Will the DOJ announce soon that they have begun an investigation on former president?

[kentuck]

Yesterday, the Jan 6 Committee filed a 61-page report saying it believed there was obstruction of Congress and defrauding the United States.

The Committee has been attempting to get emails and records from Trump's former lawyer, John Eastman, but he has refused to turn over anything, claiming attorney-client privilege.

What does the DOJ do now?

It seems likely that they may indict Mr Eastman before a grand jury and he will be forced to turn over the documents.

They may appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the former president since the Committee has stated they have basis for concluding that Trump violated the law?

However, it would seem that Mr Eastman might be the first target on the agenda?

Of course, AG Garland has much more information than any of us. We know nothing.

[Scrivener7]

1. Would be nice, wouldn't it?

[PJMcK]

2. Does the DOJ ever announce investigations?

My impression is that they only announce indictments.

Anyway, who the hell knows what AG Garland is doing? It could be a lot or it could be nothing. I thin we won't know until something concrete occurs.

[Scrivener7]

3. They just did. They put out a big announcement that they'd investigate

Russian oligarch money.

Made a big deal about how they were going to investigate to the fullest extent of the law.

A generation after the rest of us first knew those crimes were happening.

[PJMcK]

6. Thanks

It sounds like the DOJ is just another political/public relations outfit, doesn't it?

[Scrivener7]

7. At this point, all we know is that it is a group that very lightly prosecutes

rank-and-file people who violently breached the Capitol. So lightly as to encourage them to try again.

I really hope we learn different soon.

But if they're running out the clock, they may not have to for much longer.

[Ohio Joe]

10. Well...

They have also charged 11 with seditious conspiracy, one of which has already flipped and agreed to cooperate. I’m surprised you missed that news.

[Scrivener7]

11. No, I didn't miss it. But I'm still not seeing indictments of the ones who matter.

Looking forward to that. And looking and looking and looking ...

[Ohio Joe]

17. I see...

It makes me glad that someone like Garland is doing the investigation. I’d like to see charges and prosecutions that get convictions and build the foundation for more up the chain rather than someone who just charges and then fails in court.

While I’m sure Garland will use the flipper against whoever of the remaining 10 that don’t also flip, the main reason to offer a deal is to move up the chain… And that next level is TFG’s inner circle. I suspect when that happens it will still neither satisfy you nor convince you of Garlands intent.

[Scrivener7]

18. I'm glad you're sure. I see no evidence to support that. I will be thrilled if I am wrong.

But this is not a normal situation, and all that t crossing and i dotting might render any results useless if the glacial pace continues.

[Scrivener7]

30. Also, Joe, we disagree. We've been disagreeing for months. It's nothing new.

My position is that I will believe there will be indictments when I see indictments. This isn't radical or disloyal to Democrats or even particularly unusual.

I get that your opinion is different. I am able to have the conversation without going all ad hominem on you.

We know this conversation is going to continue until either the indictments come, which we both wish for, or until Democrats are no longer in a position to push for them. Which is both of our worst nightmare.

How about, in future conversations, you avoid telling me how you think nothing will satisfy me or convince me or whatever other (wrong) opinions you have formed about me personally?

How about we keep it about the issue, and not stoop to that ad hominem crap?

[Ohio Joe]

50. It is true we disagree...

I don't see what I say as ad hominem at all. I see you say, as you did in post #7:

At this point, all we know is that it is a group that very lightly prosecutes

rank-and-file people who violently breached the Capitol. So lightly as to encourage them to try again.

I really hope we learn different soon.

But if they're running out the clock, they may not have to for much longer.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216432349#post7

Well... I look at that and think, well that is simply not true. Of the 11 arrested for seditious conspiracy, most were not even at the capitol that day. They are not rank and file. They are not being lightly prosecuted so... Perhaps you are unaware but... You are not. You are even aware that one has already flipped.

When I stated my belief, it was to keep the investigation moving up the chain and get the next step closer to TFG, your response was:

I'm glad you're sure. I see no evidence to support that. I will be thrilled if I am wrong.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216432349#post18

Well... Tell me... Why do you think DOJ cut a deal with the seditious prick?

We also know for fact Garland is investigating at least 8 in TFG's orbit even before this:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/08/the-eight-trump-associates-whom-doj-is-investigating/

Yet you see no evidence Garland is going after them... What is it you think Garland is doing then?

[Scrivener7]

51. As I have repeatedly said, I will believe there will be indictments of those who tried to

overthrow our government when I see indictments of those who tried to overthrow our government.

You are certain Garland will get to the top people and justice will be served. I am not certain of that. I can comfortably coexist with your certainty. Can you coexist with my uncertainty? If not, why not?

And though you don't see your need to tell me your negative personal opinions about me as being ad hominem, they are literally the definition of ad hominem.

[Ohio Joe]

52. Well...

"You are certain Garland will get to the top people and justice will be served. I am not certain of that. I can comfortably coexist with your certainty. Can you coexist with my uncertainty? If not, why not?"

Because you offer nothing to back up your stance. I put out evidence after evidence and you simply ignore it and continue to deny it. I ask about your opinions/thoughts and you ignore it and just go on saying Garland is doing nothing. Why is that?

"And though you don't see your need to tell me your negative personal opinions about me as being ad hominem, they are literally the definition of ad hominem."

My negative opinions are not of you personally, they are of your opinions that you refuse to back up.

[Scrivener7]

53. My opinion, Joe, is that I will believe it when I see it. I don't need to back that up or to

debate with you what I do or don't think Garland is doing behind the scenes.

Because I will believe it when I see it.

Why does that bother you so much?

And no, your negative opinions were not about my refusal to back anything up. Your negative opinions, as you stated them, were that I am a person who cannot be convinced or satisfied.

[Ohio Joe]

54. No...

That was a prediction of future behavior based on past as well as current comments.

See... When you say that "At this point, all we know is that it is a group that very lightly prosecutes rank-and-file people who violently breached the Capitol." when it is proven to not be true... In fact you admit you are aware it is not true but stick to it, that tells me that nothing will satisfy you.

"Because I will believe it when I see it. Why does that bother you so much?"

That opinion doesn't. What does is denial of things that have happened and things that are going on in order to support such an opinion.

[Scrivener7]

55. Your "prediction" was ad hominem. I know you will continue to deny it, but it really

is the definition of ad hominem.

My last word on it is to say, yet again, that I have no problem with your certainty that justice will be served. I simply don't share that opinion. I wish I did, but I just don't. So I will believe that justice will be served when I see justice being served.

I am guessing you will need to again tell me that I am wrong to be uncertain, and you may reiterate that your certainty is based on incontrovertible proof.

So have at it and have a nice day.

[Ohio Joe]

56. What really bothers me...

As you said earlier, you are not alone in believing Garland is doing nothing yet... Not one single person who believes such has made any attempt to contradict the facts. They are simply ignored, and the bashing continues. Belief in things contrary to evidence always bother me.

[Scrivener7]

25. Come to think of it, they also announced they would investigate the theft

of the classified papers.

Which doesn't give me a lot of faith that they are investigating his incitement and organization of Jan 6 or his collusion with Russia during the 2016 election.

Because, contrary to conventional wisdom at DU, they DO announce their investigations, and they have not announced either of those.

[Beastly Boy]

39. Let's not forget that DOJ acts on behalf of the Executive Branch.

If Biden, for instance, tells Garland to announce an investigation, he will announce an investigation. And if I, for instance, tell Garland to announce an investigation, I fully expect him to to tell me to go fuck myself.

[Ohio Joe]

4. My expectation...

They will first get some more of the 10 remaining seditious conspirators to flip... Then proceed with charges against TFG's inner circle. I believe that will include Stone, Meadows, Giuliani and more. These criminals no longer have that ace in the hole to give them a pardon and, and just like the seditious conspirators, I suspect several of them will not want to spend the rest of their lives in prison and will flip on TFG.

This process will take way too long for many, but it is how a mob is brought down.

[dutch777]

15. With what is criminally apparent...top of mind the threats to our Democracy...seems DOJ is short

of people to really get after it all. Trump Organization's tax dodging and insurance fraud is not unique to them. Look at the nations top 100 similar real estate investment organizations and you'll find more. And the list goes on and on at the federal, state and local level. The lack of anything that looks like urgency is truly troubling.

[JohnSJ]

5. My cynical self says, do not hold your breath. We are running out of time. If we lose the

Congress in the midterms, it is a guarantee that the January 6th Congressional investigation will be stopped cold, and the DOJ will be even weakened further if that happens, though it shouldn’t be

[samplegirl]

8. Do they are probably

hoping to run the clock out?

[Irish_Dem]

9. Trump is not just a criminal, he is a Russian asset.

Working on behalf of Putin. The Russians have cultivated him for 40 years. They gave him unbelievable amounts of money over the years. Trump has not even bothered to hide his love for all things Putin.

Do we let that go as well? A sitting US president who sold out his country to the highest bidder?

The amount of damage Trump did is incalculable.

[Alpeduez21]

12. How many classified documents

were on the way to Russia from Margo Largo?

[Irish_Dem]

14. As many as Trump could get his hands on.

How many CIA agents were outed?

I am sure Putin wanted the names of agents/assets in Moscow.
And Trump most likely had some of his people embedded in the US intelligence services.

[gab13by13]

13. " Of course, AG Garland has much more information than any of us. We know nothing."

You forgot the sarcasm thingy.

[gab13by13]

16. Kentuck, define "soon,"

You are an extremely optimistic person.

Name me one politician, one former politician, a former president, a former president's cabinet member, anyone who had any official duty working with a former president who has been investigated by DOJ? Name me one person. MG doesn't want to appear partisan.

Day 78 since the Mark Meadows' criminal referral to DOJ.
Day 50 since the Michigan AG sent the fake elector referral to DOJ.

I will wait a while to see if DOJ investigates the stolen, flushed, eaten, torn, burned, classified documents, some of which are still missing. I don't want to be accused of being impatient. Soon it will be election time when DOJ has a rule not to interfere in an election.

[kentuck]

20. Do you think it will have any bearing on the next election?

I am not as optimistic as I once was...

[Beastly Boy]

26. I will limit my list to the Trump administration officials, since that's what you probably mean

-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
-Former campaign chief Steve Bannon
-Trump adviser and "fixer" Roger Stone
-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn
-Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen
-Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos
-Trump Inaugural Committee chairman Tom Barrack

I already know what your comeback lines may be: "But look at their light sentences" or "But tell me who was indicted since 2017" or "But it's Day 78 since Meadows' criminal referral" (oops, you already used that one). But... that's not what you asked for.

DOJ doing nothing is an urban legend, based on what urban legends are usually based on: rumor, innuendo and conjecture.

And, despite you sounding conspicuously snarky, I thank you for your patience.

[gab13by13]

45. That is not my comeback,

I'm talking about our present DOJ.

[Beastly Boy]

58. Glad you made this clear.

So when you say "Name me one politician, one former politician, a former president, a former president's cabinet member, anyone who had any official duty working with a former president who has been investigated by DOJ" you only have the publicly announced investigations of members of the Trump administration in mind, right? That limits the field pretty significantly. But even then, Flynn was part of the Trump administration. and the rest were highly placed operatives in his presidential campaign.

And then, when you are talking about the present DOJ, you limit the field of people who fall into your criteria even further, only to those who were publicly announced as subjects of DOJ investigations in the past year or so. That's a pretty narrowly defined sample for consideration! In my view, it's an unreasonably narrow sample. May I remind you, a few months ago you weren't this particular about who you expect DOJ to announce as being indicted. And, I suspect, this field will narrow even further as indictments come for the people whom you included in the above quote.

Let's see how your list changes in a couple of months. i am confident there will still be a list, and you will not miss an opportunity to post it.

[Beastly Boy]

19. Unless DOJ is already investigating Trump,

they will have to wait for a Committee referral

[kentuck]

21. My hunch is that they are trying to tie up loose ends before they begin their hearings.

But I have no expectations that those that need to be held accountable will be held accountable.

[gab13by13]

27. Why? What if Speaker Pelosi hadn't created that committee?

There are no rules that prevent DOJ from doing investigations during an election period, there are rules that DOJ shouldn't publicize its investigations to influence the election.

[Beastly Boy]

28. Because the OP is speculating on events stemming from the Committee's findings.

I also said "Unless DOJ is already investigating Trump".

[gab13by13]

46. If DOJ were already investigating Eastman,

wouldn't the select committee touch base with them? I mean why would the select committee interfere in an ongoing DOJ investigation?

[kentuck]

47. I would suppose Speaker Pelosi is informed of the Committee's findings?

She understands the necessity of "public sentiment". Without it, nothing can be accomplished.

[gab13by13]

48. The select committee is doing a fantastic job,

It will do a superb presentation in prime time showing all of the crimes that Trump and his traitorous friends have committed.

That will have to be our inspiration to turning people out to vote.

I disagree about public sentiment if you mean we need the public sentiment before we can prosecute Trump, maybe you don't mean that?

Letitia James has gone after both Democrats and Republicans, she just goes after criminals.

[kentuck]

49. The Speaker has quoted Lincoln on several occasions.

https://benjamins.com/catalog/aic.7.06ch6


“Public sentiment is everything”
Lincoln’s view of political persuasion
In the first Lincoln-Douglas debate, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that “public sentiment is everything,” a necessary and sufficient condition of political persuasion. He used this principle both to discredit Stephen Douglas and to elicit support for his own program. He charged that Douglas’s statement that he “don’t care” whether slavery was voted down or voted up, was the means by which he would tranquilize the public to regard slavery as a matter of indifference, whereupon the Supreme Court would issue another Dred Scott decision, this one nationalizing slavery. Meanwhile, he insisted that if public opinion believed that slavery was on the way to ultimate extinction, it eventually would die out. Lincoln’s proclamation also was an ambryonic theory of public opinion, emphasizing the role of political advocates in “coaching” public sentiment. He held to an older concept that “public sentiment” was a normative property of a collective, not just an aggregate of individual opinions.

[Beastly Boy]

57. Not necessarily. A more honest answer is, I don't know.

[Mr. Ected]

22. As much as we all "KNOW" that Trump is guilty of a lifelong crime spree

We all have to remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

We also have to realize that "the bigger they are, the harder they fall".

We're a world of impatience and instant gratification. Yes, it takes longer to investigate, indict, prosecute and sentence than for the perp to dream up his next crime or his next deflection. With a whirlwind like Trump such acts occur on a daily basis, if not more frequently. It seems the battle continues to escalate with no signs of the cavalry on the way to save the day.

I think we're all quite jaded by what has happened in the past. We are jaded because the Trumps of the world seemingly always evade punishment.

But we've never had anyone dumb enough to commit all these crimes in broad daylight and then admit to them later.

Justice grinds slowly and Trump and his cronies will be sawdust when this is all over.

If not, then look at the Russian people and extrapolate the outcome in the USA.

[gab13by13]

31. I have 2 examples I need help with;

1. In the Mueller report, Mueller laid out numerous cases which involved Trump obstructing justice, numerous cases. Mueller chose not to prosecute because of a memo that states a sitting president can't be indicted.

Merrick Garland chose not to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice after Mueller laid out the evidence for him, why didn't Garland?

2. Michael Cohen went to jail for campaign finance violations when he gave a 130,000 dollar check to Stormy Daniels that was signed by Donald Trump. Robert Mueller named Donald Trump as "individual one" in that investigation. Once again Mueller did not indict Trump because of that memo.

Merrick Garland chose not to prosecute Trump (individual one) and not because of a memo, why didn't he?

These 2 examples are not from the distant past, they involve our present DOJ.

These are 2 examples where the investigation, the evidence was all wrapped up in a neat little package just waiting for an indictment that never came. Why not?

[fightforfreedom]

32. It was Barr that failed to prosecute, not Garland.

[gab13by13]

38. What was stopping Garland? I'm confused.

I understand that Barr didn't indict, I also understand that neither did Merrick Garland. There was still time for Garland to indict but by now the statute of limitations has run out.

[Mr. Ected]

36. Pure conjecture, but perhaps between Mueller/Barr and J6

They decided to forego the lesser prosecutions in order to pursue the more serious seditious conspiracy angle.

The obstruction charges could much more easily be relegated to politics than the sedition charges. Why tie up valuable resources on obstruction when the Mother of All Crimes occurred real time, like OJ in the Bronco.

[spanone]

23. I would hope at least DOJ hands this over to a special prosecutor....

otherwise, it could all go away if the thugs win the mid terms...

then it's retribution time and you can bet it will be swift and dirty.

[gab13by13]

35. I suggested this also,

it is an extra guardrail to prevent the GQP from killing the investigations. Look at what Bill Barr did appointing John Durham to dig up dirt on the Bidens. He is still getting paid because Barr put in guardrails where Durham couldn't be fired. Garland needs to do exactly what Barr did and appoint a special prosecutor with guardrails.

[Chainfire]

24. We have seen the privates prosecuted but not the Generals

I hope it is coming.

[malaise]

29. Won't be long

Take that to the bank - the party’s over.

[fightforfreedom]

34. You got that right, the evidence is overwhelming.

[panader0]

33. Eastman cannot claim attorney-client privilege if the e-mails were part of a criminal plot.

[kentuck]

37. That will depend on what the Judge rules?

Right?

[panader0]

40. Yes, but the 61 pages the committee issued point clearly to a criminal plot.

(I think that's correct-- I'm not a lawyer.)

[gab13by13]

42. I listened to Barbara McQuade last night.

She said that the select committee submitted a compelling request to the judge with documentary evidence. One never knows how a judge will rule but McQuade thinks the judge should grant the committee's request.

To me all of this is a moot point, is Kabuki theater. So what if this judge says that Eastman has to comply? Eastman will appeal until the next election rolls around and if the GQP regains the House the ball game is over.

Now if this were DOJ asking for the emails from Eastman it would perk up my ears.

[kentuck]

43. Has the Committee made a criminal referral on Eastman yet?

Could that be in the works?

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

41. Lock the fascist Putin loving traitor up ASAP.

He finally needs to be brought to justice. Lawdy lawd, I hope they have enough evidence to put him away for life.

[dixiechiken1]

44. I'll believe it when I see it...