First, my apologies to those who have felt maligned by my previous posts. I am deeply distressed to see so many intelligent, respected board participants leaping to unfounded conclusions and from whom I have always taken for granted will see things in a clear-eyed way.
Second, I offered my opinions based on a couple decades of both trial prep for large criminal cases as a paralegal for a public defenders’ office and as an in-courtroom judge’s assistant who worked both major civil and criminal cases. I’ve had a lot of experience in how large, complicated cases come to fruition, though nothing on the scale of this DOJ investigation. There’s never been any case on the scale of this DOJ investigation. It is beyond leviathan. Nonetheless, I thought it might be useful to explain why investigations like this take so much time.
Of course all are free to disregard my opinions entirely – as it appears many have. That’s cool. My sense of self-worth doesn’t turn on convincing skeptical people of the veracity of what I’m saying. I simply thought some might find it reassuring to hear why what is happening is entirely normal in the regular course of justice as it is done in this country, finally under a normal administration with a normal AG.
What troubles me is the extent to which Trump’s corrupt DOJ has influenced the opinions of so many re Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland is not Bill Barr. And while some have serious concerns about Christopher Wray – with some good reason – that’s not a basis to malign the work the FBI is doing now, largely out of sight. Here is a link giving actual data re their caseload: https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/capitol-violence
Granted, this part of the investigation is focused as a pyramid prosecution on the insurrectionists. But everyone seems to have ruled out the (in my opinion, likely) possibility that the DOJ can simultaneously conduct a hub-and-spoke investigation for the inner circle.
What’s the evidence for this? Two things stand out: 1) Marc Short and Greg Jacobs have already testified to a grand jury; and 2) the seizure of John Eastman’s phone and search of Jeffrey Clark’s home. As I have said in other threads, it’s impossible for DOJ/FBI to obtain warrants to conduct these actions without having proved to federal judges that they, the DOJ, have current and relevant probable cause to ask for these warrants. They got them. You can’t disregard this evidence. There’s no other way DOJ got those warrants.
Further, Marc Short and Greg Jacobs testified to a grand jury because they have already been extensively vetted by the DOJ. Any lawyer will tell you that you don’t sit anyone down in front of an indicting grand jury unless you know exactly what your witnesses are going to say first.
What’s the purpose of seizing John Eastman’s phone and searching Jeffrey Clark’s home? It’s not merely to try and convict these individuals.
John Eastman is the author of Trump’s fake electors scheme. His testimony is crucial to convict Trump of that part of the overall scheme.
Jeffrey Clark is the author of Trump’s efforts to corrupt the DOJ. His testimony is crucial to convict Trump of that part of the overall scheme.
If all the DOJ wanted to do is convict the above individuals and stop there, then they don’t need the information both men can provide against Trump. They would have gone for the people who could testify against these fellows, not these fellows directly. This is huge if you can read the tea leaves. Don’t take my word for it. Joyce Vance is a former US prosecutor. She knows a bit how DOJ works:
It is going to take years to get them all. It doesn’t necessarily mean DOJ needs them all to climb the ladder and get the top individuals who ran this part of the scheme. You’re the only one asserting this. The DOJ has never said it.
I would strenuously argue against your assertion that the January 6th Committee hearings “forced DOJ, through the power of public opinion, to move beyond what does appear to be a position of ‘it doesn’t matter if we don’t talk to WH personnel for three or four years.’” This is pure speculation on your part, and the DOJ has publicly stated they have been on this case since January 7, 2021. I think it would be accurate to say the January 6th Committee hearings and persistent criticism forced Garland to make vague public comments about the state of their investigation, but nothing more.
Between two far-ranging investigations, it is not at all surprising that each entity – the Committee and the DOJ – have different evidence and witnesses. You and others have hung your hats on the notion that the DOJ was “blindsided” by the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony. It’s one witness. DOJ has Mark Meadows. Presumably, they don’t need Cassidy Hutchinson if they have Mark Meadows.
I explained in another thread my reason for believing this. DOJ declined to grant the Committee’s request for a contempt citation against Meadows. Again, reading the tea leaves, it indicates to me that they don’t want to make the same mistake with Meadows that Mueller made with Don McGahn: Get hung up on the executive privilege claims. Remember, Mueller got a final judgment on this issue – just 2 ½ years too late.
Meadows and his counsel have gone dead silent. This usually means negotiations with prosecutors, looking for a deal in exchange for testimony against a higher-up. Who could be higher up than Meadows in this scheme? Only one Individual(-1).
Sorry, but the “common sense” argument doesn’t cut much ice with me.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/29/politics/barr-voter-fraud-fact-check-foreign-countries/index.html
You seem to have forgotten that the default of the DOJ/FBI is to not discuss their work publicly until they either charge or don’t. If they don’t, they’ll never talk about it. This is normal. Garland isn’t using weasel words. He’s not going to say they will charge someone or not. They’ll either charge, or they won’t. They won’t talk about it.
And let’s remember, please: It’s not what you know happened. It’s what you can prove happened. I’ve tried to make this point so many times: Committee evidence is not trial evidence.
Sorry, but this is pure ignorance. Cases on this scale can take many years to bring to trial. They take the time they take, no matter what you want to believe.
Your skepticism of Christopher Wray is well known. But you need some new cites. Your Reuters cite is nearly a year old.
I understand your concerns re Wray. But he’s no longer Billy Barr’s butt boy. He’s Merrick Garland’s butt boy. Even if Wray is corrupt to the bone, he’s constrained by a need to keep his current boss, Garland, happy. Biden isn’t going to upset this apple cart unless Wray demonstrates some egregious misstep, so the point is moot. Again, I’d cite you to the FBI’s website for current information.
Finally, some actual discussion instead of simply sniping. Well done.
Which cable news outlet do you suppose I watch? I’ve seen them all: Schiff, Raskin, Weissman, Tribe. Heard every word firsthand many times. It’s funny; all have begun to change their perspectives now that Garland has publicly stated there is an open criminal investigation into Trump.
I have a lot of trust in all these folks, too. But one thing I consider that perhaps you haven’t, is this: All of them have a vested interest in making it crystal clear that there is absolutely no cooperation between the Committee and the DOJ in pursuing charges against Trump and his cohorts. DOJ must be seen as an independent agency, investigating crimes and not doing the bidding of the Committee.
Both entities are incredibly aware of this need. They have no chance of bringing along the folks on the other side who are skeptical of the investigation unless this division is stark. For this reason alone, I would expect all of them to appear somewhat critical of the DOJ. They’re not going to come out and say, “Yayy!! They’re doing exactly what we hoped they’d do!!” I hope you can understand the reasons for this.
You’re referring to Cassidy Hutchinson here. Again, you’ve assumed a pyramid investigation in this situation. I don’t think that’s required. And again, DOJ appears to have Mark Meadows. Why do you need Cassidy Hutchinson if you have Meadows?
You and others have placed maniacal importance on this one witness. For our purposes – meaning we, the public – of learning what was happening at that level with the Committee, she was very useful. If you have Meadows himself to testify against Trump, not so much. No pyramid required.
Well, you are doomed to bitter disappointment, then. This was never going to happen, under this or any other AG. I don’t expect to see any federal charges against Trump for at least 6 months. I mean, that’s based on my own personal experience with these things, but I suppose we can go with your gut on how things are instead.
@Yookeroo, re your cites:
As I said, I’ve heard Andrew Weissman’s criticisms and I respect his opinions a lot. But as previously noted, I’ve listened to him walk them back quite a bit since Garland’s public comments. I’d also note that Weissman may have an additional reason to criticize Garland: The investigation of which he was a part, Mueller’s, was not successful. He is possibly desperate to see this investigation succeed where his own failed.
I do hope you got all the way to the end of Weissman’s interview with Politico, where he said the following:
But I think that I would want very strong evidence if I was relying on sort of this implicit agreement, understanding in this situation, like many situations, the president isn’t going to sit down and say, “I’d like to have an agreement to overthrow the democratic election.” That’s just not how things work.
Re Lawrence Tribe, again, lots of respect for him. But I’ve heard him speak about these matters several times. On the interviews I’ve seen, he’s been careful to qualify his comments every time as you said he did. And as you noted, your cite is a year old. Maybe something more current will inform you better about what Lawrence Tribe thinks about things these days. I saw him just a few days ago. He was quite a bit more supportive of his former student, even saying that Garland didn’t need any help from him. So I don’t really understand why you put more weight on the old comments than the more current ones.
Here’s a piece that I think explains Garland’s approach very well. It’s by Frank Figluzzi, former assistant director of the counterintelligence unit at the FBI and a special agent for 25 years. I think he knows how the DOJ is supposed to work: Merrick Garland dropping hints about Donald Trump would be out of line
Sorry. Again, there’s no evidence for this whatsoever. Please try to remember that Wray works for Garland, not the other way around. One thing with which I’ll credit Wray: He has studiously avoided being in the public eye, and he has been very careful to not be labeled as political in any way. Going hard against Garland would fuck that up. I dislike Wray, but I also remember he would not do Trump’s bidding while Trump was in office, and Trump wanted to fire him.
On this point, I hope I can reassure you. You’d be amazed how unaware a lot of people are about things we all take for granted people surely must know about. As I’m sure you know, the goal isn’t to seat 12 individuals who have never heard of the case. It’s to seat 12 individuals who can set aside any preconceived notions and hear the case in an impartial manner. The jury selection for Trump will be a dreadful slog, they will probably seat as many alternate jurors as regular jurors – but it can be done.
So that’s all I have to say on all this. I’ve gotten the clear message that my opinions don’t hold much weight, so I shan’t offer them further.
In the end, none of us knows how this is going to end. But I remain encouraged by the signs I’ve seen in how this investigation is moving along. I do believe Trump will end up being charged, maybe even with seditious conspiracy. But not for some time.
Sorry for the length of this post, but I did feel everyone who offered criticisms deserved the courtesy of a response.