Something To Consider: DOJ Indictments are Quite Possible for Current GOP Members of Congress

[Beetwasher.]

Just putting that out there. So, as close as it may turn out, if it starts raining indictments, all bets are off.

[getagrip_already]

1. doj won't indict if it impacts control of the house.....

That is just the way they roll. They want to appear impartial under a dem administration.

So they will let grifters walk to avoid the criticism. At least until a rethug is in power again.

[Beetwasher.]

2. Disagree, Watch Them do It

[getagrip_already]

6. I've been watching for six years.....

Sorry, I'm past "watch and wait". Nothing is going to happen.

PROVE me wrong (not in words, in doj actions).

[Beetwasher.]

7. You Will Be Proven Wrong When There's Indictments

But if you want to be hopeless, that's your problem.

[getagrip_already]

16. I'd love to be wrong, trouble is...

So far I'm not.

And I'm not likely to be. Look, if the doj flips tfg to a special prosecutor, that is at least a year delay, and the statute of limitations is ticking. They have had enough evidence to indict him for months - well before the election cycle.

Nothing. Again, prove me wrong, don't hurl insults.

[Beastly Boy]

32. I am not saying you will be proven wrong, but...

-There are plenty of DUers who were proven wrong about DOJ sitting on their hands doing nothing about the insurrection, and they loved it.
-There are plenty of DUers who were proven wrong about DOJ indicting over 850 the rioters, and they loved it.
-There are plenty of DUers who were proven wrong about DOJ indicting the "big fish", and they loved it.
-There are plenty of DUers who were proven wrong about DOJ indicting seditious conspirators, and they loved it.
-There are plenty of DUers who were proven wrong about DOJ indicting Trump's close advisors, and they loved it.
-There are plenty of DUers who were proven wrong about DOJ indicting Trump's cabinet members, and they loved it.
-There are plenty of DUers who were proven wrong about DOJ subpoenaing Trump for testimony, and they loved it.

Just saying the odds are against you.

[William769]

38. +1

[former9thward]

43. Nobody important was indicted for Jan 6th

Everyone was people no one had ever heard of. Most of the 850 indicted were indicted for misdemeanors and give probation sentences.

[Beastly Boy]

45. Hre we go again... Define "important" so I know how far the goal post has been moved this time.

I am assuming you are either unaware of the 20 people indicted for seditious conspiracy or consider them unimportant.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/nine-members-militia-group-charged-seditious-conspiracy-and-related-charges
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-10-other-individuals-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy

Just a refresher of how serious the charge is:

n the United States, seditious conspiracy is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2384:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Sounds pretty important to me, no? Now multiply it by 20.

[former9thward]

46. Who are they?

No one knew them before and no one knows them now. Nobody important has been indicted. Talk about moving the goalposts...

[Beastly Boy]

47. Huh? They are the organizers of the insurrection and leaders of seditious conspiracy

against your country. They are the plotters and the planners. You don't even know, not even after their indictment, who threatened the existence of your government? And you are not in the least bit curious? That's absurd, especially considering how easy it is to look them up now that they have been indicted. You did look up the definition of seditious conspiracy, didn't you? You do realize how serious the crime they are charged with is, don't you?

So they are not your immediate acquaintances or media personalities, but it is ridiculous to suggest that some unanimous "no one" knew nothing of them or knows nothing of them now. DOJ certainly did!

And you still didn't define "important". If seditious conspirators are not important, I can't wait to find out who is. C'mon, prove me wrong and show me that your definition of "important" is not moving any goal posts. You can refresh your memory about how the posts have been moved so far by referring back to the my post you originally replied to (https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17367226).

Which reminds me: care to define "no one"? No? Didn't think so.

[former9thward]

48. We were told Trump and his top guys would be indicted for Jan 6th

So, yes, the goalposts have been moved almost the whole field...

[Beastly Boy]

49. Source, please?

Told by whom? I bet you a two dollar bill it wasn't DOJ, if you can find a source at all.

And I am still holding my breath waiting for your definitions of "important" and "no one".

[former9thward]

50. I guess you don't read the posts on DU.

Strange since you are posting on it. Did you ever challenge any of the thousands of posts which said Trump, etc. was going to be indicted for Jan. 6th?

[Beastly Boy]

52. I do. That's how I found your post. You find this strange?

I have no interest in challenging every speculation I find here. And absence of a challenge does not signify agreement anyway. I didn't challenge the Pope when he beatified Fiorina Cecchin either, does this mean I endorsed his decision?

And you never before singled Trump, etc. out (BTW, who is included in the etc. part? It couldn't be the insurrectionists and seditious conspirators, could it?) as the sole person(s) who fits your definition of "important". Is that how you define "important", as in "no one important" you keep bringing up? If it is, that's definitely, unmistakably, undeniably moving the goal post. And if it's not, you still owe me a definition or two. Not to mention a two dollar bill.

[tinrobot]

23. Improbable. A lot of things would have to line up for control to shift.

The house would have to be close enough for one person to make a difference (or two, etc). Plus the indicted individual would have to resign (some don't when indicted). On top of that, the replacement would have to be from the opposing party. If the representative comes from a solid red state, that won't happen.

[getagrip_already]

28. all true... but the doj won't likely look at that

They really only indict sitting members when (a) they are dems (/s), or (2) when there is ample physical evidence. Bribery, corruption, vote rigging, etc.

It has to be serious, and it has to be proveable beyond doubt (unless bill barr is in charge).

But I doubt the doj will look at it that closely. If it "could" cause a flip that will impact control, they will hold off.

[karynnj]

33. It will not impact long term because most, if not all, are from safe R seats

I also think they do not have to resign when indicted. In fact, I am not sure they have to resign if convicted and sentenced to prison. However, he/she could be expelled as Trafficant was.

For the House, there is always a special election to refill the seat.

[getagrip_already]

34. depends on how many seats separate us..

If there is a 1 seat gap, then it can impact control since there will be a gap between resignation and a special election.

It may only be a few weeks, but that could swing control for that period.

[karynnj]

35. You could visualize the speakers hip ping pinging back and forth if it just moves on numbers

Does the House remote for speaker when it changes? What happens if it is a tie, which could happen when there are empty seats. Can the minority party force a vote if the majority loses sufficient seats. I don't think I remember a House so close. I know the Senate majority changes.

[getagrip_already]

39. afaict, a tie on a house vote is a defeat for the bill, a bill requires a majority.....

So no tie breaker like the senate.

For leadership, I guess that would be status quo since a new speaker couldn't be elected.

Of course, the house can change that rule by majority vote ahead of time.

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. They've indicted sitting congress members before. Nt

[msfiddlestix]

3. Don't hold your breath, or bank on it. Not Likely.

[onenote]

4. Can you expand on which members are at risk of being indicted

and for what crimes?

[getagrip_already]

9. gaetz is the most visible....

But after all this time, the doj isn't likely to indict him.

there are a few others who are tied up in 1/6 actions, and a few in election hijinx, but none of those are solid cases.

If you look historically, the cases the doj brings against pol's are pretty open and shut with direct liability. Outside of gaetz, the others don't appear to be that solid, and aren't really direct liability cases.

[onenote]

24. Yep. All good points that are lost on a number of DUers

who seem to think, in the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld, that there are "slam dunk" cases out there against members of Congress.

[Quakerfriend]

5. Wouldn't the repugs get to appoint another

repug, if one of them is indicted??

[Beetwasher.]

12. Nope, Special Election

n/t

[getagrip_already]

14. house rep's can't be appointed - they can only be elected.....

So no house appointments. Further, actors like desleazball can simply not hold an interim election if it looks like it will go to a dem. He did that with at least one seat last term.

[RainCaster]

8. DOJ hasn't gone after DFT. Why would they go after lesser criminals?

The biggest traitor in American history will never be indicted. This cynic has no faith in the DOJ.

[Beetwasher.]

13. Ok, Enjoy Your Cynicism!

And everything it achieves!

[Blues Heron]

15. you work your way UP the chain to the top

Theyve been putting plenty of lesser criminals in prison for J6

[getagrip_already]

17. only those who were actually in the capitol or planned the assault...

All direct liability cases. None in tfg's inner circle or family.

The only indictments have been for contempt; not the crimes.

[Walleye]

10. And you know they're gonna stop the voting by proxy. That's going to bite them in the ass

[getagrip_already]

18. I doubt they will due it as a blanket rule...

It will likely be something like "By petition to the speaker and then a vote by the house if the speaker agrees", which will mean only proxy voting for rethugs.

[Walleye]

19. I am sure they will try whatever shit they think they can get away with

[lefthandedskyhook]

11. 14th Amendment Section 3

If they were involved in J6 they may not serve our government.

[getagrip_already]

21. true, but who decides it?

There has to be a lawful declaration somebody committed a insurrectionist act. So who makes the declaration? If it is the judiciary, then it goes to scotus. Do you see them letting control of the house flip based on that?

You can't just claim it. It has to be found to be true by somebody official.

[lefthandedskyhook]

25. Yes

The courts will need proof that they participated. I can't provide it, but the J6 committee & the FBI certainly can. We the people must REQUIRE it!

[gab13by13]

20. DOJ won't indict former Congressmen

no way it indicts sitting Congressmen. never.

[getagrip_already]

22. I'm pretty sure they have....

Though i can't recall specifics. From memory, it was based on some form of corruption that was proveable with wiretaps or other direct evidence.

Google will know.

on edit - google did know..

Rep. William Jefferson, D-La.
The congressman was indicted in 2007 on charges of accepting about a half million dollars in bribes – $90,000 of which was hidden in his freezer before being discovered by the FBI. He was convicted and sentenced to 13 years in prison.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska
The senator was indicted in 2008 on charges of failing to properly report gifts from an oil company executive that Stevens allegedly used to renovate his home. He was found guilty, but his conviction was later overturned.

Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.
The congressman was indicted in 2008 on charges of corruption and money laundering in connection with a bribery, extortion and influence-peddling scandal involving a federal land exchange that included property in Arizona. He was convicted in 2013 on 17 felony counts and served three years in prison.

Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y.
The congressman was indicted in 2013 on 20 counts involving tax fraud in connection with a Manhattan restaurant that he owned with others. He pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion and was sentenced to eight months in prison.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.
The senator was indicted in 2015 on bribery and fraud charges that stemmed from $660,000 in campaign contributions that helped Menendez get re-elected in 2012. He was cleared of the charges early this year after the Department of Justice asked a federal court to dismiss the 2015 indictment.

Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Penn.
The congressman was indicted in 2015 on charges of racketeering and taking an illegal $1 million campaign loan that he repaid in part with government money. He was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison.

Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla.
The congresswoman was indicted in 2016 on fraud and conspiracy charges tied to allegations that she and two associates solicited donations for education scholarships for minority students and then diverted most of the funds to their own accounts. She was convicted in 2017 and sentenced to five years in prison.

[lefthandedskyhook]

27. Nonsense

nt

[WA-03 Democrat]

26. A song comes to mind on this topic

[lefthandedskyhook]

29. We have known traitors in our government

It will not require anything more than real law enforcement to correct it. I have a tiny voice, but if we do not collectively demand it we deserve to fail

[WA-03 Democrat]

40. With ya

I demand equal justice for all. Getting there requires action. I do not have hope that the current DOJ is functional. Trump infected it and we need to reboot for law and order

[lefthandedskyhook]

41. Oh wow

You are right. I'd assumed that Garland had all the power at DOJ. If the machine was destroyed as you claim it all makes sense

[ananda]

30. Works for me. Some of them were complicit in the insurrection.

Including Boebert and MTG.

[malaise]

31. 100& correct

And there is also the reality of death- two ReTHUGs died in recent times - Don Young and a female who died in a car accident.
Slim margins are never stable.

[Emile]

37. Arrest the 147 Congressional Republicans who voted to overturn election results!

[Kid Berwyn]

51. What Emile said.

And the traitors who took out the Congressional office panic buttons.

[Lettuce Be]

42. Why is why, IMO, they are so obsessed with winning back power, only way to survive

and escape consequences (prison?). There are far too many repugs involved. Had they taken the Senate and the House, they could have stopped the Biden agenda, and if they win the Presidency in 2024 they can issue pardons to everyone. Pretty ridiculous state of affairs.

[Deminpenn]

44. Scott Perry, PA-10, should be at the top of the list

FBI has already seized and searched his phone. We know that he introduced Jeffrey Clark to Trump and that Eastman and Cheesboro were part of the conspiracy to install Clark as head of DoJ.