General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhere the hell is the Justice Department and Merrick Garland on McCarthy and 11 other Republicans?
Trying to intimidate telecomm companies into not complying with subpoenas issued by the Jan. 6 Commission is a clear violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, which states:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
So why the hell are AG Garland and the Justice Department just standing by and allowing them to do this?
Response to markpkessinger (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ocelot II
(115,267 posts)At this point it's not a criminal case, but a congressional investigation; furthermore, no subpoenas have even been issued yet. McCarthy is just flapping his gums. If the telecoms refuse to comply due to perceived intimidation, then there's an issue.
AZSkiffyGeek
(10,787 posts)How can you challenge another Garland sucks rant with facts?
CatWoman
(79,283 posts)PortTack
(32,605 posts)markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)But I think my question is a fair one, especially in light of the language in the second paragraph of the statute that says anyone "who endeavors to impede or obstruct . . ." That language would seem to negate the point that there ios no crime unltil one of the parties refuses to comply.
People are allowed to ask critical questions, even when they are uncomfortable!
AZSkiffyGeek
(10,787 posts)That must be what it means
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)TiberiusB
(484 posts)"'If you comply with an investigation request and turn over MY records to a Congressional committee then next Congress will punish you' sounds even more like corrupt intent under 18 USC 1505. Still not a sure thing but increasingly plausible," [Ken] White wrote.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)Budi
(15,325 posts)What's left to 'interperate'.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts). . . and "hell" is a pretty mild word in any case!
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)people would be pissed off because his prison jumpsuit was blue, not orange.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)markpkessinger
(8,381 posts). . . that if a person attempts to rob a bank, but is thwarted by a security guard, that there is no criminal issue? That makes no sense. Note the second paragraph of the statute:
[emphasis added]
McCarthy has already "endeavored to influence or impede" the investigation by sending the letter!
Ocelot II
(115,267 posts)They could refer the matter to the DoJ, but they won't unless the telecoms actually ignore subpoenas because of McCarthy's letter.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)Ocelot II
(115,267 posts)unless it is asked to do so. Separation of powers and all that. I really don't think Bennie Thompson is likely to refer this issue to DoJ, and it's not up to DoJ to take it on without that referral.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)Why can't DOJ and the select committee both investigate? The DOJ has more clout than the select committee has.
The way I see the question asked by the poster; it seems to this internet lawyer that McCarthy has already committed a crime. The select committee is only empowered to investigate, not to indict or bring criminal charges.
McCarthy even put it in writing.
Bobstandard
(1,278 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)This would run a serious risk of halting the
Congressional investigation in its tracks and getting a conviction thrown out.
There's a reason these things proceed the way they do and several people have tried to explain it to you repeatedly, yet you doggedly insist that they're doing it all wrong and they should do it the way you want it done.
It's clear you think you know more about how to proceed in these very complex matters than the people who actually have the experience, expertise, and responsibility in this area. It's also clear that you're sorely mistaken.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)You're getting in the way of another "Garland and the DOJ and shish" rant.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)Bobstandard
(1,278 posts)If you or I did it in a remotely similar case wed be charged immediately. And you know it.
Lets face it. Merrick Garland is a bust. You dont need to win every case, you dont have to have an airtight case before you, oh, say, charge the former guy with any one of his many obvious crimes. For the deterrent effect to work you have to show that there are some consequences. So far, the only consequences are that tfg and the like have to cough up documents during investigations. And they dont even do that.
Why not drag them into court? Why not make a show of at calling them to account. Just calling them to account. Why not make them defend themselves?
Say you charge them and they win. So what? Thats better than nothing, which is what we have now. At least the legal system is shown to be going through its paces. As it is, everything is behind closed doors. Which means that effectively, in the real world, nothing is happening. Which means, in the minds of their supporters, what theyve done and are doing is just fine.
So dont give me this bullshit that things are going on behind the scenes, and, these things take time, and similar wise man crap. Nothing is happening and it wont.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Can you cite any other instance in which a Member of Congress was prosecuted by the Department of Justice for telling any entity not to respond to a Congressional inquiry?
If you can't point to any other case where a Member was charged with a crime for what McCarthy did - or, in your words, engaging in remotely similar behavior - your attacks on DOJ for not charging McCarthy with a crime are completely baseless.
Ocelot II
(115,267 posts)Bobstandard
(1,278 posts)If one is not willing to challenge the status quo, there will be no precedent to cite.
See, thats the point. Barr et al would have had no problem bringing charges, whether they would stick or not. Thats how they play the game. We dont. We dont get on the field. As a result, they win.
Playing by the old rulesand Im being generous heredoesnt work with folks who have already abandoned them.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Given your inability to offer even one instance when a Member of Congress was prosecuted by DOJ - under Barr or anyone else - for anything they said in a communication with a potential witness, your claim that Barr would without question charge a Democrat in McCarthy's position is just a baseless assumption.
You're flailing all over this thread and digging yourself in deeper with every response.
Bobstandard
(1,278 posts)I dont think youre willfully obtuse, but youre missing the point in your replies to me and to others in this thread. You do seem to be an apologist for inaction, but I may be reading you wrong.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I just happen to know that investigations and preparations for indictment and prosecution happen out of the public eye and the fact that the general public isn't getting a blow-by-blow account of everything DOJ is doing does not equate with "inaction."
I and many others here have repeatedly tried to explain that to people, but some folks are so wedded complaining and spreading the "DOJ isn't doing anything!" myth that the facts no longer matter.
Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #61)
Post removed
Ocelot II
(115,267 posts)has been held to grant members of Congress immunity from legal challenges to actions within the legislative sphere, that is, when they are acting within the scope of their legislative or other congressional duties, as to both criminal prosecutions and civil suits. In light of the broad protection of the Speech and Debate clause, McCarthy probably can't be prosecuted even if he did violate the referenced statute.
Bobstandard
(1,278 posts)Ocelot II
(115,267 posts)even if the consequence of his action was not lawful. Thats what the SD clause does.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I appreciate your patience.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Ocelot II
(115,267 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Got elected to Congress and flapped our gums?
Eyeball_Kid
(7,410 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,548 posts)I'm trying to come to a point of acceptance on this.
AZSkiffyGeek
(10,787 posts)OMG NOTHING IS BEING DONE!!!!!!!!
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)AZSkiffyGeek
(10,787 posts)Stopping McCarthy from sending another letter?
Keep up your Internet Lawyerin.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts). . . would be told to cease and desist from attempts to intimidate witnesses or potential witnesses to the investigation.
And as for your "Internet Lawyer" comment, go fuck yourself. My post was an honest question -- I was not looking to trash Garland.ea And to the ONE person -- Ocelot II -- who responded in a civil manner, I responded in kind!
Bobstandard
(1,278 posts)How many cases are there out there that are under investigation, or where theyre building a case. Dozens? Dozens of dozens?
Case in point. Matt Gaetz. Nothing.
I could go on and on but it makes me too upset. Same status. Nothing.
So far only the guys who cooperate are doing worse than the malefactor.
Finally, if you think something is being done, why dont you enumerate a few of those? Lay em out. Im eager to know.
AZSkiffyGeek
(10,787 posts)Try to stay with the discussion.
And if you want to know whats going on with DoJ investigations, maybe join the DoJ and get involved in the investigations?
You DO know that the things you know are because people leaked the information, and not because Garland feels the need to a) let you know, or b) politicize the DoJ..
Bobstandard
(1,278 posts)This is about Garland. McCarthy is just a symptom of the problem.
I dont need Garland to tell me what hes doing. I need to see that hes doing something. A charging document, for instance. And against somebody a little higher up than just the knuckle draggers who invaded the Capitol. (At this point, they serve the function of distracting us from inaction elsewhere as much as anything).
The DOJ was wildly politicized under Trump. Sitting on your hands apparently doing nothing does not de-politicize the institution.
AZSkiffyGeek
(10,787 posts)It was about Garland going after McCarthy. But you apparently took it as a place to complain about a Democratic AG because he hasnt let you know what hes doing.
littlemissmartypants
(22,417 posts)Reminds me of a Tom Petty song.
❤
treestar
(82,383 posts)or call Garland and offer to help! All that paperwork that has to be done, and surely DUers can do it!!!!
NewHendoLib
(59,940 posts)one is bloodsport that is all about power and control. the other wants to serve the public and are not equipped in any capacity to deal with the other.
it is and has been for a long time now sad to behold. Using reason only works with reasonable people.
Response to markpkessinger (Original post)
Ocelot II This message was self-deleted by its author.
ShazamIam
(2,559 posts)the question of a conspiracy and the origins and support of the attack and planning including for example that AG Association that seems to have been involved, and the people who paid for the buses and promotions on social network sites. Where paid posters are used to boost and spread the messaging.
An example of boosting and spreading the message.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-ags-group-sent-robocalls-urging-march-capitol-n1253581
gab13by13
(20,853 posts)ShazamIam
(2,559 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,103 posts)indicted anyone for any signifigant crimes?
Scrivener7
(50,773 posts)onenote
(42,373 posts)that maybe, just maybe, neither the Committee nor the DOJ want to become in a distracting court case, with all of the risk inherent in such a proceeding, in which a judge will be asked to determine whether the request from the Committee constituted a "due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress"? Sure, we all think it was. The Committee thinks it was. But the repubs have argued that it wasn't. And the initial court case will be followed inevitably by an appeal. And then another appeal. And it will simple be a distraction.
Bettie
(15,995 posts)Republican. No one will touch them.
Had they not been any one of those things, they'd be on the hot seat already.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Can you name any Democratic Member of Congress - minority, non-wealthy, or otherwise - who was charged by DOJ with witness intimidation based on any communication they had with a potential Congressional witness?
JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)...it's because it's easy to look the other way.