Don't get so cynical about the DOJ that you miss important progress in investigations

[bigtree]

...I posted at the end of last month about the convictions of the Oath Keepers on charges of sedition and other crimes committed surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Jordan Fischer @JordanOnRecord
🚨 VERDICT: A jury has found Oath Keepers Roberto Minuta, Joseph Hackett, David Moerschel and Edward Vallejo GUILTY of seditious conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding and two other conspiracy counts. Hackett also convicted of tampering w/ evidence.

Jordan Fischer @JordanOnRecord 44m
After two Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy trials, here are the verdicts for all nine defendants on each charged count:

Four Oath Keepers found guilty of Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy

Four members of the far-right Oath Keepers group were convicted of seditious conspiracy Monday, joining founder Stewart Rhodes in being found guilty by a jury of plotting to keep President Donald Trump in power by force.

Seditious conspiracy charges are rarely used and even more rarely successful, making the verdict a significant victory for the Justice Department. Of the nearly 1,000 people charged with committing crimes at the Capitol on Jan. 6, only 14 were charged with seditious conspiracy, identified by the Justice Department as not just participants in a violent mob but leaders using brutality to further a political plot. In November, the same prosecution team failed to convict three associates of the Oath Keepers of the crime.

At Rhodes’s trial only he and Florida Oath Keepers leader Kelly Meggs were found guilty of conspiring to commit sedition, while three associates were convicted of less politically loaded felonies that did not require plans to use force. The Oath Keepers verdict — which came after the jury deliberated for about 13 hours — comes as five members of the Proud Boys face trial down the hall on seditious conspiracy charges.

(Oath keepers) Hackett and Moerschel traveled to D.C. from Florida with Meggs and followed him into the Capitol at 2:38 p.m. Minuta was in a separate Oath Keeper group providing security for Trump confidante Roger Stone that morning. Stone refused to leave his hotel because the Oath Keepers could not guarantee him access to the presidential stage, according to the testimony. When the riot started, Minuta and the others left Stone and rode hotel golf carts over to the Capitol.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/23/oathkeepers-verdict-seditious-conspiracy-jan6-guilty/
__________________________________

...and this morning, at the D.C. Federal Courthouse:

Daniel Barnes @dnlbrns 8h
Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, is currently appearing before a grand jury inside the DC federal courthouse. At least one prosecutor from special counsel Jack Smith's office is present.

Fitton not only told Trump publicly to stonewall DOJ on the Maralago documents, he's a prominent member of 'Groundswell,' which is basically made up of Jan. 6 insurrection organizers including, conservative activist and Supreme Court spouse Virginia (Ginni) Thomas, John Bolton, Frank Gaffney, Kenneth Blackwell, Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton, former Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), Max Pappas (an aide to Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas), The Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott, and Breitbart News' Matthew Boyle, Mike Flynn, and Stephen Bannon.

Nicole Wallace brought this up today:

...not exactly the portrait of a retreating DOJ that critics seem so eager to convince.

DOJ has won 10 seditious conspiracy cases. In addition, five Proud Boys are on trial, in court right now. The judge in that Proud Boys trial ruled that he would allow prosecutors to use Trump’s ‘stand back and stand by’ comment in trial

read emptywheel:

Trump Worked with People Who Allegedly Worked with the Proud Boys to Obstruct the Peaceful Transfer of Power

As the Proud Boys trial gets underway, finally, prosecutors are beginning to show how the Proud Boys worked with people -- Alex Jones, Ali Alexander, and Roger Stone -- who in turn worked with Donald Trump in what ended up being a successful attempt to obstruct the certification of Donald Trump's loss.

By my count, at least 14 people are known to have pled guilty to some kind of conspiracy on January 6, with four more cooperating against them. Another four were found guilty of one or more conspiracy in November’s Oath Keeper verdict. Eighteen people, in one way or another have been convicted of conspiring to prevent the peaceful transfer of power on January 6, most by obstructing the vote certification.

Trump played a key part in all those conspiracies.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/01/17/trump-worked-with-people-who-worked-with-the-proud-boys-to-obstruct-the-peaceful-transfer-of-power/

...look to the grand juries, which aren't yet finished with wringing out every drop of evidence from an impressive number of Trump principals, and haven't reached any decision at all.

Don't listen to people who can't tell you about the actual state of the trial, what's publicly known. Don't rest your judgment of DOJ on cynics who can't be bothered to acknowledge the progress right in front of them.

[Cha]

1. TY

[republianmushroom]

2. a lot of little very dumb fish, when do they start hauling in the smart larger ones or do they ?

When is the 14th amendment kick in and who does it ?
been 24 months and counting, the count may only go to 48 or less but it could go to 96 and end.

[wnylib]

19. Try rereading the list of Judicial Watch members, who

are cohorts of Fitton, who is being interrogated with a member of Smith's team present.

Some well known names there - Ginni Thomas, Flynn, Bannon.

[ShazzieB]

41. +1000!

[republianmushroom]

42. tell me which one has been indicted and arrested ?

after 24 months and counting

[wnylib]

55. Tell me about your insights into how investigations are conducted

in a huge, multi faceted criminal case. You must have some reason for believing that all the people, statements, physical evidence, grand jury presentations on numerous suspects and participants should go as quickly as you want them to.

There's a friend of mine since we were 18 who became the lead detective in a DA's office for a moderate sized city. He's retired now, but was well respected for being good and accurate in providing the DA with solid evidence for convictions. It once took him 4 years to nail a criminal who murdered an entire family. Every one "knew" who did it, but getting concrete evidence that would convict in court was very difficult. The murderer was elusive in investigations until finally, after relentless interviews of several people and evidence collection, my friend was able to pin down proof that the psychopathic murderer could not explain away or slide out of in evidential loopholes. Some cases are like that.

A huge, complex case like the psychopathic Trump and his equally psychopathic accomplices who cover for each other and, who in mob style, leave no clear cut trail of evidence is like trying to put a greased eel into a box. Sure, we "know" what Trump did in instigating the insurrection and in committing several other crimes. But "knowing" it and lining up all the concrete evidence, sworn testimonies, sequence of events, phone calls, texts, meetings, insinuating paper records into a whole collection of data AND aligning the actions with various parts of the penal code into a case that will HOLD UP IN COURT, is not a cake walk.

In addition to the investigations and assessing probable charges, the prosecutors must also consider at EACH STAGE the probable defense that will be offered and be sure to have concrete evidence and testimony that counters the likely defense. Prosecutors must weigh what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and what to let go, or what to get more evidence on.

It is not surprising to me that it takes time to get together all that's necessary for a conviction with no room for reasonable doubt.

[emulatorloo]

72. That poster apparently refuses to read anything that contradicts their 'opinion.'

[republianmushroom]

75. Can you explain these, and why they have not been pursued ?

President Trump’s staggering record of uncharged crimes

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trumps-staggering-record-of-uncharged-crimes/#table

As of November 2022, Donald Trump has been credibly accused of committing at least 56 criminal offenses since he launched his campaign for president in 2015. That total only reflects allegations relating to his time in or running for office and omits, for instance, Trump’s criminal exposure for fraudulent business dealings.

As reported by https://www.citizensforethics.org/

[emulatorloo]

76. No because at this point I believe you may not be acting in good faith.

I and others have given you evidence in good faith of significant things that are going on at the DOJ.

You either ignore the evidence or move the goalposts or engage in rhetorical devices like “whataboutism.”

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but it seems like you are dead set against hearing facts that don’t support your opinion.

So I am choosing to no longer waste my time by providing you with facts.

You seem like a nice person. Take care!

[republianmushroom]

86. in other words you can.

[we can do it]

68. Yawn

[republianmushroom]

69. Yep. Believe that is the way the DoJ sees it too.

I wouldn't hold my breather either until or if it happens.

[we can do it]

70. Yawn

[emulatorloo]

71. Your routine is getting boring.

[malaise]

3. Great OP

Rec

[Qutzupalotl]

4. Good. Establishing in court that J6 was a seditious conspiracy

is how we'll nail the Don. The more cases like this, the stronger the case will be against Trump.

[ShazzieB]

43. EXACTLY.

These cases are building blocks that are being used to construct a sturdy and strong edifice. Some may seem unimportant in themselves, but each of them is one piece of a huge jigsaw puzzle that will form a powerful image when they are all assembled.

[bigtree]

8. if you watched the Jan. 6 hearings, you'd know those 'small fish' are essential links to the WH

...the connection to WH knowledge or planning about the intent to riot and halt the counting of votes in the election.

Anyone expecting Trump to be indicted for Jan. 6 whose reasoning doesn't include linking the actions of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys to the Trump WH has some explaining to do. That's what the Jan. 6 committee was on about.

That is their primary accusation, that Trump influenced these groups, either directly or indirectly to riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, to stop or delay the counting of votes so that republicans could engineer installing new slates of compromised electors to replace legitimate ones.

You don't get to prosecuting Trump for the Jan. 6 riot without these small fish.

[wnylib]

20. +1000

[ShazzieB]

45. Absolutely.

[we can do it]

67. Thank you.

[mcar]

74. This!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

10. Seditious conspiracy is not a "petty crime".

[bigtree]

15. that's correct

..and it's rarely charged, and even more rarely obtaining convictions.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

22. 18 U.S. Code § 2384

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

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 under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[bigtree]

24. right, they're facing up to 20 years in federal prison

...meaning they'll serve almost all of what they get.

[Qutzupalotl]

59. And if Trump is charged -- which he will be --

he will be considered a co-conspirator, and will face the same sentence. If he is found to be the architect of the conspiracy, perhaps even more.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

6. Just because so many of Nixon's people

wound up in jail, doesn't mean I shouldn't care that he didn't die in prison.

So long as Trump is running around free, I don't give a flying fuck if every single other Republican in the country is in jail. The main instigator still isn't being held to account.

[bigtree]

12. read again

...convicting Trump isn't something you pull from newspapers and read to the jury.

In order to establish that Trump was behind these riot leaders, they need to be tried in court, and the evidence of their actions made a matter of the court record. That's what you take into court to bolster any Trump indictment for Jan. 6., not some blogger or pols word, but actual convictions for the things you're accusing them of.

You don't get to convicting Trump for the Jan. 6 riot without demonstrating that impact on the actions of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers in a hearing, before a jury, which has happened, and is happening right now.

What other path would there be to convicting Trump, if not to show to jurors that he influenced these groups of individuals? How do you show that without convicting them of those crimes first?

[Justice matters.]

34. The Defense team can argue to a confused Jury that the prosecution team did not show direct evidence

of Trump directly ordering, on signed paper, to these violent assholes, ordering them, as POTUS, to attack the Capitol.

Thus creating reasonable doubt in the minds of at least one Juror, and he/she/they will hang the Jury.

They will (would, rather, because Garland will decline to bring charges even if Jack Smith concludes he should).

By deliberately refusing to 'keep it simple' but rather to mix up everything at once, Garland knows he increases the probabilities of ending up with a hung jury, so there will be his perfect excuse to not bring up charges against a former POTUS of the opposing major party.

It's all just a big bloated and costly smoke show. Although it's worth it to jail these violent thugs.

[bigtree]

54. why?

...why all of this 'let's jump into court half-assed?' That should work out well.

I think declaring that everyone in charge is corrupt and uninterested in convicting Trump is just a convenient way of ignoring everything that happens inbetween, whether action by DOJ advances the case against Trump, or not.

Not interested in a canard of a circular argument where each and every thing leads to 'everyone in charge of the investigation is corrupt.'

[emulatorloo]

77. What inside knowledge do you have that Garland "will decline to bring charges?"

You say it so authoritatively and definitively. So I assume you must have inside sources?

Would love to hear more about what you have learned from them. Thanks in advance.

[Justice matters.]

78. Only speculation based on past facts (re: "Individual 1" case ignored beyond SoL expiration date)

That case's Status of Limitations expired on Garland's watch.

The Obstruction of Justice cases detailed in the Mueller Report Tome II also expired on his watch...

So, based on those facts, my 'other' speculation is, instead of starting with the obvious (and self-confessed on video and on Lies Social...) Obstruction of Justice (hair furhair well-known modus operandi since decades and eternal keep-out-of-jail card), and adding supplemental charges as they're ready to go to Court, let's bundle the whole "what's inside the hundreds and hundreds of classified pages found" which will probably take decades to go through and conclude so, oops... the Status of Limitations also expired...

Garland will not even have to decline to bring charges, since the Status of Limitations will have expired (deliberately). Better wait for mother nature to get rid of that Fascist criminal naturally like the top brass at the former party of Lincoln hope she will, and that includes McConnell...

[emulatorloo]

81. Sounds as if you may not know Garland's history as a prosecutor.

Interesting article about that here:

THE INEVITABLE INDICTMENT OF DONALD TRUMP

Merrick Garland hasn’t tipped his hand, but it’s clear to me that he will bring charges against the former president.

By Franklin Foer

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/10/merrick-garland-donald-trump-investigation-indictment/671683/

I guess we’ll have to see what happens. Take care.

[Justice matters.]

84. Thanks for the article.

We'll see, but the clock towards the Status of Limitations keeps on ticking while insurrectionists prepare to take the country and the world's economy hostage because they have no idea how to govern.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

51. It feels as if a vastly higher standard to indict is being held here.

Who was it that stole ONE classified document and spent years in jail? So why isn't Trump already in jail? He took home tens, dozens, maybe thousands of classified documents.

Why not simply hold him to the same standards everyone else is held to? Like maybe . . . well I won't go there, but you can guess. He's alive and some others, who did far less, are not.

[bigtree]

57. the docs investigation has over a hundred files found at Trump's

...and little to no cooperation from him in determining how they got there, who put them there, and why and who moved them.

Not to mention many document that NA says are still missing, along with empty classified doc folders.

I can understand why it's still ongoing, with Tom Fitton appearing TODAY under speculation he's now cooperating with the grand jury, having served as Trump's adviser on legal matters surrounding the docs, despite that he's not a lawyer.

With all of the national security implications, I don't know why anyone would expect that probe to be over, or expect DOJ would just leap into court to satisfy the punitive part, especially looking at the surety of Trump having access to their evidence through discovery.

Is there no accounting for the need for DOJ to come correct to court, not half-assed because they just couldn't stand the catcalls from the internet? Are there no other considerations you can think of that would delay this investigation into highly sensitive files, some containing nuclear secrets?

No considerations for Dept. of Defense prerogatives? No thought that they may be still delving into the probable dissemination, or viewing of the docs by unauthorized sources?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

65. If these files were found in my house I'd be in jail within days.

Exactly why is he still out free?

[Justice matters.]

60. That case, like the "Individual 1" case before it, will be stretched out beyond...

the Status of Limitation the way bigtree describes it (and he has a point, although a self-confession of having committed 'another' obvious Obstruction of Justice, on video tape, exists), it's now about the probable 'content' of the files themselves, maybe hundreds or thousands of pages long, and their implications on other departments, so the case would take a decade or two to conclude... way beyond the end of the Status of Limitations in the OoJ case. It's all done on purpose, just like in the "Individual 1" case. No USAG will bring charges against an opposition party's former POTUS. That is clear. Not because of corruption, though.

The Georgia State case, though, is his voice recorded on tape, with plenty of witnesses listening to his intimidating, criminal demands, and the "mob-boss style" treaths that followed...

Fani Willis will not extend that case beyond the Status of Limitations... Imminent.

[wnylib]

21. Nixon and Trump - apples and oranges.

Just because Nixon was not tried and convicted does not mean that Trump won't be.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

53. So far he hasn't been indicted.

Let alone tried or convicted.

[wnylib]

56. See my # 55.

[sheshe2]

7. Thank you.

[Ponietz]

9. The instigators are laughing in our faces behind their wall of useful idiots

[https://www.salon.com/2022/12/13/law-professors-raise-ethics-concerns-as-kavanaugh-parties-with-at-worst-possible-time]
[

Link to tweet

]

[PufPuf23]

16. Exactly. nt

[bigtree]

18. no they're not

....anyone watching Trump can see how desperate and spooked he is.

I'll never understand people who work to convince that the republican opposition is impervious.

[Traildogbob]

26. Thanks for all this Bigtree

Very well put together. This gives a refreshing sense of hope. Way too damn much doom, and nothing gonna happen going on. I get caught up in the doom way too much myself. Needed this.
Gonna copy and paste a read it a few more times and enjoy a weekend of good thoughts.
Cheers.

[Ponietz]

27. Who said impervious?

Are you determined to misunderstand? Why the oblique dig on my loyalty to the Democratic Party? For that matter, I’ll never understand people who work to convince me that (borrowing from post 17) 3rd down and 28 yards to go is a great thing since we got a yard on our first two plays! Yes, 3rd down—year 3 of this presidency.)

[Ponietz]

33. Bait and switch

This isn’t about you. I don’t believe the malefactors are impervious. Confrontation is inevitable and best ASAP. I’ve posted that umpteen times since joining this forum.

[ShazzieB]

50. You're so right.

Trump is scared out of his teeny-tiny mind right now. Anyone who thinks he's not needs to watch some of the recent videos that have been posted at DU and elsewhere. I understand that it can be very unpleasant to to look at him or listen to his whiny voice, but if you can manage it, it can be very informative.

If someone absolutely can't stand to look at or listen to him, I get it. Just realize, though, that when you avoid being exposed those things, you also miss information about his current mental state. That's your choice, also, but it seriously weakens any argument you may want to make that he's not that fussed about these investigations.

[Beastly Boy]

11. Excellent OP. Important facts. Rest assured, your plea will be ignored.

[48656c6c6f20]

13. I believe I'll get as cynical as I like as often as I like

I do not have to like the progress being made, I don't have to accept it as that's the way it is.
Funny shit about living in America, I don't have to act any way someone wants me to.

[bigtree]

14. you do you

...I'll continue to call out people who don't seem to be able to tell us more about the investigation than their own factless cynicism.

[Better Days Ahoy]

44. Thank you.

Christ, I'm tired of this naysaying bullshit.
I was right that some folks would pivot from the incessant pre-November poll watching, self-serving comments from the occasional self-important poll aggregator, and the big red wave yammering right back to indignant handwringing based on underinformed perceptions of the DOJ's progress behind closed doors.

I really like being a part of this community but -- JFC! -- this constant walking id (nod to Freud) stuff is like a bad Groundhog Day dream (nod to Bill Murray movie).

Thanks for trying to push the big rock uphill on this Groundhog Day, bigtree.

[ancianita]

52. +1000

[ShazzieB]

61. Thanks for this comment.

"Christ, I'm tired of this naysaying bullshit" perfectly sums up my state of mind right now.

I understand why some are cynical and/or impatient. I understand why some disagree about whether Trump will ever see justice. What gets to me is the amount of intolerance there is for anyone expressing views other than that. Every time someone makes even a semi-hopeful post about the progress of any of the investigations, people rush in to tell that person how wrong they are and bash the DOJ for not doing more/working faster/etc., etc., etc.

I'm not trying to tell anyone they're not allowed to be pessimistic or cynical. I don't have that right. I just don't understand the urge to rush in and throw buckets of ice water on anyone who doesn't share that pessimism. You can be as pessimistic as you want. All I'm saying is please respect the rights of others to feel differently. That is all.

[usonian]

17. Analogy to football. A very important 1 yard was gained on first down.

Second and thirty yards to go.

I want bigger fish hauled in, of the Willard, electoral college and House of Reps variety. Their connection to Proud Boys is weak if it exists at all.

You got krill so far.

[bigtree]

23. that's not what the Jan. 6 committee took pains to show

...TPM:

Jan. 6 Panel Is Drawing A Straight Line From Trump To The Proud Boys And Oath Keepers

The committee made clear that it viewed the Trumpian conspiracy to overturn the election as a months-long plot, and it applied the same logic to Trump’s relationship to these right-wing extremist groups, featuring testimony from a member of the Proud Boys saying Trump’s presidential debate command to them to “stand back and stand by” — all the way back in September 2020 — boosted membership “exponentially.”

They traced the relationship from there, including testimony from multiple Proud Boys saying they were in D.C. on Jan. 6 because Trump asked them to be there. The panel presented extensive footage of the groups on the day itself, labeling the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers as such when they appeared on camera. And Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) said the Proud Boys “ultimately led the invasion of the Capitol, and the violence on that day.”

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-California), member of the House Select Committee to Investigate January 6th: 'A Lot Of Connection' Between Trump, Proud Boys During Presidency'

[usonian]

35. Agree. I just have my preferences. Take out the mobsters and the capo has no power.

And he's harder to take down.

Sure, they'll scream when Flynn and the like are charged, but they got zero votes by zealot supporters.

The committee contributed to his defeat. DOJ may have been working in parallel. Or not.

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. zzzzzzz

[bigtree]

28. not unexpected

...at all.

You can get 100 recs for a cynical post made up of two sentences bashing Garland, and a mere handful for actual progress toward the prosecutions people claim they want.

I don't really believe the people responding are the totality of folks reading, though. There are certainly people like me who come here to find actual facts about the investigation and not just room for whinging.

[phoenix75]

29. You don't seem to be very tolerant

of other people's right to their own opinion. This is a discussion platform. Just saying....

[bigtree]

31. yeah, I'm not partial to ridiculing emojis, and arbitrary insults

...your mileage may vary.

I'm guessing you don't like that I disagree, and express those disagreements with surety and facts.

[BOSSHOG]

32. I'm impatient but practical

Six months ago, the t may not have been crossed nor the I dotted, but bending to public pressure DOJ may have indicted trump and others. Six months ago. Without the cross and the dot they may be free and clear today. I’ll wait.

[gab13by13]

39. The facts are, as you relate,

the J6 committee has been out front in investigating Trump and his inner circle. DOJ usually likes to take the lead in investigations.

When Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the J6 committee it shocked DOJ into action. The J6 committee knew about Tom Fitton 6 months ago, what took DOJ so long?

I am impressed with Jack Smith, he appears to be going after Trump and flipping Fitton would go a long way to prove Trump's criminal intent.

My opinion is the pyramid strategy was a mistake. Waiting to go after Trump and his inner circle made it harder to gather evidence. After time evidence disappears, memories fade, and criminals have time to get their stories straight, Prosecution 101.

You never address the importance of time. Trump's strategy all along has been to delay everything, getting access to Scott Perry's phone may take another 6 months. Getting Trump to an actual trial takes at least 3 1/2 years, that puts the trial into 2026 which means that Democrats had better win the presidency in 2024 and 2028.

When I claim that Garland waited a year before investigating Trump and his inner circle I have been told that we don't know what DOJ is doing because DOJ doesn't leak. Man O Man that Jack Smith must leak like a sieve, we seem to know when he subpoenas documents and people.

Garland has a record to judge him by. I want to see Trump and his inner circle held accountable because the insurrection has only grown since J6. We ignore the importance of time at our peril.

ps/ I respect your opinion that everything is going according to plan and I sincerely hope that you are right. I want to be wrong.

[bigtree]

48. the first sentence is demonstratably wrong

...emptywheel breaks this down in an older post:

...interviews with people like Michael Caputo or Jared Kushner required a lot more work on content acquired with covert warrants first, or because with people like Michael Cohen there was an entire financial investigation that preceded the first interview, or because DOJ was just a lot more careful to lay the groundwork with subjects of the investigation.

But the same is true here. DOJ will likely never interview Rudy on this investigation. But Lisa Monaco took steps on her first day in office that ensured that at whatever time DOJ obtained probable cause against Rudy, they had the content already privilege-reviewed. And DOJ did a lot of investigation into Sidney Powell before they started subpoenaing witnesses.

Many of the other witnesses that HPSCI interviewed long (or even just shortly) before DOJ did on Russia lied to HPSCI.

...even on the January 6 Committee, there are already multiple instances where the Committee has interviewed witnesses before DOJ has (or interviewed witnesses that DOJ never will, before charging them), but gotten less valuable testimony than if they had waited.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/07/14/how-adam-schiff-proves-that-adam-schiff-is-lying-that-it-is-unprecedented-for-congress-to-be-ahead-of-doj/

...in other words, DOJ is charged with more than telling a story like Congress, without the rebuttal and redirect that the courts provide both prosecution and defense. DOJ is challenged to put together a case that overcomes the prerogatives of the defense.

That's more complex and more nuanced than a congressional hearing- which isn't actually a true comparison to measure the progress of an investigation- which keeps the vast majority of its activities secret. That is a necessary component of convictions, protecting both defense and prosecution interests.

You can parry around the fact that the details and content of DOJ investigations are mostly unknown, except for the court appearances and witnesses speaking out about subpoenas, but that's the reality. It just is.

When you claim he waited a year, or that Cassidy Hutchinson 'shocked the DOJ into action," you're expressing opinion, not fact. DOJ has engaged in the necessary task of knocking down challenges to their investigation, first on claims of privilege that went through several court judgments before getting compliance.

Then there were the challenges by perps over evidence gathered, like phones and other communications. Those aren't something DOJ decides for themselves. Those challenges and disputes raised by the defendants and witnesses are tried in court hearings with court dates set by judges, not the DOJ.

It's easy to stand back, far back if you're watching from DU, and assume DOJ dropped the ball on this or the other, but you really don't know that. You, yourself seem unaware of major developments in the DOJ investigation BEFORE Congress even agreed to hold hearings, like the seizure of Guiliani's phone in '21, which tooks months to adjudicate in court, and even longer to crack.

You really can't make a completely cogent case about what DOJ has done, is doing, or will do from where we sit. But it's demonstrably untrue that they were inactive before Congress held their hearings.

If anything, Congress delayed DOJ by withholding witness transcripts which DOJ has to reconcile with their own evidence, as well as provide that in Discovery, like in the Oath Keeper and Proud Boy trials where the defense lawyers demanded access to it. Not to mention holding witnesses to account before grand juries about the false statements they made to Congress.

The idea that Congress was ahead of DOJ is absurd, and not supported by anything but the mistaken statements of folks like Weissmann and Schiff. This is an ongoing process that isn't going to be resolved hastily, even if the folks running things wanted it to.

It's a deliberative process of interviews, depositions, and presentations of evidence before 16 to 23 members of the grand jury, 12 needed to recommend out an indictment, and DOJ doesn't need to disband them until they're satisfied (through trial runs of their case with the juries) that they have all they need to convict.


here:

Justice Department investigators in April received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump administration, including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to two people familiar with the matter. That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/26/trump-justice-investigation-january-6/

[emulatorloo]

82. Opinions are great, but backing them up with the factual information to support them is even better!

[Joinfortmill]

37. Thank you!!

[FakeNoose]

38. K & R Good stuff!

Thanks for keeping us in the loop.

[ancianita]

40. Great info! Thank you! We need to spread this across platforms.

[ailsagirl]

46. Many thanks for this!!!!

[edhopper]

47. Any of those

Work in the White House?
Didn't think so.

Less than two years before he gets away with everything.

[ShazzieB]

64. .....

[edhopper]

66. Actually

Nobody, and I mean nobody, who has criticized Garland for his lack of action on Trump has claimed he hasn't prosecuted the rioters.

So the OP misses the point. And what I said is exactly the point that critics of Garland have made.

[WestMichRad]

49. Thank you!

Like the table and the extensive summary. It’s good to see those creeps getting their just desserts.

People may have forgotten that Garland took over a Department of Justice that surely was largely poisoned by TFG cronies. They’re probably still trying to root some of them out. The work to do that surely had to slow things significantly.

[Sewa]

58. LOL is this going to be a daily thing for you

How’s the fake electors investigation going? Looks like it’s going nowhere.

They have signatures and videos of them, yet nothing. 💀🤙

[bigtree]

63. we had a new development today with the sighting of Fitton heading into the grand jury

...basically one of the few rare times we actually see something from the closed investigation that we can judge.

This development appears to be progress. At the very least, it's a top Trump adviser and confidant who has tentacles in both MaraLago and Jan. 6, coming under substantive, and consequential scrutiny.

It's a good opportunity to bring something more than angst to the discussion, and demonstrate what I've been highlighting about how its the grand juries, at this point, which are the measure of progress in the investigations of Trump, before we can even think about Garland making a decision.

And, to knock down this argument that the absence of evidence of progress from a closed, insular investigation is proof of something more than that absence of evidence.


For the life of me, I can't understand the giddy glee some share over their speculation that Garland won't act against Trump. It's just incongruous with the concern expressed.

[democrank]

62. Recognizing progress achieved by the DOJ and others is important, so thank you for this.

A diligent, thorough investigation is required if the goal is to bring solid cases against trump and others. Patience isn’t always easy in a situation like this, so I fully understand why some people express frustration….and even anger….that trump and others are still free.

The people I have spoken with who have expressed frustration aren’t bashing the DOJ, they’re simply horrified to think trump is still riding around in his golf cart given the horrendous damage he has done to this country.

[emulatorloo]

73. Thanks for the post, really appreciate you putting it together.

[GreyE]

79. When you follow this stuff every day the waiting can be painful

But I still think DOJ is going to get it done.

[bigtree]

80. stellar first post

...welcome to DU, GreyE.