I Admit My Ignorance about the Internal Workings of the DOJ.

[MineralMan]

I readily admit that. I have zero actual first-hand information about that. I don't even know anyone who works at the DOJ.

So, I am on a wait and see basis about what is going on there. I just don't know. I did not know, for example, that a grand jury had been empaneled to hear potential charges against Steve Bannon until the indictment of him had been issued. So, any assumption I might have had regarding that would have been incorrect, due to not having enough information to form such a judgement.

I'm very hopeful that the DOJ will also empanel grand juries in cases against Donald John Trump and many other cronies of his, with regard to the January 6 insurrection and other matters. However, I do not know what the current status of such investigations might be, with regard to those individuals. I do know that a House committee is actively taking testimony and will be passing on what they learn to the DOJ. Perhaps the DOJ is waiting for the committee's report. That would make sense, I think.

So, I'm sorry, but I will be unable to make definitive statements about what the DOJ and Merrick Garland are doing or not doing. I cannot make such statements, because I have no information about what is going on in the DOJ. I'd like to know, but I do not.

If someone posting here on Democratic Underground actually has some internally sourced information, however, I would appreciate learning about it, along with information about that person's knowledge of DOJ internal actions. Truly, though, I'm massively uninterested in what anyone who has no more information than I do thinks is going on. Lacking such information, there is no reason to hold any beliefs about DOJ activities, it seems to me.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

1. Well said.

[Wounded Bear]

2. DOJ is not supposed to telegraph what they're doing to the public...

not good investigative technique to warn your targets before you have the goods on them.

[MineralMan]

4. Exactly. That is how it is supposed to be.

There were alterations to that during the last administration. There was much wrong with that administration. I'm glad to see things returning to normal operations.

[Elessar Zappa]

3. I have no info either.

Like you, my best guess is that they’ll wait until the committee hands over its findings and proceed from there. But again it’s only speculation.

[MineralMan]

5. That's how the DOJ has operated in the past.

Of course, things were not normal there during the past administration. More's the pity.

[malaise]

6. Same here butI trust Garland

Rec

[MineralMan]

9. Yes. I have no reason not to trust AG Garland.

[MineralMan]

10. Merrick Garland Is NOT William Barr

Joe Biden is not TFG.

Things change. Roll with it.

[Tommymac]

23. Thank You. nt

[brooklynite]

16. "if the plan is to burn up time"

You think the BIDEN ADMINISTRATION DOJ wants to INTENTIONALLY waste time so no prosecution occurs? How embarrassing.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

8. Just like we were told to be patient back in 2005,

that Patrick Fitzgerald would definitely indict a bunch of people, there would be trials and convictions and justice would be served. Just be patient, we were told. These things take time, people said. It's not a good idea for the Justice Department to say what they are going to do ahead of time. How did our patience pay off? You might want to review the long list of those in the Bush administration who were prosecuted and served jail time. Oh, wait. Other than Scooter Libby, no one was indicted, let alone prosecuted.

I suspect we are very much on the same path right now. A couple of indictments, maybe. No real punishment. No jail time.

I hope I am completely wrong here, but we've been burned before.

[MineralMan]

12. I try hard not to draw conclusions based on the past,

but not on any current information. I've always found that to be the best idea.

Garland is not Barr. Garland is not Fitzgerald. Why would I assume that he will act as they did?

Thinking is good.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

28. True about the specific men being different.

But so far, this is playing out an awful lot like the previous times.

Didn't someone famously say that those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it?

[MineralMan]

29. But, see, what you're saying about it being a lot like previous

times is not based on any knowledge of what is actually going on at the DOJ. We don't know that information.

I don't know, either, but I'm not drawing any conclusions about it.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

30. We likewise didn't know anything those earlier times.

Other than in the end nothing happened. I'm inclined to think, especially given how institutions behave, that the past is a foreshadowing of the future.

So far, nothing of real substance has happened. Trump administration people are ignoring subpoenas to testify and so far haven't even gotten a slap on the wrist. Yeah, the Meadows thing has been forwarded to the DOJ but so far, zilch.

It's the same with Trump's endless appeals to keep his stuff away from Congress. As soon as one is shot down, he files another and it has to go through the same several levels of judges. Meanwhile, he suffers no consequences of anything he has done. I have a small amount of confidence that the state of New York will actually bring him to account on several things there. But the feds? I won't be holding my breath.

[Scrivener7]

11. You say you are uninterested in what anyone with no more information than you have thinks is

going on.

Why do you think the rest of us, then, should be interested in how you think about what is going on?

If you feel that others have no standing to state their opinions, what makes you think you have standing to state yours?

[MineralMan]

14. Oh dear...

I don't think you should be interested in anything I say.

I don't think people should not state their opinions.

I think people should state the reasons they hold such opinions and why that is true.

So far, all I'm seeing is people pointing at past DOJ actions. That is not a good predictive method really.

If you are not interested in my opinions nor that I have no right to have them, I wonder why you bothered to read and comment in this thread. However, this is DU, and you have every right to do so. So do I.

[Scrivener7]

17. Because I find your habitual stance to be a fascinating glimpse into a mindset.

[MineralMan]

18. My "habitual stance" is to rely on actual information.

When there is no such information, I wait. That is my stance. What is yours?

[Scrivener7]

24. Sure you do! But that's not the stance I'm referring to.

[MineralMan]

25. OK. Whatever you say, you know...

I have no idea what you're talking about, though, so...never mind.

[brooklynite]

13. Nobody here has "internally sourced information" of DOJ's activities...nor should they.

[MineralMan]

15. Yes, exactly.

Opinions based on speculations are not very valuable. I include my own opinions in that assessment.

I simply do not know what is happening nor what will happen. That's just what I stated.

[piddyprints]

20. I agree with you,

although with a bit of trepidation because we've been burned so often before.

If TFG or his high-profile side-kicks ever have to pay for any of the crimes they have committed, I will consider myself pleasantly surprised. It's more about continuing to be afraid of hoping for the right result, only to be bitterly disappointed, than an indictment of Merrick Garland's ability or integrity. As you said, wait and see.

I can always count on you for a rational point of view.

[NQAS]

21. All points well taken

You are right that it is silly for anyone to make definitive comments on what the DOJ is doing without actual knowledge of, well, what the DOJ is doing.

I'm probably guilty, as I've written that the DOJ isn't doing anything.

That said, it is not unfair to comment on what the DOJ has done so far - mostly slap on the wrist indictments and light sentences for the coup participants/stooges. It's also not unfair to state that there is no evidence of the state of the DOJ investigation into the actions of the actual coup plotters, including TFG. This is true. There is no evidence. We don't know what's going on. What is surprising is that there have been no leaks. Governments leak like sieves. But not here. OK, that could be fantastic leadership and discipline. Or something else. Knowledgeable commentators have suggested that the silence from the DOJ is a great sign (Glenn Kirschner and a few other former US attorneys). I hope so. But, let's face it, in the absence of any concrete evidence, speculation is going to run rampant.

Now, on the speculation side, I have to wonder a bit about Liz Cheney's text readings and this morning's article in the NYT about the coup leadership (thought they don't use the term "coup&quot . Do they represent the laying of the foundation for the release of DOJ action? Don't know. And since I don't know, I will speculate - and hope.

[Ocelot II]

27. There's also a point I don't think I've seen anyone raise - which is that

the DoJ has probably been planted with Trump cronies which will take awhile to weed out, and who might very well be trying to throw spanners in the works. The DoJ is a very large agency, and even some low-level stooge with access (authorized or not) to investigation materials could cause serious problems. It is at least possible that Garland is handling the process using only a limited number of vetted staff until the cronies are identified and sidelined, which could slow things down. I don't have any idea whether this is happening but it's something I've wondered about.

[pandr32]

22. I'm with you

I also would like to hear from somebody who has actual knowledge of the "DOJ internal actions."

[Ocelot II]

26. You won't, because DoJ internal actions - specifically, the details of an investigation -

are kept confidential with good reason. The last thing investigators and prosecutors want is for their targets to know or suspect that they're targets. When you're investigating mobsters (basically what TFG and cronies are) you don't want them to destroy or falsify evidence or intimidate or buy off witnesses - which is exactly what they'd do. Let them think the DoJ isn't doing anything. Let them relax while investigations go forward and the DoJ investigators hear from the same people who've been talking to the House committee. In fact, it seems like the committee's work could segue nicely into DoJ prosecutions. But for now, as the OP pointed out, we don't know anything and the people who do know something aren't talking, and shouldn't be.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

31. Garland has reinstated the rules that require that things are done by the book

We are not supposed to know what is going on

[MineralMan]

32. Exactly.