my cat?" asks Schrodinger. "The two eyed one or the infinite eyed ones?" replies the serving maid, shaking her head dismissively to the old joke's time traveling, space warping redundancies.

So, your 4-way stop intersection doesn't exist in a "greater than 0 sum" situation, unless you get stopped for ignoring its existence in parallel scenarios.

Traffic is hard, sometimes.

[TeamProg]

100. Not my argument. Just a little insight into the

“If I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist” theory.

Though you can’t see that theory at this minute, I can tell you that it does indeed exist.

Better?

[jaxexpat]

101. I had no argument and no point actually. Just a little fun with words and stuff.

[LudwigPastorius]

27. I'm sure the DOJ is continuing to press for indictments.

Awesome, but I have a rather high bar for what I think should happen. If Garland & Co. indicted, prosecuted, and convicted everyone involved but Trump, I would consider that justice denied.

The mere fact that someone who attempted to violently overthrow the government is still walking around free, and is considered politically viable, is insane.

Trump is highly dangerous and must be stopped regardless of any political considerations about upcoming elections or how it might look 'partisan'.

[MineralMan]

34. And the DOJ will indict Trump if they have a good case against him.

The law is different from our opinions, I'm afraid. No doubt Trump broke the law. Convincing 12 people on a jury of that in court is a different matter.

The DOJ knows that and is working on it. Time will tell us how they do.

[TeamProg]

29. What we've been saying or complaining about the DOJ has also been expressed BY LAWMAKERS!!

Come on!

Yes the DOJ is going to do what they're going to do.

As a DEMOCRACY ( still) we have an OBLIGATION to speak out.

You present some good news on that front, but we needed INDICTMENTS YESTERDAY !!


""I'm hopeful that this new information will quell the constant naysaying regarding the DOJ and what it is doing. ""

NOT ME

[MineralMan]

36. Indictments come when there is enough hard evidence for them to be issued.

You want them YESTERDAY. I'll be happy if they are issued when the evidence has been presented to a Grand Jury.

Looks like the process is well underway.

[TeamProg]

41. Of course! But that's not an argument, that's lecturing process.

July 15th !!
Rep. Adam Schiff “Concerned” DOJ Hasn’t Pursued Trump on Efforts to Overturn Election | The View

From March:
Rep. Schiff: DOJ Needs Do Its Part To Hold Trump Accountable

From June 5th
Schiff calls DOJ decision not to charge 2 Trump aides "deeply troubling"

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/schiff-calls-doj-decision-not-to-charge-2-trump-aides-deeply-troubling/

[MineralMan]

42. I'm neither arguing nor lecturing.

I'm discussing.

[TeamProg]

47. Please watch the videos above. Democracy dies in darkness. n/t

[MineralMan]

54. I have seen those videos before.

That does not affect what I just posted, though.

Schiff says whatever he wishes to say. He is a member of Congress, certainly, and should be listened to. He, however, has limited knowledge of the activities at the DOJ, all the same.

The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. Congress is part of a different branch of federal government. There is a separation between the two, and for good reason.

[TeamProg]

60. Our "discussion" was only about what we all care to say about the DOJ's pace. Your response

should have ended here:

"Schiff says whatever he wishes to say. He is a member of Congress, certainly, and should be listened to."

You keep adding in a bunch of unrelated concepts that are true, but veer away from your first point, ie That we should not be naysayers.

While you agree that Adam Schiff can be a naysayer.. huh.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

63. Anyone can be a naysayer, even the Honorable Adam Schiff. nt

[TeamProg]

69. Fortunately for Mr. Schiff, he wasn't doing that here. D U is a great place to exchange ideas but

TO BE ADMONISHED for vocalizing Adam's and others' tack that the DOJ APPEARS to be moving TOO SLOW, is just wrong.

There are already too many "Told ya so!" peoples out there and in here.

And besides, we ALL pretty much know that TFG has broken multiple laws, Garland would be derelict of duty if he did NOT prosecute TFG, right?

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. The existence of the Grand Jury was confirmed back in April by WaPo and NYT

It was convened in February.

Perhaps people (not necessarily you, MM) were busy ranting about how Garland and DOJ were “doing nothing” to notice. The report in April noted that subpoenas were being issued, but sources declined to name names. Without a headline grabbing name like Marc Short, perhaps that is why the story didn’t stick in the memories of very many people.

[MineralMan]

37. There are probably multiple Grand Juries, and perhaps

others yet to be empaneled.

[getagrip_already]

38. May not mean much at all wrt trump.....

The doj has been using grand juries for months. there is nothing new here. Some get used and released, and then new ones form. Others are special juries for specific focused work.

But just the fact that a staff member or two appears before may not mean much.

For example, it would entirely likely the doj would call pence staff to get evidence against eastman (they were in meetings with eastman as he was pitching his overthrow scheme).

And we already know the doj is investigating eastman. We also know the ig is investigating clarke.

But there is no evidence the doj is looking up. So it may be nothing exciting (beyond nailing eastman).

[MineralMan]

39. It may or may not. I do not know,

and neither does anyone else, at this point.

[TeamProg]

51. Eastman's phones and gear were seized by the DOJ. You didn't know that?

[MineralMan]

52. Yes, I knew that.

[getagrip_already]

82. the telling backstory is that eastman

is being tee'd up by the gop as a fallguy. So even the doj wouldn't have any hesitation investigating him.

But as a fall guy, they don't need to go any further. He becomes the conspiracy.

[MineralMan]

83. That's one theory of the DOJ's planning.

I disagree. Trump is a real threat. I think they're going to go after him hard. That's another theory of their plan, but nobody outside of the DOJ know which plan they'll follow, or even some other plan altogether.

I wouldn't venture to say what will actually happen. I'm waiting to see it when it does happen.

[CaptainTruth]

44. Excellent observation, thank you for posting it!

I never doubted DOJ was hard at work, but it's nice to know about the Grand Jury.

[Novara]

53. Once again:

WHAT DOJ WAS DOING WHILE YOU WERE WASTING TIME WHINGING ON TWITTER

[MineralMan]

55. Yes. I rarely visit Twitter.

It is full of speculation about everything. I prefer hard news sources.

[pnwmom]

65. News people post links to their stories there, so it's another way to learn about hard news.

For example, this March post from Daniel Goldman pointed Twitter to the WA Post story.

Link to tweet

Daniel Goldman
@danielsgoldman
Major news re DOJ investig as it appropriately widens the aperture from Jan 6 itself to the planning, coordination and financing of the rally and riots.

This is exactly the kind of info I’ve been waiting for to show that the investig is broader than 1/6.

[MineralMan]

70. Sure. I just don't choose to use Twitter for that purpose.

Stories are linked to in many places. I find Twitter to be a waste of my time, mostly, so I don't go there for news.

[pnwmom]

74. It wouldn't matter if you were searching for old news. But reporters often first post

their stories there, so the stories can appear on Twitter before they're in the search engines.

Or on DU.

[MineralMan]

75. OK, but I'm not watching for news constantly.

Generally, I find that DU gets every important story almost immediately, and I'm grateful for the DUers who are constant news-watchers.

I also have MSNBC in the background on the TV pretty much all the time. If something breaks, I'll find out about it right away.

One thing I like about the sources I use is that the links on them do lead immediately to a full story. I follow links.

But, thanks to all of the DUers who keep their eye on the news all the time. I appreciate that.

[pnwmom]

77. That's what I'm saying. The Daniel Goldman tweet had a direct link to the WA Post story.

So many people first learned about it there.

But I'm wondering . . . how do you know that the March grand jury investigating the planning isn't the same grand jury that Marc Short just testified for? Are they under different judges?

[pnwmom]

67. The WA Post first reported about at least one such grand jury in March.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-expands-jan-probe-include-planning-save-america/story?id=83787220&fbclid=IwAR1MJtCGDELpSGgy5Q93i7136o2cGyA6OO9b8MStAAXr6qjbv8aznlT9U-w

The Department of Justice is expanding its criminal probe into the events of Jan. 6 to include preparations for the rally that preceded the storming of the U.S. Capitol, as well as the financing for the event, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

Over the past two months, grand jury subpoenas have been sent to those who assisted in the organizing and planning of former President Donald Trump's "Save America" rally on the Ellipse near the White House, the sources said.

The news of the expanding probe was first reported by the Washington Post.

The subpoenas to individuals with knowledge of the event are expansive, the sources said. Prosecutors are seeking multiple records and documents related to the rally, including text messages and emails, as well as potential communications with other individuals regarding the logistics of the event.

[MineralMan]

68. Yes, I remember that.

[Hekate]

73. KnR

[yobrault1]

76. Keep the faith

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMNXtX6jh/?k=1

I knew lack of leaks was a very good sign that the DOJ is in the right hands. Insurrectionists are fool’n around and they are about to find out.

[ancianita]

79. As you've seen, empaneled grand juries have been so ongoing that they've indicted

Last edited Tue Jul 26, 2022, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

387 insurrectionists on federal charges over the last two years, which might be considered slow for some. There is more than one federal grand jury at a time, as well. The prosecutors allege, present information, and the grand juries indict. Prosecutors can also charge, but indicting is what grand juries do.

As you say, people have done a good bit of naysaying here but it's because they're not paying attention to daily indictments coming out of the DOJ. Not to mention the 352 convictions, 1 dismissal, and 1 acquittal -- almost 19 convictions per month since Jan, 2021. 172 have been sentenced.

It's been a massive judicial undertaking, and any frustration about the pace of justice likely is due to an understandable lack of knowledge about how Main Justice is required to work; so the impatience grows due to uninformed expectations.

On the other hand, the DOJ (FBI, Secret Service) is full of foot dragging Republican lawyers who could be working under a pretext of perfectionism when they say, "get it right."

Thanks for your post, H. It's good for us all to be reminded that justice works.

[MineralMan]

85. You're absolutely right.

For a while, I was posting the DOJ's press release link here, and encouraging people to check it out from time to time. I doubt that many did that, though. This thing is very complicated, and the higher up the target person is, the longer it's going to take to build a rock-solid case. In one case, that of Trump, it's a unique case, the like of which has never been dealt with. You can bet they'll make absolutely certain that they have a case that can end in a conviction before issuing an arrest warrant.

[msfiddlestix]

84. Do we know for certain Pence's Chief of Staff's GJ appearance was related to Jan 6?

Or do we logically infer it must be a J6 GJ appearance, cuz what else could it be?

IOW we believe it to be the only reason for the Assistant to the VP appearing at a GJ in Washington is logically related to J6.

We don't want to make any claims based on assumptions about stuff without being informed by the DOJ or at least reported to the mainstream press, at this point cuz we're just speculating that something is being done!

[Blue Owl]

86. K&R

[Progressive dog]

89. Yes they do..

But I'm sure that there is no way for the DOJ to move fast enough for some.

[Ishoutandscream2]

91. Your polite way of saying

“I told you so.” It’s easy to read between your lines.

[orthoclad]

92. I hope like hell that

they are moving to indict the heads of the coup, but----

Consider this: any conviction will surely be appealed. And appealed. All the way up to...
You guessed it! The Extreme Court. Samuel "Witchburner" Alito. Amy "Corona" Barrett. Brett "Beer-bong" Kavanaugh. Clarence "Ginni" Thomas. How do you think they'll rule on the case?

Fix the Court. The coup is still going on. Impeach, investigate, expand.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

94. I used to be on a Federal Grand Jury

Wish I were on this one!

[PufPuf23]

95. DOJ in right direction but pace and scope are in question.

Worry is that with so many shit storms in progress or impending, that a cascade of other events may dull or derail the Trump DOJ initiative.

The rot needs to be dug deep and severe this time. Not enough to squelch Trump and those close, even including Proud Boys and the like and the nut job reps. Those that finance and benefit and stood down to evil (refused to impeach) should be at least out of their positions permanently.

The 2000 POTUS election should be revisited. Gore won had process been followed. An over lapping segment of the USSC is complicit in 2000 and now. GWB et al should have been impeached and punished. Compare the lies and impact on Iraq with Ukraine. Putin et al are War Criminals and should be stopped.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

97. K&R