General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf Garland charged Meadows with contempt, it would be as a witness, not a defendant.
Right now Meadows is only a witness who is refusing to testify. Charging him with contempt would be small potatoes. Meadows is a big fish in the investigation. Garland may be waiting to see if he can charge Meadows with much more serious crimes as a defendant.
I'm not sure, maybe charging Meadows as a witness now, could somehow complicate things if you wanted to charge him as a defendant later for more serious crimes.
Think about it, it makes sense.
Scrivener7
(50,993 posts)All of it is worthless bullshit.
Handcuffs or it didn't happen.
Beastly Boy
(9,404 posts)"Handcuffs or it didn't happen" is too much of a Pinochet territory for my taste.
Scrivener7
(50,993 posts)Beastly Boy
(9,404 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,651 posts)It explains in detail why rushing to indict for contempt could harm the entire investigation and prosecution.
Hint: it has to do with discovery, and how Bannon is using it to inform other potential defendants about the state of the investigation.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)Ocelot II
(115,829 posts)not only for the sake of efficiency, but because the aggregated crimes are more persuasive to a grand jury than piecemeal charges. Why charge only the relatively minor crime of ignoring a Congressional subpoena, which is a misdemeanor, when adding it to other crimes and charging them all at once is much more likely to lead to a long, detailed, "speaking" indictment?
gab13by13
(21,385 posts)gab13by13
(21,385 posts)why the select committee is considering offering immunity to people like Jeffrey Clarke? Sounds to me if they do that it sure messes up that super secret DOJ investigation.
Mark Meadows is a Big Fish, create a special grand jury and show the evidence to jurors just like they did for Watergate.
How many people here at DU truly understand the serious condition our democracy is in?
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)A DOJ prosecution of Clarke probably doesn't hit the front pages with any real info until after the election. They may be willing to offer him immunity to get something on the record in the coming months.
Beastly Boy
(9,404 posts)If I recall correctly, there were three grand juries empaneled to hear cases related to Watergate, but I don't think any of them were special grand juries.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)The jan. 6th committee has moved very quickly with their investigation because they knew they were on a timeline. They have to finish before the election.
Garland is not on a timeline, he can afford to take his time. It may seen like Garland is moving slowly because the committee has moved at such a very fast pace. It is normal for a criminal case this large to take a long time.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)How is he supposed to charge him with refusing to testify as a defendant?
Never heard of the 5th Amendment?
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)Not for refusing to testify. Now does it make sense.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)Youre always a defendant when youre charged with a crime.
Not is there any reason to not charge one crime just because you are investigating some other crime that you might charge
lame54
(35,315 posts)Time is not on our side
Time may be short when it comes to the 1/6 Committee, but the DOJ remains in our hands until at least 1/2025.
Time may be short when it comes to the 1/6 Committee, but the DOJ remains in our hands until at least 1/2025.