Why has there been no follow-up or prosecution based in the findings of the Mueller report? Contrary to the interpretation given by the Con artist -in-Chief, that document was not an exoneration. Just DoJ foot-dragging? Inadequate foundation for further pursuit? Was tRumpy actually (gasp) innocent of wrongdoing?
You’re aware of how overstretched the DOJ is right now?
That they’ve asked for another 100 US attorneys to prosecute the cases they’re already pursuing re the January 6th investigation?
That they’ve only prosecuted about one-third of the total defendants attached to that investigation, meaning about 1,000, with 2,000 left to go?
That the DOJ and FBI were substantially hollowed out by Trump and his cronies, getting rid of many of their most experienced prosecutors and agents?
Seriously, how much do you feel they can realistically accomplish?
Investigations get stale. Witnesses leave the area or they die. Memories fade. The older a case is, the harder it becomes to investigate/charge/prosecute successfully.
As much as I hate seeing those prosecutions let go, I’d rather see DOJ move forward with success. They already have so stinkin’ much on their plate.
I’m really sick of this ignorant meme about how incompetent DOJ is. Everyone who pushes it merely demonstrates their abject ignorance about how DOJ and a traditional AG work.
Then they prioritize. Is getting the person running around in the rotunda on Jan 6 more important than getting Trump and his cronies?
You can’t get Trump and his cronies without getting the person running around in the rotunda.
Read my post in the January 6th Hearings thread to understand why:
That’s just how investigations work. No leverage to get the upper guys till you get the lower guys to testify against them.
I do not find this argument compelling.
If your city has a wave of homicides caused by a criminal gang, one dies not excuse the lack of police investigation based on the extreme burden of writing parking tickets. If DoJ cannot prioritize these investigations and prosecutions, then we need it to have more competent leadership.
This isn’t a wave of homicides. This is prosecuting a former president of the United States. It is political, whether we want it to be or not. You can’t simplify an investigation like this, as you seem to want to do.
Remind me; when was the last time we prosecuted a former president for the serious crime of seditious conspiracy? Think there’s a roadmap?
You play the cards you are dealt. Do you think Kennedy had a guide book for the Cuban missile crisis? Did Obama have a roadmap for handling the financial collapse that occurred as he took office? One of the burdens of leadership in a crisis is having to act, and be seen to act. DoJ has failed to manage this at a critical time. Results matter.
They sure do.
And getting it right in a trial requires a great deal of work. You either get that or you don’t. The other crises you referred to are not in any way analogous.
You can try them quick, or you can try them right. Conviction is the name of the game here, and it takes time. Sometimes a lot of time.
The Mueller report is not mentioned, and I don’t have time to look into it; but the influencing of U.S. political groups seems to be the right timeframe.
The crises I noted are precisely analogous. They were unexpected, potentially catastrophic events that had to be dealt with in real time. DoJ is not the same as the Vatican, which took 400 years to conclude the unseemly business with Galileo. Stopping an attempt to overthrow of a government cannot be done at leisure and with endless deliberation.
After the Mueller report was released, Bill Barr put quite a bit of effort into sabotaging any future prosecution over the next couple years.
e.g. Four of the acts of obstruction Mueller describes revolve around Michael Flynn, but Barr moved to drop the case against Flynn in 2020. You can’t charge Trump with obstruction if there’s nothing to obstruct and the official position of DOJ to this day is that Flynn didn’t commit any crimes (even though he pled guilty).
Different catastrophes require different skill sets. It’s clear you don’t understand the differences.
It’s ok. You’re entitled to hang on to your ignorant views without making any further effort to educate yourself about how this stuff actually works by someone whose career was spent in courtrooms watching exactly how this stuff actually works.
Hint: Prosecuting Trump for his old crimes is not a Law & Order episode.
Take a break, friend.
No personal invective and no break needed. Your views are ignorant. I’m simply pointing this out. If you’ve got something to refute the points I’ve made besides your personal opinion, I encourage you to do that.
I doubt getting the person running in the rotunda is a route to getting Trump and his cronies.
I get that getting the people at the top usually requires working your way up from the little guy to the top people but I think the rotunda people are just clueless idiots and few, if any, have any connection to the top people beyond seeing a Twitter post.
You’re right. They probably don’t. But think for a moment: Which Twitter post did they read? Who authored it? That’s important information for an investigation.
Go to the Twitter poster, who was also probably at the rotunda. Ask them, “Why did you make this Tweet? Who told you about this event? Do you have any text messages about it? Did you speak with anyone on the phone?”
Oh, here we go: Someone, or several someones, have got a connection to an Oath Keeper or a 3 Percenter, who was also probably in attendance.
Contact the Oath Keeper: What made you decide to go to the Capitol that day? Did you receive instructions from anyone? Don’t lie. We already know about your text messages with so-and-so. What? Your leader was in contact with Roger Stone? Who is your leader?
And so on.
It’s not just talking to these people. You have to actually produce the evidence to prove a case against each and every one, else you have no leverage at all. Prosecutors must deal from a position of absolute strength about what they can prove. Not what they hope or wish they can prove, but actual evidence: Emails, text messages, phone calls, witness testimony. It all takes time to gather. In this case, a lot of time, because there are so many potential defendants.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. If your duties as moderator permit you free time for reading, try these:
[How to Evaluate Progress in the Justice Department's Jan. 6 Investigation - Lawfare] and https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/entertainment/rep-jamie-raskin-impatient-slow-154652971.html
There are others. They are actually just the tip of the iceberg and represent a spectrum of opinion. Your perspective is represented - as is mine. There appears to be room for more than one perspective.
And I still wonder about Mueller’s findings.
As you have likely discerned, I am a moderator, but I am also a poster. I’m posting as a poster, and there will never be any confusion about which “hat” I’m wearing when I post.
I read the Lawfare article and it reinforces much of what I’ve said. I saw some of what you’re saying, but perhaps I missed some of it and you can highlight the salient points in the article which you feel support your views. But here’s the most important point I feel was made in the article:
Last night’s news doesn’t definitively answer the question of whether or not the Justice Department has been moving quickly enough. In the short term, at least, this debate is probably irresolvable. There’s no real way to determine whether the investigation was active enough, designed optimally, or resourced ideally at the outset. To quote Garland himself, “There is a lot of speculation about what the Justice Department is doing, what’s it not doing, what our theories are and what our theories aren’t, and there will continue to be that speculation.” And the data can support almost any hypothesis.
Re Mueller, I think @Lance_Turbo’s post explains that better than any other in the thread. Bill Barr’s DOJ and Trump’s pardons effectively eliminated the leverage Garland would have had to successfully prosecute those obstruction cases. The strength of those cases has not been aided by the passage of time or the lack of resources suffered by DOJ. DOJ is prioritizing. They have to. Their focus is now firmly on January 6th and prosecuting its instigators.
I do believe the lack of resources is of great concern. You don’t just shit these prosecutors or seasoned agents out. It takes time to get them trained, up and running. I remember when Lisa Monaco asked for 134 additional agents back in March as referenced in the Lawfare article. It’s disgusting DOJ hasn’t been granted those resources, and I do wonder why.
I’ll read your Yahoo link re Jamie Raskin’s impatience when I can. Thanks for linking both.
There was a recent opinion piece by, I believe, Lawrence Tribe, arguing that the DOJ should be investigating January 6 as a “hub and spoke” investigation rather than a bottom up investigation. I’m sorry I can’t link to it right now, but a Google search should find it pretty easily. It makes some compelling arguments that DOJ may be approaching this sub-optimally.
That was actually Andrew Weissman, Mueller’s top prosecutor. Tribe probably agrees.
The point I’d make is that we don’t know that Garland isn’t using a hub-and-spoke approach in addition to the pyramid approach. He’s not talking about it, and he shouldn’t.
It’s obvious he’s using pyramid for the insurrection people. He’s worked his way up to the level of Stone, Flynn and Navarro.
But he’s also got Marc Short and Greg Jacob already testifying before a grand jury. There’s no need for the testimony of these 2 except to build cases against Meadows and Trump. That’s pretty far up the chain to the most culpable defendants.
He also obtained warrants to seize evidence from John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark. He didn’t get the probable cause he needed to obtain those warrants without having already done significant investigation.
Eastman and Clark are the witnesses needed to testify about Trump’s role in the fake electors and DOJ corruption pieces of the scheme. Again, pretty far up the chain.