Rachel Maddow embarrassed the DOJ into investigating Trump

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Rachel's coverage of the fake electors worked.

Link to tweet

https://www.politicususa.com/2023/06/19/rachel-maddow-embarrassed-the-doj-into-investigating-trump.html

The DOJ had refused to investigate Trump and coup co-conspirators because they did not want to look political, and leadership didn’t think they had enough evidence. The National Archives wanted an investigation into the fake elector documents but were turned down.

The Washington Post reports on what changed the DOJ’s mind:

Politico had reported that week that the House committee had demanded and received documents from several states about fake electors as well as other efforts Trump advisers had taken to pressure state officials ahead of Jan. 6. A wave of news reports and commentary followed, including by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who devoted several nights of her show to reporting on clues that suggested Trump allies ran a coordinated scheme to try to overturn the election.

In the last of those episodes, on Jan. 13, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) announced that she had referred the matter of fake electors to federal prosecutors — that day. She called the scheme “forgery of a public record” under Michigan law but said the Justice Department would be best suited to prosecute a multistate effort.
….
One person directly familiar with the department’s new interest in the case said it felt as though the department was reacting to the House committee’s work as well as heightened media coverage and commentary. “Only after they were embarrassed did they start looking,” the person said.

If the 1/6 Committee was not investigating. If Rachel Maddow wasn’t putting pieces together. If state and local law enforcement officials were not calling out the fake elector plot, Trump might have gotten away with an attempted coup. Public pressure matters. Journalism matters, and having people at all levels of government who are willing to do the right thing matters.

[leftyladyfrommo]

1. Has Trump ever tried to lambast Rachel? Just curious.

I know he has bladted Nicole.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. I know up until till last year maybe that he had never once mentioned her

Although I can’t prove that it was my impression given my observation of media and her show etc.

He is scared of confronting anyone who is smarter than him which is everybody and tougher than him which is almost everybody.

He knows Rachel could completely dismantle his entire life if she gave it the effort and he is scared of her big-time.

[LiberalFighter]

37. Hope she is in the process to further dismantle his life.

[PatSeg]

40. I can't say I recall Trump ever mentioning Rachel

It is certainly something I'd remember. I think there are some people that he just won't tangle with and perhaps Rachel is one of them. For some reason, he may find her a real threat.

[Eliot Rosewater]

62. Just like there is not a single known or reported case of him confronting a MALE

human being physically other than when he has body guards around and does it from a distance.

I would be shocked if there is any story of him fighting a male person or confronting.

[ShazzieB]

68. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've read about him picking on smaller kids while he was growing up.

It's relatively easy for a bigger, older kind to intimidate a younger, smaller one, but that kind of stuff is a different matter for an adult!

[PatSeg]

76. Oh yes, I believe that is true

He is intimidated by strength and power. Basically, he is a pretty wimpy guy for the most part. He puts on a good front in public, but it is primarily bluster.

[Trueblue Texan]

82. Right wingers are definitely aware of Rachel Maddow...

...They like to use her to bludgeon the Left whenever they can...she's their new Soros. But I have never heard Trump refer to her. You know how he is about publicity: it's always good, even if it's bad. He doesn't want her to become even more visible because she's already dangerous to him.

[triron]

4. I think she scares him.

[DeeDeeNY]

21. Rachel makes it a point to never mention TFG by name

[MOMFUDSKI]

33. I remember Rachel

Saying he NEVER. That was a while back but sure is Interesting.

[triron]

2. What a surprise (NOT).

[Mister Ed]

5. I'm skeptical of the notion that TV pundits have much influence in the DOJ.

The article's conclusion seems to be based not on solid evidence but on conjecture, along with the opinion and feelings of an anonymous person.

One person directly familiar with the department’s new interest in the case said it felt as though the department was reacting to the House committee’s work as well as heightened media coverage and commentary. “Only after they were embarrassed did they start looking,” the person said.

[Hekate]

8. Dr Maddow is far from being just a TV pundit. She deeply researches every word she says ...

Her podcasts now allow her to dig even deeper than before, and without commercial interruptions. As someone else said, Rachel’s a national treasure.

[Mister Ed]

10. I cast no aspersions on Dr. Maddow or her reporting.

I do remain skeptical that DOJ's course is influenced by her or her reporting, though. After all, DOJ leaders strive to remain uninfluenced even by their boss, the President of the United States.

[Cha]

24. I agree.. TY.

[gab13by13]

26. Most if not all of the members of the J6 select committee

openly accused garland of non-action. Adam Schiff was probably the loudest voice. The J6 committee was not happy with Garland when he shit canned 2 of their criminal referrals.

[markodochartaigh]

51. I'm at a loss to understand what you said.

"...After all, DOJ leaders strive to remain uninfluenced even by their boss."

John Mitchell under Nixon. Alberto Gonzalez under Bush the Second. Bill Barr under Bush the First and under Trump. Ed Meese under Reagan.

Maybe I missed your sarcasm, or maybe you are very new to US politics, if so I apologize.

[Mister Ed]

58. It's the ethical standard to which they're supposed to hold themselves..

I'm well aware that there have been (Republican) Attorneys General whose conduct in office has been unethical or even criminal.

[JudyM]

69. Methinks in this case they were striving more to *appear* uninfluenced, which is what led to this

report.

[DLCWIdem]

77. I agree

I also remember stating that it would be Rank Willis from Georgia who would be the first to bring chbmmnn

[malaise]

29. The most qualified of them all Stanford and Oxford

PhDs have meaning😀

[TexasBushwhacker]

57. No one connects the dots like Rachel - NO ONE

Rachel is not about sound bites. Her analysis and coverage can be lengthy, to the point of seeming like it will never have an end, but it will. There will be no short cuts to that ending, because when it all comes together, when she has connected all the dots, NO ONE can ignore them. There is no such thing as "alternative facts", no "spin", in Dr. Maddow's universe, and if you try to even think otherwise, she will beat you bloody with the truth.

[Kaleva]

80. 0.00015% of adults watched her show at her most popular

[Hekate]

88. That wasn't my point

[Kaleva]

90. But her very small audience limits her influence

[Skittles]

43. indeed

[Bev54]

63. They don't. There was definitely some in the FBI that were obstructing the investigations

but let's remember that the investigation into Sidney Powell was started in Sept 2021 and they obtained Rudy's devices that same month and needed to get into them and disseminate the information. There is definitely some holes in this reporting. They have the wrong date that subpoenas went out, reporting that they were sent out on the day of J6 public on June 21 when in fact they were issued a month before on May 25th. Wray and some of his lieutenants definitely need to answer some questions. I have always wanted Biden to rid him and others.

[mzmolly]

6. Maddow is a national treasure.

[Permanut]

9. Word.

[calimary]

35. But dammit, she needs to be back on five days a week!

I've been pissed off at her for that, ever since she stepped away.

Rachel, you have a duty to the country, and to the truth, to continue to be a regular high-profile voice in prime time. One day a week just ain't doin' it.

[gab13by13]

45. I have zero proof

but I wonder if she was harassed to the point of scaling back?

[mzmolly]

56. That would be amazing.

[SouthernDem4ever]

65. I would also feel the same if Lawrence did that.

One day a week isn't enough.

[Kaleva]

81. You are one of the very few who watched her show

[getagrip_already]

7. More likely it was the house investigations....

But a combination of pressures probably moved them off their asses.

The doj really hadn't moved a finger against tfg until Smith was appointed.

Yes, they did search Mal, but that was an extreme point of pressure given the docs he had.

But all they wanted were the docs back, not a prosecution.

Smith didn't start on third. It's more accurate to say he was walked to first with no runners on and 2 outs.

[wnylib]

13. Garland appointed Smith to make sure that

the investigations of Trump would continue after Trump announced his candidacy. I am not buying the claims that DOJ did nothing until Smith was appointed. If Garland had really not wanted Trump investigated, he would not have appointed Smith and given him two mandates in his investigations - the MAL documents and the J6 insurrection.

I am tired of the Garland bashing, even now after a federal indictment that Garland had to sign off on and that he appointed a SC to handle.

[getagrip_already]

16. It wasn't garland, it was wray.....

Wray runs the fbi and is quasi independent of garland. Garland can't prosecute without evidence, and the fbi does the investigating.

But garland wasn't exactly putting pressure on Wray. He could have set prosecutors in motion and dragged the fbi along.

Garland didn't want to prosecute, but Wray made it easy.

[gab13by13]

28. When Garland said he would not be partisan

who was he speaking to? Does this mean that people like Scott Perry will not be indicted because that certainly will be called a partisan act.

Did it work? Garland appointing Smith so that he wouldn't be accused of being partisan? That is a rhetorical question, no it didn't work, he was still accused of being partisan along with Smith.

[Recycle_Guru]

11. I really don't believe that

Rachel has her niche she does well in--saying the same sentences 6 times in a row with slight variations is her strong suit.

The Jan 6 committee is what helped fire up serious progress in multiple investigations.

[edisdead]

74. It actually bugs the shit out of me when she does it.

Been a fan of hers since her Air America days but I hate when she talks to the audience like they are 6 years old and needs to hear the same thing over and over and over

[rubbersole]

75. It can be frustrating.

It's intentional. She feels that there is a part of her audience that need to be talked to like they're 5th graders so they'll absorb the point she's trying to make. tfg's followers aren't smarter than 5th graders. And the ptb want to ruin public education and demonize teachers.

[Earth-shine]

89. When Rachel repeats herself like you describe, often it's because she's trying to fill the time

in her A-block. Sometimes, there's just not enough material to fill those 16 or so minutes, so she slows down and repeats herself.

When she does it, it's awful to the ears.

There are times we actually need CNN as an alternative, like when MSNBC airs Dateline or Andrea Mitchell, or when Rachel does verbal circles.

[Recycle_Guru]

91. agreed! hopefully CNN will improve with that head guy out

[gab13by13]

12. Rachel helped but,

1. Cassisdy Hutchinson's public testimony embarrassed DOJ.

2. Nicolle Wallace, and her top notch guests, blasted DOJ almost every day.

3. I told you so.

[TomDaisy]

15. yes a huge part was Cassidy Hutchinson. and then DOJ scrambled

[getagrip_already]

17. CIA?

Where did they come in?

Did you mean the FBI? They report up to the doj but are quasi independent. The director serves a 10 year term and is independent of direct oversight.

The fbi director is currently Chris Wray. Yes, that Chris wray.

[brooklynite]

18. I didn't see anything in the story that shows DOJ responding because of Maddow's coverage

All I see is another “Merri k Garland doesn’t want to do his job” whine

[Beastly Boy]

20. The chain of references and the number of arbitrary conjectures in this article are so full of

hearsay and innuendo, it is impossible to take its conclusions seriously:

"If the 1/6 Committee was not investigating. If Rachel Maddow wasn’t putting pieces together. If state and local law enforcement officials were not calling out the fake elector plot, Trump might have gotten away with an attempted coup."

If these events hadn't happened, they conclude, Trump "might have gotten away".

Or not.

Because they have no effing clue, nor do they hint at any evidence they do, what DOJ was and wasn't investigating, and at what point they did or didn't do so.

[gab13by13]

23. Stick to your guns,

that's impressive.

It is really hard to prove that DOJ was doing nothing, how does one come up with evidence?

I also hate to be right so often. It hurts. We maybe could have had a J6 Trump trial before the election with a judge other than Aileen Cannon had DOJ not followed the pyramid strategy and started investigating Trump and his inner circle from day 1.

The pyramid strategy was a bust, none of the J6 insurrectionists have flipped on Trump. Roger Stone or Michael Flynn will never flip on Trump. Mark Meadows was the go between trump and the Willard Hotel. Meadows kept Trump's hands clean. DOJ should have put the pressure on Meadows right from the beginning.

People still can't understand the importance of TIME. We could have had a DOJ Trump trial before the election.

[Beastly Boy]

25. Relax, you don't have to worry about being right so often.

How many times since Garland was appointed did you change your mind about being right? I am too lazzy looking up every single instance it happened, but you know the answer better than I do. Nor do I care about you being right or wrong.

What I object to is people, including journalists, pulling opinionated pronouncements out of thin air and declaring themselves being right.

Show me the money, Gab. Just one statement that doesn't depend on your interpretation and instead is completely supported by known facts.

Then we will talk.

[gab13by13]

31. With this latest proof,

my predictions have gone up to 97.3% correct. I missed out on Alvin Bragg, when he dumped the Pomerantz/Dunne prosecution I never thought he would come back and indict Trump. Other than that I can't think of another time, I'm sure I missed 1 or 2 more.

[Beastly Boy]

52. Proof? What proof?

Last edited Mon Jun 19, 2023, 08:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Did Garland really say he would be non-partisan? Ok, it's in his job description, but did he emphasize his non-partisanship beyond saying "without fear or favor"? No? Well, that is not exactly synonymous to non-partisanship. And, despite your allusions to the things you have no proof of, he may have been speaking to people who were way too trigger-happy to accuse him of partisanship (BTW, not so long ago this company included a certain someone you may know very well). And yes, appointing Smith did work. Certain people no longer accuse Garland of partisanship, they now accuse him of being partisan by not being partisan (don't ask!), and claiming to be right anyway.

Do you have proof that Garland shit-canned the j-6 criminal referrals? Is Smith done with his investigation? No? What does "shit can" mean anyway? (BTW, not so long ago, someone you know well was swearing up and down this board that Garland is plotting to shit can all investigations into Trump. Because... "institutionalist"!)

Are the J6 Committee members still openly accusing Garland of non-action? No? How'bout Nicolle Wallace and her top notch guests? No? Wouldn't it be a sign that their open accusations, just like the predictions you tout so much, were a bit premature and not too predictive? How'bout Cassisdy Hutchinson's public testimony, which, as you know very well, is in large part inadmissible in court, embarrassing DOJ? How does testimony that is inadmissible in a court of law embarrass Garland into presenting a case in a court of law? Don't you think that Garland dragging inadmissible evidence into a court of law and making a fool of himself before a judge would be way more embarrassing?

Do you have any proof that a bottom-up approach (what you call a pyramid strategy) was a bust? Why was it? It worked in just about every federal RICO case! Or perhaps you have evidence of this not being the case. Do you think three individuals not flipping is proof positive of the pyramid strategy being a bust? You don't? Mmmm.kay! Are you under the illusion that flipping is the only means of gathering evidence in a "pyramid strategy"? You are not? Coulda fooled me!

Being admittedly lazy, I only sampled this thread for the challenges to your predictive prowess. These are the things you stated in the course of just a few hours as unquestioned evidence of you being right. There is more, but like I said before, I am not that motivated to prove you right or wrong. I am just directing your attention to a small number of opinionated pronouncements that don't meet the most elementary burden of proof.

And take it easy on your self-esteem. You have absolutely no rational reason to hate yourself for being right.

[dlk]

22. I'm all in favor of good journalism, it's foundational to our democracy

However, keep in mind, in science, in politics, and life in general, correlation is not causation.

[Kaleva]

27. This article is based on the feelings of one unnamed person

From the article in the OP:


"One person directly familiar with the department’s new interest in the case said it felt as though the department was reacting to the House committee’s work as well as heightened media coverage and commentary. “Only after they were embarrassed did they start looking,” the person said."

[gab13by13]

48. You should watch Nicolle's show today,

there were many people at the FBI who were shut down from investigating Trump and his inner circle. A group of FBI agents wanted to investigate everything about the Willard Hotel in the early stages but were shut down.

Also, it was proven that DOJ waited 1 year and 4 months before investigating the fake electors.

Merrick Garland in his quest to not have a DOJ like Barr's failed in his charge to follow the facts without fear or prejudice.

If you can turn on Nicolle she is covering the stolen document indictment in her 2nd hour.

[Kaleva]

72. Like about 95% of adults in this country, I don't watch cable news

I haven't subscribed to cable or satellite in many years.

[ecstatic]

49. Maybe. But where is the evidence that they were actually doing something?

I'll wait.

[Beastly Boy]

53. Seriously? Again?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

[ecstatic]

54. That's deflecting. WAPO article is about trump, specifically

Not low level rioters/ insurrectionists.

[Beastly Boy]

59. That was the direct response to the post as you phrased it. Then again... seriously???

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/04/1167708172/trump-charges-hush-money-new-york-indictment

Do you think those charges magically appeared out of nowhere? Or is this insufficient evidence of DOJ doing something? If this is not evidence of them doing something, I would love to hear your definition of "something", regardless of how it relates to the OP, or your post, or in any other context you choose.

[ecstatic]

61. That's a state indictment. I'm not sure where you're headed

it seems like another deflection.

[Beastly Boy]

66. My bad, wrong link.

Last edited Mon Jun 19, 2023, 08:33 PM - Edit history (1)

This is the one I intended to post:

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/read-trump-indictment-jack-smith-documents-probe-rcna84343

Let me guess: a deflection, right?

[ecstatic]

67. I'm behind on work but I'll try to read by Friday

Unless you have specific pages in mind??

[progressoid]

78. Yeah, not very convincing imho.

[LiberalLovinLug]

30. We look for ways to avoid holding R's accountable....even with evidence

They look for any way to smear D's, even with false accusations.

At least that has been Democrat's history. With Maddow here but also times like after the Mueller Report calls for impeachment.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/22/house-dems-mueller-report-1284600


Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday rejected calls to launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump despite new voices in her caucus calling for the House to take that step in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

.....

Other Democratic leaders stuck to their scripts on Monday, pledging to investigate Trump thoroughly and downplaying impeachment talk. But some Democrats expressed impatience with the party leadership’s resistance to begin a formal process for possible impeachment.

“We are struggling to justify why we aren’t beginning impeachment proceedings,” said Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, according to sources on the call. “As a 27-year law enforcement officer, and while I understand we need to see the full report and all supporting documents, I believe we have enough evidence now.”

I think this reluctance is wearing down in the last couple of years since Jan 6th. thank gawd. But there has always been this fear to not piss off Fox News, and other RW media. The same affliction that media outfits like CNN who feel the need to not appear too antagonistic towards Republlicans or they will lose viewers....Democrats fear they will lose conservative leaning Democratic voters. But hopefully they are seeing that the braver, the more diligent and unwavering they are in pursuing justice for Donald Trump, they actually will win over more Independents and wavering R voters.

[Rhiannon12866]

32. K&R! I remember that and agree Rachel brought this to national attention

[onetexan]

34. Thank goodness for RM. I had better not hear anyone diss her here

I've read a couple posts of ppl complaining about her reporting & saying Nicole W was the best show on msnbc. NOT!!

[LiberalFighter]

36. I wonder if Rachel will bring it up tonite?

[GreenWave]

38. FBI refused to investigate Trump for a full year after J-6 Breaking on MSNBC

The old "we do not want to appear partial" forgetting what Comey did to Hillary.
This is the stupidest and lamest excuse. The mofu tried to overthrow America

they need for such overthrow attempts:

THE FIERCE URGENCY OF NOW! otherwise the bad guys keep getting elected instead of serving time.

Check out FBI in Media Pa office break in a few decades back. Always attacking Center left, but center right virtually never.

[gab13by13]

50. The buck stops with Merrick Garland.

[Martin68]

39. I find the premise here impossible to believe. Yes, Maddow - and other journalists - hammered the

topic repeatedly and over many years, and I'm sure they had an effect. But the JOD does not make decisions based on public opinion or one journalist's work. The Washington Post, for example, was just as tenacious on the topic as Maddow was, and while they don't have an audience of her size, their audience is extremely influential.

[ecstatic]

47. "the JOD does not make decisions based on public opinion or one journalist's work"

The DOJ is comprised of human beings who use discretion when completing their duties. Sometimes it comes down to a decision made by one person. Human beings can be fair, competent and accurate, but they can also be flawed, biased and wrong. It's not an attack. It's just realism. Public pressure makes a difference and I'm not sure why that's so hard to believe, even with the facts laid out in front of us.

[Martin68]

93. That's a rather simplistic assessment. It never comes down to "one person's" opinion.

Multiple people are involved with their multiple professional; perspectives and multiple influences from the media, co-workers, their bosses, and their particular political opinions. Some people (like myself) greatly respect Maddow's perspective, while others are rubbed the wrong way by her presentation and style. She has a limited influence in the JOD.

[Kaleva]

79. And just a very tiny percentage of adults watched Maddow's show.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

41. I vividly remember her 2016 coverage of "Troopergate"

AKA Gov Sarah Palin's abuse of power. And also before that "Bridgegate" concocted by Gov Chris Christie. ("From September 9 through September 13, 2013, two of the three traffic lanes in Fort Lee normally open to access the George Washington Bridge and New York City were closed on orders from a senior Christie aide." )

In contrast, Gov Gavin Newsom attended a birthday party during Covid. He didn't throw a party like PM Boris Johnson. Yet, both sides!!

[Rebl2]

42. Well

folks on here kept saying why isn’t DOJ investigating tfg. Well I guess they weren’t in the beginning. I am thinking they didn’t start investigating until national archives were having trouble getting top secret files back from trump for over a year. Thanks DOJ and garland for waiting so long—NOT. Hopefully if Biden gets another four years, he finds a new head for DOJ.

[dalton99a]

44. Kick

[Emile]

46. So the DOJ was dotting I's and crossing T's ?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

60. AG Garland and the DOJ were using the strategy of let's do it like a mob case"

This strategy was not appropriate for this case because there were no direct connections between TFG and the Oath Keepers/Proud Boys/ rioters

Link to tweet

[Hotler]

55. I like to think it was.....

us here on DU.

[republianmushroom]

64. 28 months and counting

I like it. Garland's scandal.

[Baitball Blogger]

70. Is there a link to a free copy of the WP article?

[Kaleva]

71. How does someone who very few watched humiliate the DOJ?

At the height of her popularity, Maddow was getting around 4 million viewers out of the over 258 millions adults in the country

[Beastly Boy]

73. Suddenly, there are so many people of different backgrounds who embarrass DOJ into

something they've been previously achieving without being embarrassed by anyone, I am wondering whether DOJ should fire some of their top prosecutors and hire professional embarrassers instead.

Otherwise, I am lead to believe, DOJ will never again be sufficiently motivated to uphold their high standards to engage in their work with professionalism, dedication and distinction. They don't seem to be functioning as intended anymore without some embarrassing them on a regular basis.

[ancianita]

83. She did NOT. This is HYPE. Note that the year the DOJ acted is not presented even once in this claim

The truth of these hyped reports depends on presenting the facts of the timeline of investigations, as shown below.

The DOJ began investigation on Trump's inner circle in 2022 afterThe People's House convened its formal Special Committee on Jan 6 in July 2022; and the DOJ had already been evidence gathering before the Jan6 Comte. made criminal referrals to the DOJ.



The Jan 6 Committee made its four criminal referrals by Dec 19 2022 -- one month after Garland appointed Jack Smith as Special Counsel and seven months after the DOJ began its evidence collecting on Trump's inner circle.

Seven months after the DOJ had already done top-down investigating of Trump's inner circle -- and the FBI had already done bottom-up investigating, indicting and trials against coup participants at the US Capitol -- did the Jan 6 committee make its own criminal referrals to the DOJ as a major branch that supported the executive branch enforcement of federal law.

May 11 2022: DOJ Grand jury convened until March 2024

June 3 2022: DOJ Grand jury subpoenas Trump for remaining docs in Maralago, lawyers for Trump "certifying" that there were no more;

July 22 2022: Grand jury testimony by Marc Short, Mike Pence’s Chief of Staff; & Short's counsel Greg Jacob

Sept 2 2022: Grand jury subpoenaed testimony by Pat Cipollone, (one of the participants in
a) WH meeting Dec 18 2020, that included Giuliani, Powell, Flynn, Patrick Byrne of Overstock,
b) Cipollone sat in on Jan 3 2021 DOJ official meeting with Trump, and
c) Cipollone was in direct contact with trump on Jan 6 during capitol insurrection, and did nothing when Meadows told
him Trump didn’t want to interfere with rioters calling for hanging Mike Pence)
and Patrick Philbin

Sept 15 2022: Mark Meadows subpoena for testimony and documents

Sept 2022: Garland DOJ has issued over 30 subpoenas to people close to Trump, which include
— Bill Stepien, DT’s campaign mgr; part of team to prevent certification
— Sean Dollman, DT’s campaign CFO
— Ben Williamson, Depty of Mark Meadows,
— Boris Epshteyn, DT’s lawyer, phone demanded; part of team to prevent certification
— Mike Lindell, phone seized
— William Russell, WH spec. asst to Trump, spec. aide to Trump in Maralago

Oct 6 2022: Greg Jacob second time testifying before the grand jury

Oct 13 2022: Marc Short Mike Pence’s chief of staff, second time testifying before the grand jury

Nov 18, 2022: Garland appoints Special Counsel, John L. “Jack” Smith
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel-0

That is the record.
Nowhere did Rachel Maddow make connections before the DOJ and Jan 6 Committee did.
This is media hype.


Yes, journalism matters. Journalism may have influence.

But journalism is not the direct cause of the DOJ and Jan 6 Committee decisions to mobilize, investigate and enforce federal law.

But the claim that Maddow was "one of the reasons" the DOJ and Jan 6 did their jobs is simply unproven.

[DemBlue76]

84. To say the article doesn't back the headline is an understatement

The only evidence it provides that the media influenced this (let alone Maddow personally) is a WaPo snip of one source "familiar" saying it "felt as though" it was that way.

[inthewind21]

86. Exactly

It's mind boggling just how many buy into vagueness as fact and quote pundits as all knowing while at the same time rip on the other side for doing the very same.

[bucolic_frolic]

85. It would be extremely difficult in an open society with so much real time communications

to keep such a wide-ranging operation quiet. Every participant and those they contacted and interacted with would have to choose to go home quietly. But it also takes sunshine.

[ejbr]

87. So

Our impatience was justified.

[Beastly Boy]

92. Rachel reports on many people and organizations. How come Garland is the only one who gets

embarrassed into action by her? How much sense does this make?