The Treason Caucus, sworn in or not, will be indicted by Jack Smith.

[ancianita]

These 11 House Republicans were at the White House "how-can-we-help" meeting with Trump on Dec 21 2020, according to the White House visitor logs obtained by the January 6 panel:

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama
Rep. Brian Babin of Texas

Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona
Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas
Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona

Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland
Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio
Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania

Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia

These and perhaps 34 other congress people (who texted former congress person Mark Meadows) are still subjects of DOJ investigation. Congress people who the Jan 6 Committee knew to have information but who refused subpoenas are included above, along with Kevin McCarthy. When Jack Smith gets them before the DOJ's grand jury, that will be the reveal of their participation in Trump's Jan 6 schemes.

In the Jan 6 criminal referrals they are included in the "and others" language as having broken these laws:
Conspiracy to Defraud the US (18 U.S.C. sec 371),
Conspiracy to Make a False Statement (18. U.S.C. sec 1001),
"Incite," "Assist," or "Aid and Comfort" an Insurrection (18 U.S.C. sec 2383)

In general, Jack Smith can indict them under the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”


I choose to err on the side of Jack Smith:

“I intend to conduct the assigned investigations, and any prosecutions that may result from them, independently and in the best traditions of the Department of Justice. The pace of the investigations will not pause or flag under my watch. I will exercise independent judgement and will move the investigations forward expeditiously and thoroughly to whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate.”

Please spare me the disagreement, doubt, impatience and general complaint.
We're Democrats. If we can unite in the House, we can unite around Jack Smith and rule of law.

[SheltieLover]

1. SC Smith has got this!

[gab13by13]

2. Only 1 possible sitting member of Congress may be indicted, Scott Perry.

I have all the faith in world in Jack Smith but he doesn't have the final say.

I respect your opinion immensely and I hope that you are right.

[ancianita]

4. Why only Scott Perry and not the others?

[Trueblue1968]

57. can the OP provide a link to the post please ???????

[republianmushroom]

3. possible

but doubtful

[Beachnutt]

5. Can they ignore his subpoena ?

[ancianita]

6. Whose?

[Beachnutt]

18. A subpoena from the DOJ

[ancianita]

19. They can ignore it, then get held in contempt by a court, and then made to show up, or go to jail.

So no, not in the end.

[catbyte]

10. I wouldn't advise it, lol. The feds have more teeth than Congress.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/ignoring-federal-subpoena

[Marius25]

7. I'll believe it when I see it.

So far, none of the major players have faced any consequences. And now they control the House of Reps.

[Kingofalldems]

8. Uh oh, Trump's little buddies won't like this one.

[malaise]

9. Hope So

The sooner the better

[getagrip_already]

11. just a nit....

But this is all unfounded speculation. For example:

When Jack Smith gets them before the DOJ's grand jury, that will be the reveal of their participation in Trump's Jan 6 schemes.

He won't bring targets before the grand jury to testify unless they are cooperating. And if he did bring them unwillingly, they would just plead the fifth.

It is highly unlikely any sitting member of congress would agree to testify. They have a lot of protection/immunity by being house members.

That's not to say he couldn't indict them. But he would a lot of independent evidence. Most of it would be circumstantial

But glad to see you are convinced.

[ancianita]

13. well,

Yes, it's speculation. The 30 who already pleaded the 5th to the Jan 6 committee won't be able to. The rest who go before Smith's grand jury won't be allowed lawyers, and they don't have to be there solely for cooperating; they can be subpoenaed without a previous charge. Then charged by the grand jury.

The mountains of evidence at Smith's disposal are texts, phone call transcripts, video, audio, the Jan 6 evidence of meetings with Trump and other activities they engaged in before or after

With all the evidence presented by the Jan 6 Committee, and at least 80 prosecutors on his team, we ALL have good reason to be convinced.

[getagrip_already]

21. just curious....

Why would people who plead the fifth at the 1/6 hearings not be able to before the gj?

My understanding is that the only way you can be compelled to testify with no 5th amendment protection is if you have been granted broad immunity. The whole point of the 5th amendment is to give you the right to not incriminate yourself.

Without both federal and state immunity, it would seem to me they could claim the fifth. No?

[ancianita]

23. They

will absolutely be able to be subpoenaed to appear before the Special Counsel's grand jury? Where did you get the idea they wouldn't?

They can still plead the 5th anywhere, but they still have to go before a grand jury if subpoenaed. Then other things can happen to get their cooperation.

[getagrip_already]

24. I didn't say they "couldn't be"....

I said it was unlikely they would be if they are targets.

Typically, prosecutors don't call targets before a grand jury. Targets can elect to appear if they think it will help them, but they usually aren't forced to appear.

If they are just witnesses, that is different. But witnesses aren't usually indicted unless they perjure themselves or other information surfaces.

[ancianita]

26. You're confusing me. No one can not show up to a grand jury. Period.

If they're subpoenaed, there's good reason. It doesn't have to be to indict them, either, but they don't know that ahead of time.

[getagrip_already]

30. i'll try to break it down....

1) Prosecutors determine who will be called before a grand jury. Yes, it can be anyone, assuming the judge signs off on it.

2) Prosecutors will typically let targets of an investigation know they are targets. It is usually not a surprise to people under investigation once it gets to the point of a grand jury (which exists to indict people, not just investigate).

3) Prosecutors typically won't call a target before a grand jury. I'm sure the lawyers can tell you why, but it is easy enough to verify.

So yes, they could call someone to testify, but if they are looking to indict that person, they usually won't call them.

And finally, any person not under an immunity agreement can claim the fifth. That may be why they aren't called since it is generally a waste of time since your lawyer would advise against answering questions if you are a target.

These aren't depositions in a civil case. You can refuse to testify and it can't be held against you in court.

If the doj is holding a grand jury with your name on it, you are likely already screwed. It will almost always result in an indictment. They don't need your testimony to get the grand jury to indict you.

[ancianita]

32. Okay. Thanks. So from what I've read about Special Counsel powers, there won't be any problems.

You sound like a lawyer. If so, extra thanks.

[getagrip_already]

36. Nope, don't play one on the internet either... ;)

Just listen to them when they pipe up.

They are normally pretty quick to put nonsense in its place though.

[Prairie_Seagull]

62. If someone goes in front of a GJ and pleads the 5th,

isn't it more likely they get a GJ of their own? There is an idea that lawyers ask questions they already know the answers to. As long as the evidence is there, seems to me that this gives the DOJ serious room to maneuver.

Not sure i am making this clear enough.

[getagrip_already]

64. Not sure of the question but...

In a criminal case, pleading the fifth cannot be used against you in court or court proceedings.

So if a prosecutor goes to a judge asking for a search warrant or a wire tap simply because someone took the fifth, it would (should) be denied.

Investigators and prosecutors don't need a court order to investigate though. They are free to ask all the questions they want, look at any public records, look at public social media posts, etc, without any court involvement.

You can piss off a Leo, or fbi agent, or prosecutor if you want to. They can investigate you up to a point.

But just pissing them off or not talking to them isn't an excuse to prosecute.

Well, unless you are a minority or poor. Not every charge goes to a grand jury.

In any case, once it gets to a grand jury you are in deep legal risk. The old saying is that a good prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Grand juries exist to indict people if the evidence warrants it. They aren't there to uncover new evidence. They get evidence and testimony presented to them. Your lawyer isn't even there as witnesses and evidence are presented. It's a very one sided presentation.

So no, taking the fifth doesn't make you a target, even as a witness.

Imho, without being an expert at any level with the law.

[Hortensis]

12. Even a few would be great. We need laws that enable charging

convicting everyone involved in insurrections/attempted coups in future. Attempted election theft!

People we give power to really should be afraid to cross us.

[ancianita]

14. The good news is that if he's got enough to nail a couple, he can nail them all.

[Hortensis]

15. That would be GREAT!

[GoCubsGo]

16. I sure as hell hope so.

I suspect that BoBo the Clown (R-C0) was also involved.

[ancianita]

17. I loathe her so much, but I gotta say, her name hasn't come up in the last year.

She'll (gasp!) likely be the new leader of the Freedumb Caucus.

[GoCubsGo]

20. I'm starting to wonder if she'll even finish out her term.

She seems really emboldened for some reason, in spite of barely eeking out her reelection. I have a feeling she is going to fall victim to her own hubris and stupidity, either directly by her own actions, or by pissing off one of her own party members. They're all scumbags.

[ancianita]

22. She will.

I wish your reasons were sound enough to finish her, but given the state of the Freedumb Caucus, she's pretty much protected. She'll still be around as their spokesperson.

[msfiddlestix]

25. Did I miss a public statement from his office today?

Should I look in LBN for a report since I don't have my tv on?

[ancianita]

28. No, you didn't. It's just that there's been talk about the "Treason Caucus," and I just

felt it important to clarify what that means when people think congress people are going to be free and clear of the Jan 6 investigations.

[msfiddlestix]

38. oh gothcha, thought I missed a mighty big announcement that I was not expecting..

I'm so happy to accept good news.

[FakeNoose]

27. Yes! - No Speaker can stop it from happening

As Captain Picard would say...

[ancianita]

29. Nope!

great gif, FN!

[Polybius]

31. Not gonna happen

Flame away, but it's my opinion. Feel free to bookmark.

[calimary]

33. Whatever gets them into jail sooner.

Or mired in terrible, and terribly expensive complications. I’d take that, too.

[Mr.Bill]

34. And none of them will be removed from office. n/t

[ancianita]

37. Spare me. Tell it to Jack Smith.

Jack Smith
Special Counsel

Contact

Department of Justice
Special Counsel’s Office
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
​​​​​​​Room B-206
Washington, D.C. 20530

[tritsofme]

51. He can't do anything to remove them from Congress.

Only a 2/3 vote can do that.

[ancianita]

55. If they're sentenced to jail, I've read that they could still participate in Congress, maybe. Sure.

So are you claiming that your being precise about congress people's accountability will be for nothing?
As if "removal" is the whole bottom line re accountability? Really?

[Kennah]

35. Kevin won't be like Jack. Jack will only let them choose where they do time. Maybe.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

39. This is only the four millioneth or so such prediction.

And with no clear reasons as to why all these people haven't been indicted already.

Hell, Trump should have been in jail a year ago once it was discovered he'd taken classified materials home. If any of us had done so, we'd possibly never again see the light of day.

[ancianita]

43. PUH-LEASE.

Spare us the glib dismissals and slipshod comparison.

None of the evidence that exists today was collected a year ago.

Hell, the House Select Committee wasn't even formed until July 1, 2021.
And the Jan 6 Committee staff -- investigative counsel, financial investigators, security -- 64 individuals, had to get composed and get into the work. 35 Contractors and consultants had to work with that Jan 6 Committee's staff.

once it was discovered he'd taken classified materials home. If any of us had done so, we'd possibly never again see the light of day.

If any ONE of us? Of course! Your flair for the obvious doesn't take in the other obvious SCALE -- in gathering the evidence about hundreds at the top -- of evidence collection across the wires, in film, video, text, phone transcripts, subpoenas, research teams.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

63. Meanwhile, Trump,

and those who are the most guilty are getting off scott-free.

And spare me the accounting of those who have been sentenced, because while they all richly deserve those sentences, they are not the ones who instigated January 6.

Remember Fitzmas?

[ancianita]

65. Yes,

so far.

[onenote]

40. Because we're Democrats we're not supposed to disagree with your opinion?

Sorry, but as you well know, that’s not how DU works

[ancianita]

44. Go for it. I'll wait.

Tell me more about how DU works.

[onenote]

45. People state their own opinions, they don't hold back because some poster says they don't want

to hear any disagreement.

Any number of posts in this thread prove this to be the case.

[ancianita]

47. Yes, they do. Venting is common around here.

If you love wallowing in all that, cool.

I prefer the opinions with more factual information and fair argument. There are plenty of those around here, too.

[onenote]

49. Except you didn't want to hear any disagreement, fact based or otherwise.

You wanted not only to have the last word, you wanted to have the only word.

Sorry, didn't happen did it.

[ancianita]

52. Who would. I get disagreement regularly, fact based or otherwise.

You want to make the OP about me just for one sentence? Sorry, but that's trifling, unhelpful.

This thread isn't about the last word. It's about being constructive Democrats.

[onenote]

53. A bit late to walk back your demand.

Sorry.

[ancianita]

54. What demand. The one with "please" in it?

[ancianita]

56. You've got issues.

So here's a suggestion. Write your own OP. Just something for the empty Journal. Good luck.

[onenote]

58. They don't compare to yours, I think

I'm not the one who thinks my opinion shouldn't be subject to discussion. Or that one has to start their own thread if they want to comment on another person's thread.

[H2O Man]

41. Nope

[progressoid]

42. ...whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate."

No, I won't spare you disagreement, doubt, impatience or general complaint.

What people often fail to see is the very real possibility that the facts and law won't work in our favor. There may be minor repercussions for some members but I ain't holdin' my breath hoping for some miracle conviction let alone an indictment.

[ancianita]

46. Yeah, whatever.

As for "the very real possibility that the facts and law won't work in our favor" claim, on what previous event facts and knowledge do you base this? Give a relevant example.

Because logic dictates that no one here can "often fail to see" what hasn't ever happened to a sitting president and his aiders and abetters. Don't hold your breath while you fail to see that over 1,000 have been convicted and sentenced over Jan 6.

[progressoid]

48. OK.

For years DUers were sure that Bush and his cabal were going to end up in irons. Still waiting for that to happen.

How about you give a relevant example to support your claim that The Treason Caucus will be indicted by Jack Smith.

If you are interested in facts, over 1,000 have NOT been convicted and sentenced over Jan 6. From the DOJ:

Approximately 351 federal defendants have had their cases adjudicated and received sentences for their criminal activity on January 6. Approximately 192 have been sentenced to periods of incarceration. Approximately 87 defendants have been sentenced to a period of home detention, including approximately 14 who also were sentenced to a period of incarceration.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/24-months-january-6-attack-capitol

[ancianita]

50. Court rulings:

535 convicted

359 sentenced

Total count = 894

Close enough.

https://seditiontracker.com/suspects/by_status

[H2O Man]

59. No.

The 359 are part of the 535, not a separate group.

[ancianita]

60. Yes.

The two lists I draw from have all different names.

Look the sentencing and convicted lists over. I never see the same names twice.

https://seditiontracker.com/suspects/by_status

[ancianita]

61. Okay.

You're right. I found a couple. Thanks. 535 it is.