I wonder if DOJ is sharing contents of Eastman’s phone with the committee?
This gets into the whole, “Was it criminal if he really believed it?” business. And I’m thinking, “Yeah, it’s still criminal.”
That guy who shot up the pizza place that featured in all those QAnon conspiracies was still committing a criminal act when he did that, even though he apparently really believed all the nonsense he’d been fed by QAnon. When every rational person around you tells you X, and you continue to believe Not-X, with no evidence to back up that belief, there’s no way you should be able to use “I really believed it!” as a defense.
Even if you can show that your belief arose out of a legitimate mental condition, all that is, is an admission that you’re too insane to be allowed to interact with the public, and should be institutionalized.
Stating that Trump genuinely believes his lies is just making excuses for Trump. Trump is just a liar, he always has been, and I for one haven’t forgotten that.
He’s lying, people. Again.
Obama picked Garland in an effort to be strategic. No one at that time knew how far McConnell would go to “bend the rules.” In that moment, it looked like a good strategy by Obama. It should have been. And Obama did not pick a Federalist Society nominee.
In fact, the reason McConnell didn’t bring the nomination to the floor for a vote is that Garland’s confirmation would have been nearly unanimous among both Democrats and Republicans. That’s exactly the sort of SCOTUS Justice we should be shooting for. And it certainly doesn’t make Garland a Republican flack.
There is a very rational explanation for the time Garland has taken. He has prosecuted about 800 participants in the January 6th insurrection so far. That takes time, no matter how you may see it. Committee hearing evidence is not trial evidence. Developing bullet proof trial evidence takes time.
The FBI, cop arm of the DOJ, is doing their job. The FBI never does its work out loud (except twice during the Comey Era, which were huge mistakes. We’re still paying the price for that.), nor does the DOJ. They’re not going to give us regular updates on their progress. To think otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of how they work.
Just because you don’t always see them doesn’t mean they’re not working hard. Who do you think is conducting all these investigations, interviews, arrests, etc.?
Think of the scope: All these unidentified insurrectionists, where did they come from? Who knew about their plans? Who instructed them to do what they were doing? Where did they share their information? How did they fund their activities? Where are they now? Chase down the texts, the phone messages, the call logs, the chat logs, the photos, the eye witnesses. Gather all evidence for prosecutions. Squeeze perpetrators. Obtain testimony of the lowers to gain convictions of the uppers. Cross-reference. Repeat and move up the chain.
But in fact, there is evidence of where Garland’s team is at. We know Eastman’s phone was recently seized. We know Clark’s home was searched. Do you know how the FBI gets to do that? They have to apply for a warrant from a federal judge in the jurisdiction where they want to search. So in Eastman’s case, New Mexico. In Clark’s case, Virginia. And in each instance, they must show probable cause – meaning evidence – of what they expect to find that justifies the search and/or seizure. So to say that DOJ has no evidence is simply ignorant.
More evidence: The fact that DOJ publicly stated they are declining to prosecute Meadows for contempt of Congress.
There are two reasons for that I can think of: First, because to get into the legitimate executive privilege claims that Meadows might (absolutely would) assert will take even more time. He will sue. The last time this happened during Mueller’s investigation with Don McGahn, it took nearly 2 years (if memory serves) to get a final ruling on that. You want no delay? You’re getting no delay.
The second reason is that Meadows is likely getting a Queen for a Day opportunity: Tell the DOJ everything, omitting nothing, and we’ll go easy on you when we charge you. And you must agree to testify against our target. Our target is Trump.
But yeah, until Trump is charged, anyone can say anything.
IANAL, but …
If the DoJ decides to go after Trump, there are potential crimes with which he could be charged …
Where “Reckless disregard of whether a statement is true, or a conscious effort to avoid learning the truth” is sufficient to constitute intent:
And in my NAL opinion, the J6C has gone a very long way toward clearing this particular hurdle.
I don’t expect that Trump having effectively said, repeatedly, “NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH. I AM NOT LISTENING TO YOU” would be a successful defense against the above.
I think they’re going for Seditious Conspiracy, though. That’s why Meadows, Eastman and Clark.
They’re the ones who can testify about with whom they were conspiring. Any names come to mind?
I will add that IANAL, either. Just worked in the justice system for decades.
That would have been a good place to respond to that (cornfielded) post, but in this case I did actually splash around with a 9 year old boy in the water for 2 hours. The life of a single dad is nothing if not glamorous.
Oh, I think you’re right. But they may well charge him/them with anything and everything they think they can prove, and get a conviction on.
And the reason I brought up the charge that I did is that it may provide clarification for some people … that “he really believed the bullshit that he was saying” may not be a successful tactic.
Got ya. 
Thanks for the clarification. I’m super focused on seditious conspiracy. Trump needs to go down for that. Direct witness testimony is the bullet proof evidence DOJ needs and is going after with laser focus, in my non-lawyer opinion.
I’ve googled for it, but can’t find it. When is the next hearing?
I don’t think they’ve announced the July dates yet. Soon, hopefully.
We don’t need justices who get unanimous support from the Republicans in the senate now. And that’s not the kind of person who should be pursuing this case as AG. There’s no excuse for his dawdling on this matter. A house committee should not be so far in front of his investigation.
You don’t know if they are ahead or if they aren’t.
Sure, there was a report that the DOJ was “surprised” by some of Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony. Probably a good time to remember that Cassidy Hutchinson was a recent witness, came to the Committee only after she changed from a Trump lawyer to a Sessions lawyer and the ink was barely dry on her transcripts when she was called to testify publicly. You don’t know if Cassidy Hutchinson was ever interviewed by the DOJ. My guess is probably not, because they’re working with the source: Mark Meadows.
I could make a good case that DOJ knows more about Mark Meadows than the Committee does, because Meadows isn’t cooperating with the Committee. The public-facing evidence, little though it is, points to that he’s cooperating with DOJ.
But like I said, until Trump is arrested, anyone can say anything.
This.
You’re either mentally competent to be able to tell wrong from right, obvious lies from the truth OR you are too mentally incompetent to stand trial, and need to be institutionalized for your own and other’s safety.
Whether he believed it or not should just be a mitigating factor at his sentencing.
There is also a concept in law known as Willful Blindness.
If someone is attempting to use this as a shield to prosecution, the claim can be pierced by showing the defendant was taking active steps to avoid knowing about their culpability. The link has a much more fulsome explanation.
In short, it’s not a defense.
I don’t agree with that. It can’t be proved what he believed. And it shouldn’t mitigate anything either way. We have his selfish track record as a liar. It isn’t any more complicated than that.
Trump had a choice to tell the truth and admit he lost the election, or lie and claim victory. Naturally, he lied. As always.
And Trump took his case to a court of law something like 60 times, and the court ruled that he lost. After that, it doesn’t matter what Trump thought.
What he believed doesn’t matter. If you are accused of a crime you didn’t commit, it’s still illegal for you to pressure your friends to lie and alibi you. Even if you think you’re innocent, even if you are innocent.
Okay, I have to go through every comment to say what I mean, sorry this could take a minute. (Three hours from now I may be able to keep all these points in my mind at one time- but not now. To summarize before talking through the whole process leaves out way too many details for me to be comfortable with.)
First question I have to ask is this: Are we talking about two different entities here? The DOJ has been around for a very long time and does have a reputation of being somewhat right leaning (it is law enforcement after all). Is there an institutional hesitation to investigate, charge, and convict Republicans that has nothing to do with Garland at all? And then is Garland a more theoretical, pondering kind of lawyer rather than a fire breathing prosecutor – the guy we actually need in the job?
I was glad he got some redemption by becoming Attorney General after the SCOTUS snub due to McConnell. But he does need to step up and do something and time is NOT unlimited here (although perhaps not as urgent as I tend to think it is).
This is my natural resting view of things as well. Sometimes, a comment can sway me into another mind set- but this is always back there bubbling on a low burner.
Okay this is an aside for me, but a very important one. I bolded one sentence that I think is especially important. You are allowed to believe anything at all. There are no laws against thought criminals (not unless Republicans DO actually take over the entire nation like they have taken over the Supreme Court). You can believe anything at all-- but you cannot commit criminal acts based upon those beliefs. A criminal act is a criminal act and your beliefs are very, very rarely pertinent to the matter.
See, when YOU say this it sounds perfectly reasonable and likely to be true. But it creates a sort Schrodinger’s Cat situation where Garland is either – – how did the poster phrase it? Feckless by EllisDee and TriPolar indicates his current role in government is a consolation prize (which I can not help but agree with). Or he is a wise strategist dotting EYES and crossing TEES as you suggest. There doesn’t seem to me, to be a middle ground where he is moderately competent and will do something but maybe not get the best conviction possible.
This Occam’s razor is too much for my fragile sense of justice. What if, just saying what if after another year it turns out the cat has always been dead? What if Garland is a feckless poser?
This is one you and I have always agreed upon. Meadows is the key, and I don’t believe Eastman and Clark would be worth two cents to the proceeding except where their testimony is needed to confirm something Meadows has said. Even then they can be on the outside- no need to give them anything except a subpoena for there testimony. Having those two nit-wits turn states evidence just undermines the case in my view. I would rather have them as hostile witnesses who are compelled to spill the beans rather than “part of the team”
This is important because it will keep Trump from ever having the ability to run for office again. He has done enough damage already and keeping from doing further damage is almost as important as repairing the damage he has already wrought. Okay, Click and Clark MAY be useful, I admit it, but I just hate and distrust those guys SOOO MUCH!!
Please treasure these non-glamorous moments! I got a call from a hospital in the middle of the night because my 22 year old was being admitted. I can promise you those two hours were not wasted.
I hope you are right. Wish I had more than hope at this point but at least there is hope.
Yes, this!
That is what I was trying to state above.
I have never seen any of the movies in full. My family is evenly divided into those who believe it is a documentary, and those who believe it is a deliberate attack on good, hard working, honest and legitimate Italian Americans. I have just avoided it so I don’t have to pick a tribe.
Hope that you all have had a great holiday weekend and that you continue to enjoy the day. I do appreciate that everyone on this board is likely to have a better and more profound sense of what freedom is and what freedom means than my many neighbors (who are flying multiple Trump flags).
John Eastman and his memo is the person who ties Trump directly to the fake electors scheme.
Jeffrey Clark is the person who ties Trump directly to the scheme to corrupt the DOJ to get himself (Clark) appointed as AG in lieu of Rosen, and then to issue formal DOJ letters to several states saying that the outcome of the election was in doubt.
They are each very important to establish direct evidence to Trump for a seditious conspiracy charge.