For those that think the DOJ has been sitting on its hands and not investigating -- review this [View all]

[onenote]

Last edited Thu Jun 16, 2022, 06:17 PM - Edit history (1)

This is the docket for the criminal case that DOJ is pursuing against various Proud Boys.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59704100/united-states-v-nordean/?page=3

It shows the extraordinary effort that DOJ has been making in just this one case. The first complaint against a Proud Boy leader (Ethan Nordean) was sworn out on February 2, 2021. An indictment against Nordean was returned by a grand jury a month later, on March 3, 2021. Since then there have been two superseding indictments (one in March 2022 and one on June 6, 2022) returned by grand juries that have, based on evidence gathered by DOJ subsequent to the initial indictment, added more defendants and charges against Proud Boys alleged to have engaged in a criminal seditious conspiracy. For example, the DOJ has cited information gleaned from a cell phone seized from one of the defendants that was not cracked until January 2022.

One thing you will note if you take the time to review the docket and inspect some of the documents is that even as it was continuing to investigate and add to its case, DOJ has had to respond to dozens of motions and other fillings made by the defendants. That takes time. And this is just one case. Moreover, there has been considerable attention paid to pretrial discovery and the obligation of the government to provide evidence, particularly potentially exculpatory evidence, to the defendants. The volume of information the DOJ has collected and has had to turn over to the defendants is extraordinarily large -- millions of pages.

The trial in this case was originally set for May 2022, but it was continued until August over the objections of the defendants (who object because they are being held in jail pending trial).In May, not long after the continuance, DOJ wrote to the Committee asking for access to the Committee's interview transcripts -- information that would be important both in terms of potentially uncovering additional information useful to the prosecution but also in ensuring that the very litigious defendants don't have a leg to stand on with respect to their being denied access to exculpatory evidence. Had the Committee (which interviewed the Proud Boys subsequent to subpoenas issued in late November -- well after these defendants had been indicted) turned over those transcripts, it is likely that the trial would have gone forward as DOJ had proposed -- in August.

This one docket list -- and this is hardly the only prosecution brought or being pursued by DOJ arising out of the January 6 insurrection--is a telling rebuttal to anyone who thinks the DOJ hasn't been conducting its own investigations and pursuing the events of January 6.