March 12: Garland says the Jan. 6 investigation won't end until everyone is held accountable

[brooklynite]

Last edited Tue Mar 29, 2022, 11:54 PM - Edit history (1)

NPR

On his first anniversary as attorney general, Merrick Garland said he's committed to unraveling the conspiracy behind the storming of the U.S. Capitol, in what he calls "the most urgent investigation in the history of the Justice Department."

Members of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot have asserted that former President Donald Trump could be charged with conspiracy and obstruction for his actions. But Democrats in Congress and even some of Garland's friends have worried he'll shy away from the political firestorm that would result from charging a former commander in chief with a crime.

"We are not avoiding cases that are political or cases that are controversial or sensitive," the attorney general said in an exclusive interview with NPR. "What we are avoiding is making decisions on a political basis, on a partisan basis."

This week, prosecutors won their first convictions in federal court in a Jan. 6 case against former Texas oil worker Guy Reffitt. That followed a guilty plea to seditious conspiracy by an Alabama man affiliated with the far-right Oath Keepers militia.

"We begin with the cases that are right in front of us with the overt actions and then we build from there," Garland said. "And that is a process that we will continue to build until we hold everyone accountable who committed criminal acts with respect to Jan. 6."

Just a reminder...

[BigmanPigman]

1. I guess this won't happen before the midterms when we really need it.

[brooklynite]

2. Trump/GOP indictments won't help us in the midterms...

This isn't what the average voter is thinking about.

[Effete Snob]

7. You really don't get it

If the GOP takes either house in the midterms, it’s game over. Garland isn’t going to prosecute jack shit without a budget to do it.

January 6 is not over.

[brooklynite]

10. Okay, I'll play along...

You're saying the Republicans in the Senate who voted to convict Trump of interfering with the election will cave to McConnell and vote for a budget that won't let Garland continue his work.

AND you're saying President Biden will be too cowardly to veto it.

[Effete Snob]

12. 60 votes are needed to break a filibuster on the debt ceiling

Civics education is awful in this country.

The GOP, in desperation, does not need to over-ride a veto or have a legislative majority in order to do real damage or hold the government hostage.

[brooklynite]

13. 67 votes are needed to overcome a veto.

And a budget will need to be passed by the Republicans in your scenario, so they'll need 60 votes,.

Civics.

[Effete Snob]

14. You aren't reading what I wrote

They don't need a veto-proof majority. They don't even need a majority.

[brooklynite]

18. In your "if Republicans take the Senate" scenario, THEY'RE responsible for passing the budget.

If the GOP takes either house in the midterms, it’s game over.

[Effete Snob]

20. Yes, if they take either house it's game over

I don't know what is hard to understand.

Even without a majority, they can hold critical measures hostage until their demands are met.

More than one thing can happen.

[lindysalsagal]

3. Fancy talk for "We're gonna walk out the clock, like we always do...."

Because it would probably take out half the senate if they exposed it all.

[brooklynite]

4. So you're saying Biden's Attorney General is lying to the public?

[lindysalsagal]

5. I'm saying we'll all know when these guys all leave frump alone in florida and don't do anything.

because it's just too disruptive. I'm someone who likes change, and replacing half the senate sounds good to me, but what do I know? I'm just a civilian. But this will implicate people we never thought of.

[Effete Snob]

8. Rhetorical bullshit

He is honestly stating his intentions.

His intentions aren’t going to mean jack shit in the long run. Once the debt ceiling is held hostage over legislation specifically barring prosecutions over January 6, I have no doubt he’ll follow the law.

[dem4decades]

11. Why did DOJ drop the investigation that jailed Cohen and identified Individual One?

The old DOJ doesn't talk about investigations sure is convenient. They sure talked about Hillary's computer, 10 days before an election.

[msongs]

6. Oh I was expecting Judy... nt

[Eyeball_Kid]

9. That's a March 10, 2022 release. Eighteen days ago.

Merrick Garland read THREE Sunday papers since then.

I know it's wise to give Garland and the DOJ some slack since they are, in fact, dealing with the biggest criminal conspiracy in the nation's history. Knowing that, it's not clear whether the nation of slackers and cynics will ever get their heads around what really happened in time for the mid-terms, no less Trumpy-Boy's second term, before The Kardashians Show runs out of steam.

Maybe, in a half-decade or so, Garland will appear on a round-table discussion about "those crazy Trump years" with Cy Vance, Jr. and Alvin Bragg, while Donnie, as CiC, invites Putin to the White House for a BBQ and cock-fight.

[lame54]

15. But, when does it begin?

[MineralMan]

16. Well, obviously he's lying through his teeth. They all lie.

People with, you know, inside information are saying so...

[Effete Snob]

22. Can you answer a question for me?

Have you ever not accomplished something that it was your stated intention to accomplish?

And, if so, were you "lying" when you said "I intend to do X"?

You have opted for a very childish take. People state their intentions all of the time. Sometimes, for whatever reason, they do not accomplish what they said out to do.

But you would say that NASA was "lying" when they said Apollo 13 was going to the moon, right?

[MineralMan]

23. The DOJ investigations are not about me, you see.

I don't work there. I don't know anyone who works there. Do you? If not, take clues from the AG and other DOJ officials about what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing, and are sharing some the information about that.

Ask yourself if others who are making statements have any insider knowledge. Ask them.

I don't do guesswork. I listen to what people who are in charge say is going on. I haven't heard anything to the contrary from anyone who is currently working in the DOJ. Have you?

[Effete Snob]

24. Can you answer the question please?

Instead of going off on some bullshit tangent, would you answer the question?

You posted a snarky comment to the effect that those who are dissatisfied with the DoJ performance are implicitly accusing the DoJ of "lying".

You did that, two posts up.

I pointed out to you that stating an intention, and then failing to fulfill that intention is not "lying".

But, you don't care about accuracy for the sake of your snarky put-down and dishonest characterization of others here on DU.

You are being dishonest about other people on DU and mischaracterizing what they said by putting words in their mouth, for the sake of your own feelings of superiority.

[Stuart G]

17. IS EVERYONE.....EVERYONE??...OR EVERYONE?? ...OR ....EVERYONE IS EVERYONE...WHO IS WHO??S..SAYS STU

(extra for good measure)

[Emile]

19. Then why is he ignoring the Jan 6 Committee subpoenas?

[Scrivener7]

21. And he'll get right on that, right after he has found Hunter Biden accountable for... something.

But rest assured, that something is MUCH more important than an attempted coup.