General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho Has Insider Information from the DOJ?
Let's see. A deputy Attorney General just said that the investigations are going on apace, and at all levels. The AG himself said the same thing earlier this month. I'm pretty sure both of them have inside information from the DOJ, somehow.
Naysayers about the DOJ on Internet discussion areas? Not so much. So far, none of the ones I have seen have demonstrated, or even claimed, any insider status. Not a single one. They're not even quoting insider sources, named or unnamed. It's just creative speculation, at best.
I think I'm going to go with the folks who are actually insiders at the DOJ. Those are the people I think I'll listen to. I'm not an insider, either, so I don't personally know what is going on. But, I've heard from people who clearly are insiders. In fact, they're leaders at the DOJ. They're saying things about the investigations. I'm listening to them.
brooklynite
(94,299 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)LakeArenal
(28,792 posts)Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)kacekwl
(7,010 posts)what they do not what they say.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)When they do something, they announce it there. You can follow them, too, at:
https://www.justice.gov/news
Emile
(22,456 posts)NOTHING!
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)When they do, you'll find a press release. The DOJ does not provide information to the public on continuing investigations.
Emile
(22,456 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)Maybe you've heard something I missed.
Emile
(22,456 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)It's part of a separate branch of government, you see.
Emile
(22,456 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)So, I don't know what's happening there until they announce it.
https://www.justice.gov/news
Emile
(22,456 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)People on DU can post whatever they wish here, pretty much. So can I. This thread is an example of that. It's not required reading, and there won't be a quiz.
Ocelot II
(115,573 posts)on this unrolled Twitter thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1509023935744159744.html
2 "The illegality of the plan was obvious," Judge David Carter wrote in a ruling shooting down lawyer John Eastman's bid to keep Jan. 6 documents private. While the judges conclusion is truly extraordinary, the facts he relies on have been in the public domain for a long time. For what its worth, I reached the same conclusion in February here.
3 That means DOJ is aware of all of these facts as well. Maybe more. The idea that people at DOJ are not doing their job is based on the absence of leaks. To me, that just means theyre doing their job well.
4 Critics argue that if there were a grand jury investigation underway, we would have seen witnesses challenging subpoenas in court and making self-serving public statements, since witnesses are not bound by grand jury secrecy rules.
5 Perhaps. But DOJ has methods for gathering evidence covertly that the Jan 6 Committee lacks, such as the power to use search warrants to obtain records rather than relying in subpoenas.
6 To obtain records, J6 Committee must use subpoenas, and hostile witnesses may move to quash them or assert privileges to resist them. Several have done so Bannon, Meadows, Eastman, Scavino, Navarro.
7 DOJ, on the other hand, can obtain the records with a search warrant to the service provider, bank or other third party, and can do so under seal to prevent disclosure of the investigation, even to the user or account holder.
8 DOJ can also quietly interview cooperative witnesses, like former DOJ officials Rosen and Donoghue, and former Pence aides Short and Jacob. And DOJ is also likely piggybacking on the J6 investigation to get sworn witness statements.
9 Before a probe can be completed, DOJ will certainly want to use grand jury subpoenas for testimony from hostile witnesses, and, if they resist, those disputes will likely become public. But not yet. You want question those witnesses after you have armed yourself with the facts.
10 Some critics are frustrated that no one has been charged yet. But proving that a crime was likely and proving it was committed beyond a reasonable doubt are worlds apart. I would expect an investigation like this one to be measured in years, not months.
11 Some critics point to the looming midterm elections in Nov. as a deadline. A GOP win of the House could cause the J6 Committee to disband. True, but DOJ is not operating under that deadline. Even if the Committee disbands, DOJs work will continue.
12 DOJs actual deadline is the five-year statute of limitations, Jan 6, 2026. But because the 2024 presidential election could cause a change in the party controlling DOJ, I imagine DOJ would want to indict and try the defendants before then.
13 I take Garland at his word when he says he is investigating anyone at any level, whether they were at the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6 or not, who participated in this assault on democracy. That must include Trump and his inner circle.
14 Garland also said it is important to comply with DOJ policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation, even during extraordinary times especially during extraordinary times.
15 And so, despite the urgency of the need for accountability to preserve our democracy, I have to believe that DOJ is on the job. The rule of law demands it.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)Thanks.
Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)gives Barbara McQuade total faith that there is an investigation.
That's very nice for her. But it isn't a new take on it, nor is it in any way convincing.
msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)Marius25
(3,213 posts)Insurrectionists are getting slaps on the wrist, and Judges have criticized the DoJ for it.
Matt Gaetz is still free, and his case has been going on forever.
None of Trump's inner circle have faced any consequences.
Boebert, MTG, Cawthorn, Gosar, Biggs, Brooks, Cruz, Hawley, etc. still haven't faced any consequences for taking part in the insurrection.
Trump is still publicly engaging in treason, inciting violence, and crimes on a daily basis, and nobody is doing anything about it.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)dchill
(38,432 posts)So, we got that going for us.
msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)And I don't even have cable but I know this cuz it's all over my devices news feeds.
golly miss molly. the common sense meter simply disappears for some our friends it seems.
agingdem
(7,804 posts)Trump's DOJ under Sessions, and then Barr, leaked like a sieve...when Flynn and Manafort were indicted we were convinced this was "it"...when a slew of Trump's low level flunkies were indicted we were convinced this was "it"..and then Rod Rosenstein narrowed the scope of the Mueller investigation effectively killing it, and Bill Barr followed up with his bullshit interpretation of the report clearing Trump of any wrong doing...when Garland is ready, when he's armed with unequivocal slam-dunk gotcha evidence he'll let us know...
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)We don't want Biden's DOJ to be like Trump's, I'd think. I don't want that, anyhow. Maybe some people do, though. I don't know.
Wuddles440
(1,117 posts)I sure the hope that DOJ is conducting investigations because that's their job! The problem is that there's absolutely no indication that they're pursuing any investigations regarding the perpetrators of the attempted coup and related election fraud. Hell, it's been over 100 days and counting for the Meadows referral and it's never even been presented to a Grand Jury for consideration??!! The Committee is making a sincere effort to pursue a comprehensive investigation concerning one of the most heinous attacks on our democratic republic in history and they've received almost no cooperation from DOJ simply for subpoena enforcement. That's a travesty and they deserve an explanation for the inaction.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)the investigation is going on apace, just recently. That is an indication, you see, and from the leadership of the DOJ. You don't believe those people? Really?
Wuddles440
(1,117 posts)they've only made generic comments regarding "investigations" and that could literally apply to any matter. Based on my professional experience, I stand by my statements.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)You mention your "professional experience," so please give us a bit of information about that. I have none that relate to federal law or federal prosecutions. If you do, please share, so we'll know what it might be.
Wuddles440
(1,117 posts)federal criminal and civil investigations.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)So, maybe you can contribute more words to the ongoing discussions and share your expert thoughts about them. I, for one, would welcome more information that is supported with facts and discussed from an expert's perspective.
Are you currently working at the DOJ? If so, I'll understand why you cannot write at length about ongoing investigations.
Wuddles440
(1,117 posts)I'm retired but still maintain relationships with a couple of former AUSAs whom are as mystified as I am regarding the inaction to date, and why it apparently has not been the top priority of the DOJ since the advent of the new administration. Hopefully something will change dramatically in the near future.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)So, they would not know what priority levels the DOJ has for the January 6 investigations either.
See, this is my point, and has been all along. There is no information available in public from people who actually have the information. So, we don't know. People working on this know, but they're publicly silent about it.
That means we have to rely on information officially released by the DOJ, or statements made by the AG or his deputy AGs. That's what I'm doing. There's a lot of uninformed static out there, which I am tuning out because it has no real validity.
As I thought.
Wuddles440
(1,117 posts)tune out all that "uniformed static" and those naysayers! Keep the faith. Here's to leaving quarters for the Tooth Fairy, cookies and milk for Santa, and carrots for the Easter Bunny. Cheers!
msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)over the span of 3/4 of a century... well sans my first early years in life as a child.
almost 3/4 of century though.... I think that counts for something like a bit of common sense and experience of:
"Oh Yeah I've seen this before many many times and not just in the movies, but in real life"
kacekwl
(7,010 posts)all the other crimes committed by trump and associates. Business fraud, election interference asking SOS to change/find votes,obstruction of justice etc. Any investigations have been stopped or stalled. Can't really be that hard to proceute.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)I'm not an attorney, nor a prosecutor, so I don't really know how hard it is to prosecute a former President or sitting members of Congress. I'd think it would be very hard, but I don't really know. I have to leave that to those who do.
One thing I know, though: I want the prosecutions to be successful and lead to conviction. I don't want anything less.
kacekwl
(7,010 posts)than any other person/persons. They are criminals and some are really stupid criminals. Maybe if the courts didn't give them months, years to delay hearings and hear testimony something would get done.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)So, there that is...
jalan48
(13,837 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)Not me. I'm following all of this closely. However, I'm not following it by listening to uninformed speculation. That is never useful.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)Their concern is a real one. They'll have their answers, though, when there are answers to give.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... and other places with objective experts that have been at the LEAST minimized on a multitude of open poli forums.
There's not even a hedge when it comes to MG in regards to DOJ concerns just mostly expressions of patience when the DOJ doesn't seem to have any when it comes to people like Marilyn Mosby.
We've seen if things look bad then prepare for them being bad ... this looks bad.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)But stop the condescending crap about those of us who are frustrated because Trump, nor Steve Bannon, nor Mark Meadows - and a whole line of others - have not faced any penalties thus far.
We have a right to be frustrated. We all lived four long years of the nightmare under Trump and do not wish to repeat that.
You have no more information than any of the rest of us. We each have a right to our opinion and to vent and voice our concerns here.
Democrats are many and varied. Stop trying to make us all one mold. Widen the tent and accept everyone.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)I am relying on information provided directly from the DOJ. Within the past two weeks, AG Garland and a Deputy AG involved with the investigations have made public statements reaffirming that the investigations are going on vigorously. The DOJ is hiring over 100 new attorneys.
That is the only official information we have from the DOJ. Should I simply ignore that? I won't do that. I won't rely on information and guesses from people who have no access to inside information from the DOJ. Why should I? I readily admit that I have no inside information. I don't expect to have any unless the DOJ releases information, which it has done.
This DOJ is not Trump's DOJ. It is acting independently and, apparently, steadily. It is keeping its information close to its vest, and for what seem like good reasons to me. The House Committee is operating independently of the DOJ and is referring what it can for DOJ action. So far, no publicly released action has been taken on a couple of those referrals.
So, when people with no connection to the DOJ tell me I should pay no attention to what Garland or his deputies are saying, I don't take what they tell me as any reason not to listen to Garland and what he is saying. No reason at all. It's all speculation, and I don't find speculation to be very useful in situations like this.
Unlike you, however, I am not telling people not to speculate or not to post their speculations. Instead, I am commenting on my own point of view, which is based, out of necessity, on actual DOJ information. More information than that I do not have, nor does anyone who is speculating.
My assumption is that AG Garland's statements can be taken as factual. I have no evidence that they should not. He appears to have the support of President Biden, as well. So, I'm waiting for official announcements, not guesses and theories.
Please don't tell me to stop posting. I will not stop. And I will not tell others not to post. I will simply comment in such thread when I think comment is called for.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)Dont feign hurt. Im asking you to stop discounting other viewpoints. The DOJ has done nothing yet or else Trump, et al would be behind bars. Thats my opinion and the opinion of a lot of legal professionals. Theres been plenty of time to build a case.
I am not going to sit here for the next year, see nothing done to Trump and then casually say oh well. Im screaming at the top of my voice because I want something done before its too late. I would think anyone who saw what Trump did to this country would feel the same way.
The viewpoint expressed by many of us, specifically the concern that Merrick Garland has not done enough is a valid viewpoint. Just because some here may not share that, and optimistically expect something to be done to Trump is no more accurate viewpoint. Theres room for both.
I felt your post was condescending because you are making fun of people who dont share your viewpoint. I dont consider myself a naysayer. I consider myself a realist. And until I see Merrick Garland actually do something, the facts are on my side.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)Both are valid points of view, OK? I'm not making fun of anyone. Those who say "nay" are "naysayers." That's just a descriptive term. It is not name-calling.
I'm not "feigning hurt," either. I have a very, very thick skin.
I cannot hurry AG Garland along. Neither can you. What has he done exactly? We don't know. Neither of us knows.
You post your viewpoint. I will post mine. We will disagree, and we can post that, as well.
That's discussion.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)That IS discussion. We dont all have to agree.
panader0
(25,816 posts)I watched as Adam Schiff led the impeachment hearings against Trump. His views are
very credible to me.
https://www.businessinsider.com/adam-schiff-vehemently-disagrees-with-ag-garland-on-trump-2021-10
cilla4progress
(24,709 posts)well, daily...
Here's who she is:
In addition to being a veteran, Ph.D., and a former federal government executive, Dr. Allison Gill is a comedian, author, and staunch advocate for the resistance. Dr. Gill was a high-level employee at the Department of Veteran Affairs but was forced out of her job due to her popular podcast reporting on special counsel Robert Muellers probe of the 2016 election and the Trump campaigns dealings with Russia. Dr. Gills mission as the executive producer and host of Mueller, She Wrote and The Daily Beans is to employ her expertise in the absurd amount of Trump-Russia news and wrap it up into tasty bites for human consumption. She is very dedicated to the separation of facts and conjecture, and works hard to make sure her audience knows which is which.
She and Glenn Kirschner, who I expect most of you have heard? and who she often has on, said last night that now TWO branches of government - legislative and judicial - are saying loser 45 should face criminal indictment.
That leaves only the Executive branch to do so - DOJ - and thus they expect it will!!
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)I did not say anything that could be taken to mean you should not. I post independently here. I will continue to do so.
cilla4progress
(24,709 posts)why so defensive?
This was not an attack or refutation of your statements. In fact, I thought if anything it supported them, but, in any case, was simply chiming in on the convo with some useful info, I thought? By no means intended as a direct hit and apologies if it came off that way.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)That's my point here. She has no more insight into what is currently going on within the DOJ investigations than I do. She might agree with me, but she is not a DOJ insider.
Neither is Kirschner. Both are now working as political commentators, so their job is to talk about political stuff. Political commentators often speculate on things. That does not mean that they are experts in the subjects they discuss, nor that they have some sort of access to non-public things.
Everyone seems to have something to say about the investigations, but almost nobody has any real information about their status, progress, or timing. So, they do not know what is happening nor what will happen in the future. Neither do I, which is why I'm relying on the only insider sources there are for information.
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
traitorsgalore This message was self-deleted by its author.
lamp_shade
(14,814 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)insider information from the DOJ. Tell me, so I can follow their posts.
rownesheck
(2,343 posts)forum where we can go vent our frustrations. I agree that none of us knows what the hell DOJ is doing, but I also agree that there are lots of us who need to release our frustrations. I, along with many others, could barely handle those awful 4 years. The anxiety was too much. The thought of that fucker and his minions getting off scot free is not a feeling we're comfortable with, and the thought of him, or someone like him, being president again, will be too much for us to bear.
I didn't live during Nixon's reign of shit nor the subsequent investigation, so I don't know what people's feelings or anxieties were. I just know that this current situation seems far worse, and I know this country won't last much longer if top level people aren't imprisoned.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)However, posts that are venting frustration will get replied to by other DUers.
Cha
(296,754 posts)Tree Lady
(11,424 posts)Of supposed reports, committees, etc we have grown untrusting.
I am just waiting to see what will happen but at this point don't have much faith in our system of taking down rich and powerful people.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)Voltaire2
(12,939 posts)This is very disappointing.
Its too bad that journalists dont have some sort of system for reporting credible information where the source has to remain anonymous.
Sympthsical
(9,028 posts)He'd have the perfect voice over for, "And now we return to the Daily Scold"
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)I hope not a dollar short, though.
Sympthsical
(9,028 posts)As sure as the sun will rise.
No, I have all of my dollars. None of them inherited or loaned though. I had to bootstrap everything.
Conservatives would approve.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)I wouldn't want you to miss a thing...
msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)to my grave....
LexVegas
(6,023 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)I'll try to keep the noise down.