EMPTYWHEEL: Is there a possibility that the new Republican majority is at stake?

[kpete]

Marcy Wheeler at emptywheel.net looks at Attorney General Garland’s appointment of a Special Counsel. What if Perry, Jordan, Marge, Gosar, Biggs, and Gaetz are all subjects of the investigation? What if incoming freshmen, George Santos (NY-03) and Derrick Van Order (WI-03) are, too. Is there a possibility that the new Republican majority is at stake?

Thinking out loud: Garland said there several recent developments, plural, that led him to appoint a Special Counsel, one of which was Trump announcing.

What if the other one is that several members of the very narrow majority in Congress are subjects of the investigation?

The scope of the January 6 investigation that Smith will oversee is far broader than Trump and will almost certainly lead to the indictment of multiple people in addition to Trump, if it does include Trump — people like Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, possibly Mark Meadows.

But if we assume that everyone who has had their phone seized in that investigation is a subject of it, then Scott Perry, the Chair of the House Freedom [sic] Caucus, would also be included. Perry was the one who suggested that Trump replace Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark so DOJ would endorse Trump’s challenges to the election outcome. He pushed a number of conspiracy theories at the White House and DOJ (including the whack Italian one). Along with Meadows and Rudy Giuliani, Perry was putting together plans for Trump to come to the Capitol on January 6. After one meeting with Perry, Meadows burned some papers.

Perry isn’t even the only one who was closely involved in the plot to steal the election. Jim Jordan, the incoming Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, was closely involved as well and is very close to likely subject Mark Meadows.

Indeed, if you include all the members of Congress who discussed or asked for pardons, the number grows longer, in addition to Perry, including at least Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Jordan, Perry, Gaetz, Biggs, Gohmert, and Marge would amount to most of the probable seven person majority in the House.
much more:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/11/19/what-if-the-special-counsel-is-about-scott-perry-not-just-donald-trump/

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=rQVB3goi-wtOlQKxF5BQfQ

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Getting them expelled before January would be a good thing

Not sure we'd ever go there. Rare as CEOs doing time, Elizabeth Holmes included.

[getagrip_already]

43. they won't be expelled if indicted and even if tried......

There won't be a 2/3 vote to remove them.

If they are convicted, that is another story, but it is only a house rule, which can be changed. Leadership could allow proxy voting, even from prison.

That is an extreme of course, but there is no provision that an indicted member cannot serve.

[bucolic_frolic]

59. I should express no surprise as it was ever thus

Back in the day the public didn't know the whole story behind scandals. I'm thinking of Wilbur Mills, who was reelected. Now ignorance is no excuse.

[Trueblue Texan]

70. I believe there is an exception for sedition.nt

[Irish_Dem]

2. Does the DOJ have the guts to go after sitting members of congress?

[gab13by13]

16. No, never happen.

DOJ did in the past, Menendez, Blogonovich etc.

Maybe Smith has the guts?

[Irish_Dem]

17. Even people with guts turn to jello when face to face with GOP/Trump.

[speak easy]

95. Jack Smith doesn't look like the jello type

[Irish_Dem]

96. No he doesn't. But then again he has not been threatened Putin/GOP/Trump style.

[speak easy]

99. Threats come with the job of a war crimes prosecutor,

but not by Putin in this instance. Smith was investigating crimes against ethnic Serbs is Kosovo.

[Irish_Dem]

101. Yes.

But the investigations against Trump always seem to fizzle out for no visible reason.

We shall see if this guy can hold up.

[former9thward]

29. Blagojevich was the Governor of Illinois.

[gab13by13]

35. I know, same difference,

a special counsel wasn't needed to indict him.

[Irish_Dem]

62. This was 20 yrs ago and he was a Democrat.

A lot has changed in two decades.

[grantcart]

67. They also had wiretaps of him committing the crime

[Irish_Dem]

68. The DOJ probably has many of the phone texts of guilty MOCs.

I assume DOJ also has witness statements.

There just isn't the political will to go after half of congress.

[soldierant]

92. 14-15 years, IIRC

His crime was attempting to sell Obama's former Senate seat when Obama was elected President. That was in 2008.

[Irish_Dem]

93. A lot has changed in the last 15 yrs.

The GOP and country has become more angry, violent, and out for blood.

[soldierant]

106. Absolutely correct.

[sop]

112. Didn't Trump commute Blagojevich's prison sentence?

[former9thward]

113. Yes.

[Marthe48]

37. They are Dems

So of course, they will be investigated, prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

When my kids were young and we had family parties, I would be really strict with my kids, even if they were being good, because I couldn't be strict with their cousins, even if they were the ones being wild. When I realized what I was doing, I stopped.

I think everyone invloved in government investigations is doing the same thing. The r's get off lightly because they are a bunch of bullying jerks, and the Dems get punished harder because our party has zero tolerance for any infractions.

I'm pretty sick of seeing the bad guys' crimes ignored, and the endless investigations of made up crap to ruin reputations. Blogojevich did try to cash in on then Sen. Obama's seat, but so far, that is the only crime that was investigated and proved against Dems. Sen. Menendez was cleared of wrong-doing in one investigation, then immediately became subject to another investigation. Almost every Dem is investigated and punished if warranted, but the r's keep skating on by, thumbing noses, and getting worse and worse. It bothers me that so far, there are no consequences. Trying to overturn an election goes far beyond free speech. If the perpetrators are elected members of government, even appointed members of government, why were they allowed to keep their positions when they are under a cloud? The things being investigated are serious and could impact U.S. security, and it is obvious by now that the people mentioned as possible subjects of investigations don't have any loyalty to their own country, and should be at least put on leave until the investigations are complete. They have no business being privy to national security information, having an unquestioned public voice, or making decisions for their states, or for the country.

[Fiendish Thingy]

56. I'm sure convicted felon and former rep. Chris Collins is relieved

To hear that DOJ never goes after sitting congresspersons.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-congressman-christopher-collins-sentenced-insider-trading-scheme-and-lying

[Irish_Dem]

63. We aren't talking ONE person. We are talking MANY sitting members of congress.

[wnylib]

98. There was Representative Chris Collins

who was under investigation while running for reelection. He won the election, but was indicted, tried, and sentenced to jail time for insider trading.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/chris-collins-sentenced-to-26-months-for-insider-trading-tip.html

[getagrip_already]

48. It has happened, in both the house and senate.... but...

Those were very cut and dry crimes. Corruption, theft, and the like. Direct liability cases.

Any j6 case will be fraught with circumstantial evidence, shaky witnesses, and analysis of "intentions". Not easy cases to try and convict.

Not an expert, just reading tea leaves and looking bak where they brought charges against sitting members before.

[KS Toronado]

72. Not an expert either but when it comes to "intentions"

I often wonder about the "intentions" those who voted on Jan 6th to not accept Electoral votes from
several States. Could by their vote alone prove they were involved in the execution of a coup?

[carpetbagger]

60. The new spec pros indicted Renzi while a sitting congressman. Nt

[Irish_Dem]

64. That was only one person. We are talking about many MOC who were involved in 1/6.

[cloudbase]

3. No possibility.

Wishful thinking.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Your 4 word wet blanket is such a powerful counter to the detailed reasoned OP that I'm speechless

not

[mcar]

8. ...

[MarineCombatEngineer]

9. LOL

Poifect.

[Ferrets are Cool]

11. Except that he is right.

Come back and remind me that I was wrong....WHEN it happens.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. You win. You have 5 words. . . . nt

[Ferrets are Cool]

14. ...

[MarineCombatEngineer]

15. And you know he's right how?

[grantcart]

69. The basic bar for federal prosecutors is very high. The bar for an elected official (any party) is

even higher.

Someone up thread mentioned the Governor of Ill conviction. In that case they had him on tape committing the crime.

How do you know that they aren't going to just indict a group of Congressmen? Look at Matt Gaetz and his involvement with underage girls. Had a mountain of evidence but found that the victim lacked credibility and declined to prosecute.

The bar for federal prosecutions is very high (and should be).

[Ferrets are Cool]

77. I know just as much as you AND, it is my opinion...

as is yours.

[SlimJimmy]

75. The detailed reasoning falls short.

There would need to be MULTIPLE convictions (not just charges) and then they would need to be impeached, then removed from Congress. Do you really think that's going to happen? We really do get wrapped around the axle here sometimes.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

76. You might be right. But 4-word wet blankets fail to convince anyone. . . . nt

[SlimJimmy]

78. That's true.

But to be fair, sometimes I just get so frustrated with some of the pie in the sky posts here, that I just want to write "Dumbass" and be done with it. But explaining your reasoning is always better.

[brooklynite]

83. Legislators are not "impeached".

They are removed by 2/3 vote of their chamber.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

88. I think by "impeached" the poster meant "charged" metaphorically; brought before Congress

re: Presidents: impeachment by the House is analogous to being charged so that the Senate can try the case.

That doesn't happen to members, but at some point the complaint has be stated before the House. I do not know the precise technical term for that action in the house, but yes it is not "impeachment".

[brooklynite]

89. No it doesn't

There doesn't need to be a charge. The House or Senate can remove a member with no complaint or hearing, provided enough members support the resolution.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

90. Okay. A Resolution is Presented to the House for debate and vote. But you may be

You may be thinking any member can present a Resolution and whatever you are thinking on that, you are probably right. I do not know.

But if I get your drift, there is no review process in the sense that an impeachment is a review process.

[jmowreader]

115. And I suspect...

…one of the first things Boebert will do after January 3 is file a resolution to expel Nancy Pelosi. It will naturally fail b/c they’ve got the barest majority you can have, but that won’t stop her.

[SlimJimmy]

97. And that is just not going to happen. Correct?

I fully support the ideals on DU. But, sometimes, the posts are just so far off base that I have to wonder why they are even written.

[brooklynite]

84. Under what statute would they be prosecuted...

...and what hard evidence would be presented at their trial?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

85. Now, that there is a reasoned response and not a wet blanket

Pertinent questions with few answers.

[Irish_Dem]

65. I agree, there are too many guilty sitting MOC for anyone to touch it.

I wish I was wrong.

[Lovie777]

4. Yep......

ditto.

[brer cat]

5. Nice to think about and it should happen.

[2naSalit]

6. Keeping my...

Fingers crossed.

[Kid Berwyn]

10. Would be great!

Special Counsel operates outside the purview of Congreff.

[Traildogbob]

12. Was just thinking

And it turned my stomach. At Biden’s next SOTU, we will have to watch Kevin Trump behind Biden, smirking as his Howling Monkeys keep screaming during the speech. He will give those two free passes to disrupt the hell out of the speech. Hell, that anti Kev caucus may even put on a show.

[Walleye]

19. Hell he will tear up his copy of the speech. Originality is not their thing

[Tetrachloride]

23. Biden can turn around and smirk back

[Traildogbob]

28. I think

Biden should have a hologram of trump projected next to Kev with a dog leash around his neck. (In his tennis outfit of course)

[yonder]

79. Made me laugh. That's brilliant, if only it could happen.

And every time the disruptors make a scene, turn that projection on high beam.

[Traildogbob]

80. I feel ya.

Sit Kev in a golden throne and project an orange light on him. Put a trump flag on the flag pole behind him. Make them “own” trump, forget them “owning” libs.

[yonder]

81. You're killing me.

[Traildogbob]

86. 🤜🤛

We gotta laugh some, right?

[mopinko]

18. this was my 1st thought when i heard there will be a strike force to counter gqp "investigations"

go after the worst of them, lookin at u gosar, and hope to keep the obv compromised in their hidey holes. at least keep them off the ballot in 2 yrs.

but if we can force any of them out, we will rock the specials.

eta- they'd do it in a heartbeat. prolly have a hit list.

[gab13by13]

20. Just because I don't believe this will happen

does not mean that I do not respect Marcy Wheeler, she is a fierce investigative journalist.

Maybe those sitting Congresscritters should be indicted, but that's a bridge too far. Hoping she is right.

[Joinfortmill]

21. Jan 6 is a massive investigation...

Hang on, several indictments are coming.

[Politicub]

22. And what if wishes and buts were candy and nuts?

We would all have a merry Christmas.

[DeeDeeNY]

24. This one needs to be removed too

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-barry-loudermilk-capitol-complex-tour/

[hydrolastic]

31. I have been thinking this for a while

These people that helped with the insurrection cannot be allowed to continue governing. How is it they are still in office ?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

25. Pardon me, I'm cynical but still hopeful for justice.

I suspect it will still be a topic for arguments when then next election rolls around.

[mwooldri]

26. If indictments do come for the D's in Congress...

... especially if connected with the former guy... I just hope DOJ plans for this and increases security greatly for those involved in the prosecution of the indictments.

The only way that this would really affect the R majority is if those members of Congress are actually convicted and sent to jail. We have already seen that Mr. McCarthy doesn't care about indicted Congress members of his caucus - if they can fill a seat to keep power, he will.

[Tetrachloride]

27. I don't see what incoming member Van Orden has to

do with anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Van_Orden


also spelling is N , not R, for his last name. friend of mine is a “Van Order.”

[Marius25]

30. Won't happen. I can't see Garland going after members of Congress

And even if he does, the Supreme Court will protect them due to the Speech and Debate clause.

[ancianita]

34. It's not up to him. He won't get in the Spec. Counsel's way on grand jury appearances

or the 'due process' that they'll endure after the Spec Counsel indicts them for either conspiring to obstruct peaceful transfer, or aiding and abetting a fraud, etc, etc.

There are regulations about Special Counsel work that give it the broad power to prosecute all relevant targets.

[Deminpenn]

42. Ultimately Garland will have to make the call

because the US special counsel law is under DoJ, it's not the same that Cox, Starr et al operated under.

I think that if Smith's investigation leads him to conclude crimes were committed and require prosecution, Garland will approve it.

[ancianita]

47. Right. But during Smith's work, Garland will not impede him. Yes, he'll approve what Smith says

should be done under rule of law.

[Deminpenn]

49. Agree

nt

[SheltieLover]

32. Yup!

[ancianita]

33. Been saying the same thing for over a month.

It's their want to brazen out all attempts to investigate them. But their presence could be impaired while they have meetings with lawyers.

[TheBlackAdder]

36. I've tried to be a vaticinator of GOP actions and only one thing is constant, their inconsistencies.

.

They're just a group of unpredictable teenager-minded fucks who just want power and attention.

.

[paleotn]

40. Exactly what it boils down to.

[paleotn]

38. Good point. I've thought of that.

And I'm sure Garland and Justice are lightyears ahead of us on that.

[GoCubsGo]

39. Add Bo Bo the Clown to that list, as well.

Been wondering about this, as well. I am sure they are under scrutiny. Many of the names she named were ones Nancy Pelosi refused to allow on the J6 committee, because they're complicit. That being said, if any of them wind up losing their seats, another Republican will likely win any race to replace them. Their seats are that badly gerrymandered. Boebert and the two new guys being the possible exceptions.

[global1]

41. So They Could Say We've Gone From A Witch Hunt To A.....

'coven' hunt.

[Jade Fox]

44. All I want for Christmas is this....

It would be like a six year old dream come true.

[1WorldHope]

45. I would rather live day to day believing justice will come

than completely giving up on it. I'm the glass is half empty kind of person, but y'all depress the crap out of me sometimes.

[RussBLib]

61. I heard that

I'm just avoiding DU by and large lately because of all the negative posts. They are somewhat understandable, but still.....it's bad for my mental health.

[1WorldHope]

73. Thanks for the reply, good to know I'm not alone.

[getagrip_already]

50. here is a list of critters who have been indicted....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/29/more-than-two-dozen-members-of-congress-have-been-indicted-since-1980/

I can't quote enough of the article to list all the names, but here is the opening:

More than two dozen members of Congress have been indicted since 1980. A handful of the indictments were about sex, and one was about lying about military service. But the vast majority, like Fattah's, are about money -- specifically, members of Congress accused of accepting bribes in exchange for pulling strings on their end. You see the word "racketeering" pop up a lot while reading about their charges. Everyone's looking to get ahead, and for some members of Congress, the pull of using their office for personal gain is too strong.

None of these are anything like seditious conspiracy, or conspiracy to defraud the united states, or any crimes they could be charged with.

[MichMan]

51. Declare the GOP as a terrorist organization right before the end of the year.

Arrest every single elected official on Jan. 1st and charge them with supporting terrorism

[tritsofme]

100. Fight fascism with fascism. lol

[markodochartaigh]

108. Intolerance of intolerance

is not the same as intolerance of tolerance.

[tritsofme]

111. Authoritarianism is still authoritarianism, even with the best of intentions.

[wiggs]

52. was wondering why the Jan6 committee has almost zero discussion about potential

congressional complicity...even though publicly available info suggests coordination with rioters and the WH. Perhaps because it's best handled by doj? Maybe because Cheney's participation forbade going there, but emptywheel (worth following) is very astute.

Perhaps the doj investigation is more wide-reaching than we suspect?

[Tree Lady]

94. Yes I was very upset Cheney got them

Not to go after Thomas wife.

Maybe having the new guy they can go after them and it won't be seen as so political.

I think the committee will be disbanded soon then all bets off of anything they promised her. For all we know she may have asked not to go after them until after the election.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

53. Even if by some miracle those reps stepped down, wouldn't they just be replaced by

More Repugs when special elections were held? Maybe not all would be, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

[ananda]

54. Well, they certainly should have been this whole time.

So I presume they are!

[TeamProg]

55. I love the possibility of this. n/t

[onetexan]

57. Threaten them with a Senate invesyigation. 2 can play this game

[oldsoftie]

58. I'll remain skeptical & hope to be pleasantly surprised.

With INSURMOUNTABLE evidence of whatever

[ColinC]

66. If they simply lose 6 or 7 seats it won't give us the majority

At least a few seats would need to flip

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. What are the *rules* or laws about convicted criminals in Congress?

Forget about "norms" - it may have been the done thing in the past for Republicans to vote to expel convicted Republicans, but that means nothing these days. Are there established congressional rules, or, better yet, laws, about what kind of conviction gets a representative automatically thrown out?

If not, then, no, the majority is not "at stake". Even if they get convicted of high crimes.

[tritsofme]

102. The only way for a member's term to end before expiration are: death, resignation, or expulsion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. I suppose if a Republican was physically in prison

it would stop them voting, if Dems could schedule votes (or Repubs couldn't schedule ones they otherwise would have). I've love to see prison sentences for some of them, but I'm not that optimistic.

[tritsofme]

105. lol, that might get them to embrace proxy voting.

[markodochartaigh]

109. And even if they were thrown out

would they not be replaced quickly with representatives who were just as bad? It doesn't seem likely that any of these representatives come from districts where a special election would put a Democrat in office. And for states where the governor might appoint a replacement are enough of these miscreant representatives in states with a Democratic governor?

[live love laugh]

74. No wonder they want to impeach Garland.

[brooklynite]

82. I think there almost no hard evidence of criminal conduct by the House members

Taking insurrectionists on a tour the day before would be difficult to present to a Jury as a crime.

[fescuerescue]

87. I like. Impeach them early and often.

Before they even get sworn in if possible.

[tritsofme]

104. You can't impeach members of Congress....

[Martin68]

91. Very interesting point.

[Cha]

107. I would be so nice if they

got snatched out of their Hunter Biden bullshit investigations and had to go to prison.

[Mr. Ected]

110. The obstacles to prosecution are almost insurmountable

Meaning they will be emboldened to do it all over again in the future knowing that they can easily embark on a perfect crime each and every time as long as they mix in a healthy dose of partisan politics.

It will never get better.

[Takket]

114. unless i'm mistaken.......

being indicted doesn't get you expelled from congress (at least not without a vote, and the GOP isn't going to do that). So I fail to see how Wheeler's speculating and fantasizing (which is all this really is, she doesn't have any inside info), even if it comes true, would have any effect on their majority. any convictions would not come until well after the 2024 election, if ever.