The J6 committee may have given us a clue by something they did not do during the hearings.

[fightforfreedom]

The committee never really focused on the headquarters of the Coup Of Fools during the hearings, the Willard Hotel. I found that strange. That was one of the most important aspects of the coup. They must have investigated the Willard Hotel. They did not share everything they found with the public. Why?

There are cameras, videos in that Hotel. The coup plotters rented rooms and were there for days leading up to J6. There could be videos of who was entering and leaving those rooms. Proud Boys were at the Hotel. Did any of them enter those rooms? The committee may have found highly sensitive evidence they did not want to share with the public.. Maybe, Garland was investigating the Willard Hotel.

From the beginning, we know Garland was investigating thousands of people who stormed the Capital. That was and is a massive investigation.
From the beginning, we know Garland was investigating the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys for seditious conspiracy. Some have already been convicted. Consider this, If you are investigating people like the Proud Boys for seditious conspiracy, don't you have to investigate all the people they were in contact with?

The Proud Boys were at the coup headquarters. There are videos of the Proud Boys with Stone at the Willard Hotel. Garland may have started investigating the Coup Headquarters along time ago, along with the coup plotters. He may be investigating the coup plotters in his own way. We don't Know. All of this is just a guess.

The Proud Boys trial has just begun. Trumps name and words have already been brought up in the trial. Stay tuned.

There is a lot we don't know about when it comes to the investigations.

One more point. Last night on MSNBC, "The Beat", did a piece on Jack Smith. He is fearless when it comes to the rule of law. He has indicted presidents from other countries, War crimes. Smith will indict Trump if he feels Trump has broken the law. He will not back down because of fear. Garland picked the right guy for this job.

[gab13by13]

1. The J6 committee is a legislative committee with oversight.

The J6 committee does not have the authority to get search warrants and many of its subpoenas were ignored e.g. Mark Meadows was the go between Trump and the Willard Hotel. The J6 committee tried to subpoena Meadows to get the information that you are talking about but Meadows blew them off. The J6 filed a criminal referral with DOJ which DOJ proceeded to shit can.

Your beef is with DOJ not the J6 committee, it tried.

[ret5hd]

3. Huh..."beef". What a strange choice of word in this context.

I didn’t read a single word of complaint. Instead I read words of encouragement and hope.

[Joinfortmill]

7. Exactly.

[gab13by13]

12. Something they did not do is not true,

The J6 committee tried to investigate the Willard Hotel, the entire point of fff's thread.

I am now encouraged and hopeful that Jack Smith is investigating people who should have been investigated a long time ago.

As Denver Riggleman stated Monday, contrary to people's belief data isn't forever, it gets destroyed or lost and people's memories fade.

[Scrivener7]

21. Smith's subpoenas regarding the Willard Hotel are the

first sign I have seen that gives me hope this will NOW, two years later, be investigated properly.

And look at that! We see a paper trail about it! One that was completely "invisible" - i.e. nonexistent - before now.

Problem is as you say, two years have passed. How much evidence has been lost or erased in that time?

[fightforfreedom]

4. You missed the entire point of my post.

You keep up bringing up Meadows and the DOJ not acting on a criminal referral for contempt. You, nobody, knows why. You are speculating. There may be a very good reason they did not.

Your point about the committee not having the same power, tools as the DOJ is true. Which means the DOJ could have more evidence about Meadows, the Willard Hotel, the ties between the Proud Boys and the coup plotters than the committee. Did the committee investigate the Proud Boys? The DOJ did.

[fightforfreedom]

10. You are the one with the beef with Garland/DOJ.

You have made that clear time and time again. I did not trash, have a beef with the committee in any way in my post. I said they may have left us a clue by what they did not share with the public during the hearings. They have evidence we don't know about. So does Garland.

[gab13by13]

13. I stand up for the J6 committee,

it put DOJ to shame with far less resources and power.

Why was DOJ 2nd to subpoena Cassisdy Hutchinson? Every former prosecutor who I see on Nicolle Wallace says that it is not like DOJ to be behind in investigations, it wants to be first, and contrary to hope and encouragement DOJ did not investigate Trump and his inner circle for at least a year, we have proof of that from the people that Jack Smith is now investigating.

I have faith and encouragement in Jack Smith. I have faith and encouragement in Fani Willis and Letitia James, and Roberta Kaplan.

[fightforfreedom]

24. Everything you bring up is speculation.

Why didn't the DOJ do this or that. We don't know why, nobody does. You treat educated guesses from experts, former prosecutors on the news as facts. They may be right, they may not.

I could counter with other experts who say the opposite. People on the news are offering their opinions, they are not facts.

[gab13by13]

28. Give me one name.

[fightforfreedom]

29. I already have in a past post.

[rampartc]

2. what we do know about investigations

is that in the unlikely event the congress allows them to continue we will eventually hit the statute of limitations or 2025 when the new president for life pardons everyone.

it is time to get on with some convictions - of the leaders of this insurrection including the prospective president for life and his new committee chairmen.

[fightforfreedom]

6. Congress cannot stop the investigations.

Trump will not be president ever again.

[Joinfortmill]

8. Yes! Keep saying it until it sinks in.

[rampartc]

9. you are an optimist

watch what these blockheads can do. lets start with the debt ceiling and resulting furlough of civil servants, including investigators.........

[Joinfortmill]

5. Yes, yes, and yes. Justice is coming. I know it in my bones and most of you do, too.

[Goodheart]

11. "Picking the right guy for the job" two years too late

is hardly inspiring.

I'm finding these constant "trump might be indicted because blah blah blah" more and more boring.

[gab13by13]

14. Complacency is our worst enemy.

"Too much caution turns into immunity." Adam Schiff.

I just wish that people would tune in to Nicolle Wallace for just 1 week. Get your news from a reliable source, whether that news is good or bad it is accurate. She is adamant that DOJ did not investigate Trump and his inner circle for at least a year, the pyramid strategy.

[Beastly Boy]

22. Since when is being adamant on any subject makes this subject factual?

Nicole Wallace, like every other news show host, is an entertainer by profession. I don't consider any prime time news show a reliable source. A reliable source for me would be the J6 Committeee, DOJ and the Special Counsel. Anyone from the three aforementioned sources appear adamant in stating that DOJ did not investigate Trump for at least a year? And what does it mean anywat? A year since when? Does investigating the Jan 6 putsch itself, which by default lead to producing evidence against trump count as not investigating trump?

And since you are so fond of Schiff's quote that you keep repeating it at every opportunity, can you cite two or three cases, including those from Schiff's own prosecutorial career, as examples of too much caution indeed turning to immunity, without inadvertently showing that the opposite may be true?

[Scrivener7]

23. This! And those who have been pushing for complacency here

have been so oddly concerted and so one-noted about it.

One/two of the most vocal pushers for complacency was found to have been a scamming troll. That one set the example, followed by many, that no disagreement was to be tolerated, and anyone who did dare to disagree was to be swarmed and pilloried

I have to wonder: to what purpose? To whose advantage is it that we have total faith in the Qish idea that we simply need to trust the plan and the wizard behind the curtain will magically bring justice to all who deserve it any day now, despite all evidence to the contrary?

Though I do have hope for Smith, he is, as you say, limited to the evidence that has survived for two years and not been erased or destroyed. And also by the people who have seen the way the DOJ has been roaring like a mouse, and who will take this as a cue to continue to obstruct justice and delay until the climate favors them.

[gab13by13]

30. Wow, amazing,

I only guessed that the narrative that DOJ was working secretly behind the scenes was a right wing talking point.

Nicolle Wallace is furious that more people can't see that DOJ failed to act. The Michigan SOS even stated that she would have initiated an investigation herself but she felt that the fake elector conspiracy bridged numerous states and would be better handled by DOJ.

That is only happening now and I believe the SOS is indeed opening a state investigation.

[Beastly Boy]

41. I am not aware of a single person pushing for complacency here.

And finding one or two trolls, on either side of this issue, if you indeed have evidence for that, does not a trend make. There are many DUers advocating against rushing the Trump investigation through just for the sake of pacifying the overly impatient and demanding naysayers. This is a prudent approach, and it does not by any means signify complacency.

Nor do I see any intolerance for any reasonable disagreement. On the contrary, DU is full of calls for tolerance of difference of opinions. Citing myself as an example, with one of my posts in response to a Schiff quote conflating too much caution with immunity, alerting on and removing one post (mine was later reinstated), does not a pattern make.

I also suspect that you are routinely misinterpreting the posts you disagree with. My only trust, as I have repeatedly stated, is in due process of law, which the DOJ is bound by according to the laws passed bu the US Congress at one time or another. Likewise, this is the position, based on my observations, of the overwhelming number of DUers you disagree with. And it is a far cry from trusting the plan or, as you suggest, obeying a nebulous wizard behind the curtain. When it comes to maintaining due process of law as defined by Congress and calls for circumventing it it for the sake of self-gratification or expedience, hell yeah, I will advocate the former and vehemantly disagree with the latter! There is indeed a great advantage to this for me as well as all the rest of Americans, yourself included, and there is absolutely no evidence, despite your statement to the contrary, that would point to an opposite conclusion.

[gab13by13]

45. To rush an investigation through, one must first start investigating.

[Beastly Boy]

49. As a general statement, it is self evident. But I suspect you didn't intend to make

a general statement. There must be more context to it than appears in the header.

So what investigation(s) are you implying never started? It is difficult to respond to something with its meaning so obscured.

[Fiendish Thingy]

57. The "troll" referenced had two DU accounts

Which is a violation of TOS, so they were banned.

They were outspoken opponents of declaring facts based on an absence of public information.

Their violation of the TOS does not negate the accuracy of their position that one cannot declare a particular outcome (“Trump will never be held accountable”) as certain based on the absence of evidence/public information.

[Beastly Boy]

58. Thanks for clarifying.

So the reference to the troll(s) has nothing to do with pushing complacency, or suppressing tolerance for disagreement, or any other imagined offense, and had no effect on what followed next, as the poster contends.

It also confirms my suspicion that the poster, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is misinterpreting the posts he disagrees with.

Good to know.

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. What you call "a push for complacency " is actually a principled stand against uninformed impatience

Such as opposing Statements declaring the Certainty of a negative outcome based on an absence of public information.

Opposing statements like “Garland has done nothing for two years, and will never hold Trump accountable” is not advocating complacency, it is an acknowledgement of the uncertainty that comes with the lack of public information during an ongoing investigation. It’s not a disagreement over opinions, it is a challenging of statements set forth as verified facts.

Unlike those who cannot tolerate the uncertainty of the moment and judge Garland as derelict because they haven’t yet enjoyed the vengeance satisfying perp walk or mug shot, I am willing to acknowledge there is much we do not know at this time (although the body of public information is gradually growing).

Acknowledging uncertainty and an awareness that much is still not known about this investigation is not complacency, it’s rationality.

[Scrivener7]

61. I'm editing this. I apologize for being dismissive and flip. I just don't see any reason

Last edited Wed Jan 18, 2023, 03:19 PM - Edit history (3)

to go over this ridiculousness yet again, in which those with perfect faith in Garland are perfect, and those who dare to question the two year lack of results in prosecuting the planners are horrible and "unprincipled" and "uninformed" to use your ad hominems.

I do dislike the swarming, as I am meant to. I do dislike the unending ad hominems, as I am meant to.

And yes, I understand he prosecuted some Proud Boys.

And yes, I understand he has given hundreds from the 1/6 crowd a few months in jail.

And yes, I get that this 2 year ordeal is not a Law & Order episode.

And no, I am not going to heed the absurd "patience, grasshopper" bullshit (which is even more patronizing than my "that's nice, dear." )

And no, I am not going to get a law degree and go to work in the DOJ, because that's just a stupid suggestion, and I really wish those who make the suggestion understand how bizarrely stupid it is.

Likewise the suggestion that I call Garland and tell him what I think. Because that's equally stupid.

And most of all no, I am not a bad Democrat. And I do not hate Joe Biden.

So there's the whole argument as it usually goes. Need we do more?

[fightforfreedom]

26. Once again, you are treating educated opinions as facts.

Wallace has no idea what Garland has been doing or is doing now.

[gab13by13]

31. Garland is doing nothing now, he gave the job to Jack Smith.

[fightforfreedom]

38. That is ridiculous.

I am not trying to insult you. I don't think you realize you are doing this in your posts, for example.

Whenever you constantly bring up things like Meadows and the contempt referral. The Cassidy Hutchinson example, the Mueller investigation example. You treat them as proof, a fact, that Garland has failed. That he has been incompetent and you use some peoples opinions from the news to back it up.

You never consider there may be a good reason why Garland did or did not do those things. Only Garland knows, no one else.

[Scrivener7]

40. That's convenient. We should all just trust the plan, huh? But why should we?

[gab13by13]

46. IMO it is a right wing talking point.

Garland has a record to be judged on. I cannot get over DOJ allowing a pro-Trump bogus company that had a mailbox for an office the Cyber Ninjas have access to ballots, voter information, election equipment and materials all in violation of Title 52 federal law. Doing nothing to the Cyber Ninjas allowed fraudits and the Big Lie to spread across the country and become the rallying cry for the attack on our Capitol. Garland did write a stern letter about not canvassing voters homes that was ignored.

[Beastly Boy]

17. Picking the right guy at the right time, on the other hand, is inspiring indeed.

You see how easy it is to speculate on things that, due to lack of common knowledge, we can only speculate about?

To tell you the truth, I too find the constant "trump might be indicted" predictions a bit boring. I also find "trump may never be indicted", or "time is running out to indict trump" predictions, or counting the days since the insurrection without trump being indicted, or specularions on the theme of "Garland has not indicted trump because blah blah blah" equally boring. There is no foundation in fact for any of them.

However, what FFFs speculations have going for them is that as time goes by, they become increasingly plausible, while the prospects for other speculations materializing fade. This process has been going on for months, and if nothing else, it indicates the general direction of where things are going.

[gab13by13]

32. All of what you say is what Trump's strategy is, to delay everything.

That strategy is indeed working. It took E. Jeanne Carroll over 3 1/2 years to finally have a civil trial scheduled this April against Trump. E. Jean has a fantastic lawyer, Roberta Kaplan who doggedly pursued Trump even while Merrick Garland is trying to get her suit thrown out by claiming that slandering someone is an official duty of the president, A district court overruled Garland but the case is now at the Appeals court. If that Appeals court rules in favor of Trump it will be a huge blow to our rule of law.

I do not see a federal Trump trial ever happening before 2026. Democrats had better win the presidency in 2024 and 2028 to hold Trump accountable. Time does matter in indicting Trump.

[Beastly Boy]

47. How so?

I offered one speculation as equally valid as the other. I didn't advocate delaying anything. In fact, I offered it as a reason not to advocate anything, one way or another. And the reason is exceedingly simple: based on what we know vs what we don't know, categorical adherence to one position or the other is ridiculous.

There have been several specific instances where you objected to the speed of individual investigations. While pointing to each one of them separately does not constitute the establishment of causation, if you object to the time it takes to complete certain investigations, you will have to object to the concept of due process of law in general. Yo may not pick and choose when due process is appropriate and when it is not. It takes legislation, not shortcuts in administering justice, to change due process. If you find the pace of due process unacceptable, it is not DOJ's fault, it is Congress's falt. it means that the Congress has imposed, by your standards, unreasonable burden on DOJ. You, as voter, are ultimately responsible for this. Elect lawmakers who would change DOJ rules to your liking, then face the consequences of your choices when the new due process is applied according to the new rules, and then we can talk.

[fightforfreedom]

53. Boom, good post.

[kentuck]

15. I saw the piece about Jack Smith...

When he made the point about "morality and corruption" not being the same as criminality.

My first thought was, this is the way Trump escapes?

He is immoral and corrupt but there is also tons of evidence.

[gab13by13]

33. Jack Smith is the best person available to go after Trump.

[dem4decades]

16. January 6th was 2 years ago, did anyone order the Willard to preserve records?

Too much time has gone by, memories fade, records destroyed, the big wigs walk again. Welcome to America.

[Beastly Boy]

18. The logical response to your question is,

did anyone order Willard to preserve records?

The tone of your post implies that no one did, and that the order to preserve Willard records, whoever it might come from, has legal standing. Neither is a certainty.

[gab13by13]

19. IMO, the talking point that

we don't know what DOJ is doing because DOJ doesn't leak, is a right wing talking point that promotes complacency.

DOJ doesn't leak but we find out from other sources. There are people who are stationed at court houses watching who enters. Lawyers leak information, the target himself/herself leaks.

Funny how since Jack Smith has taken over we know who he has been investigating. The Michigan SOS understood the importance of holding the fake electors accountable so she issued a criminal referral a year and a half ago. Lisa Monaco, 4 months later stated that DOJ would "investigate the referral." Jack Smith is just now subpoenaing communications from the Michigan fake electors. DOJ did nothing with that Michigan SOS criminal referral, Jack Smith did.

[Scrivener7]

25. It is an absurd talking point. We didn't see evidence of an

investigation of those who planned and executed the insurrection because, as we can see now with Smith's activities, there was no investigation to see.

[fightforfreedom]

42. That is factual incorrect.

We saw evidence Garland was investigating some of the coup plotters before he appointed Smith. Clark and Eastman are two examples.

Garland started an investigation into the fake electors a long time ago.

[Scrivener7]

43. Sure he did.

[fightforfreedom]

44. Look it up.

They raided Clarks home. Grabbed Eastman in a parking lot and took his phone. It was reported a long time ago Garland opened an investigation into the fake electors. How do you think Smith knew all the players so quickly to send subpoenas to when he expanded the investigation into the fake electors?

[Scrivener7]

50. "It was reported a long time ago that Garland opened an investigation

into the fake electors."

Do you see anything wrong with that sentence?

How did Smith know about the fake electors? Maybe he got the names from the Senate or the US Archivist who were sent the fake documents. OR Maybe he watched a Rachel Maddow show. A YEAR AGO.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/after-2020-trump-backers-forged-election-docs-even-more-states-n1287365

Or any of the other news shows that ran the story.

[fightforfreedom]

54. No, I do not see anything thing wrong with that sentence.

You are speculating.

[Scrivener7]

60. So are you. And on a lot less evidence.

[fightforfreedom]

62. I am not speculating in that sentence, it is a fact.

There are news reports, facts, proving Garland has been investigating the fake electors, coup plotters long before he hired Smith. You disagree with the facts and say I am speculating.

[Scrivener7]

63. Yes I do. Because there was no proof. There were some reports in the media that

it might be happening. No evidence, no paper trail.

Why is there suddenly a paper trail as Smith takes over? Is he just a big old leaker?

[fightforfreedom]

56. Garland raided Clarks home last June.

That means he was investigating Clark long before last June and long before he hired Smith. The same goes for Eastman. The FBI grabbed his phone last June. It was reported last January, a year ago, the DOJ was investigating the fake electors. Long before Garland hired Smith.

People who are saying Garland has not been investigating the coup plotters, the fake electors, are factual incorrect and it can be proven.

[fightforfreedom]

27. Tell me who knew Garland was investigating the Biden documents since November.

No one. We don't know everything Garland and Smith are doing. You are speculating everything leaks out in some way. that is just flat out wrong.

[Hortensis]

20. Lots of fascinating stuff there, looking forward to a good movie,

and of course some valuably thick books.

I think the hotel wasn't mentioned, though, simply because it wasn't key to the case being made against tRump. The hearings made a careful, very well documented case that ex- President tRump lead an attempted coup d'etat. HUGE happenings. Videos shows were either of interviews of Republicans witness to the plotting or action scenes evidencing it from the attack on the Capitol.

Fwiw, dozens of plotters were coming and going at the Willard at various different times. I've also read that there were four places around DC where insurrectionists/coup plotters gathered, plus of course meetings all over the country.

Not that traitors weren't plotting treason there, and not that the committee kept treason-related things secret for secret reasons, just mainly, or only?, that there was far more than was needed to make the case and they had to avoid confusing and distracting from effectively informing the citizenry. Location, and most of the plotters, were extraneous to the main plot.

[gab13by13]

36. Seditious conspiracy is extremely difficult to prove.

Honestly, I don't think that DOJ should go after Trump for that crime. There are other crimes that are easier to prove.

One problem with the communications between the White House and the Willard Hotel is that they used burner phones with encryption.

Roger Stone or Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon will never flip on Trump, Mark Meadows is the key man.

[JohnnyRingo]

34. The hotel has a right to privacy for their clients.

Not just insurrectionists, but regular people, or those who may not want their stay to be made public.
A low key investigation may have been completed without mention in the report to protect clients.

[gab13by13]

37. Once DOJ obtains a search warrant

the Hotel has no say in the matter.

[wiggs]

35. Yes. Those who read Seth Abramson know there's a LOT there. nt

[JT45242]

39. Because mainstream rethugs were there and they were off limits because of Liz Chaney

NEVER EVER FORGET WHO AND WHAT SHE IS -- She puts party over country ALWAYS -- she just doesn't consider Trump and the MAGA loons as part of her party. They are usurpers to her rightful throne as the daughter of Darth Chaney.

Cruz, Ginny Thomas, Tuberville, etc. were all off limits. She barbecued Josh Hawley because she considered him a threat to her planned presidential run in 2024. If he was not a threat to her personally, she would have let him skate.

Liz wanted to kill off Trump by using his children and other minor republican players. Nailing Ghouliani and the lawyers like Eastman (who were never major players in the Rethug party before TFG) was OK. But she had a big RED LINE that traditional rethug leaders like McConnell, McCarthy, etc who all knew in 2016 that TFG was a Russian asset from the briefing that they got that McTurtle scuttled because as a Chaney it is always RETHUGLICAN FIRST, ME PERSONALLY SECOND, and then nothing else matters.

[gab13by13]

48. I partially agree with you,

but Liz certainly pushed the narrative that it was Trump who was behind the insurrection, without Trump the insurrection doesn't happen.

[Danascot]

51. Seth Abramson wrote extensively about

the goings on at the Willard. The thread here, a sort of guide/primer/tip of the iceberg was published in October 2021. It contains many links for further information. Unfortunately most are behind a Substack paywall though it only costs $5/month for access.

There are many here who don't care for Abramson. He often comes off as self promoting and full of himself which turns a lot of people off but he has put in a lot of research abut Trump era corruption and brought many things to light.

There may be a lot more that we don't know about the Willard war rooms but Abramson has provided a great deal of information about it

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1451223849769570308.html

[Scrivener7]

52. If this were an OP, I'd rec it! Thanks.

[gab13by13]

59. Fantastic post, thanks.

Did not know about Alex Jones.

[SeattleVet]

64. There's a lot of rats associated with this particular Willard.

Here's hoping that the DoJ is able to trap them all.

[malaise]

65. K & R

Keep on fighting