Liz Cheney disputes report January 6 panel split over Trump criminal referral

[Joinfortmill]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/10/liz-cheney-disputes-report-january-6-panel-split-trump-criminal-referral

Cheney said: “The committee has … a tremendous amount of testimony and documents that I think very, very clearly demonstrate the extent of the planning and the organisation and the objective, and the objective was absolutely to try to … interfere with that official proceeding. And it’s absolutely clear that they knew what they were doing was wrong. They knew that it was unlawful.”

Asked if there was a dispute on the committee, Cheney said there was not.

“The committee is working in a really collaborative way to discuss these issues,” she said, adding: “We’ll continue to work together to do so. So I wouldn’t characterise there as being a dispute on the committee … and I’m confident that we will we will work to come to agreement on on all of the issues that we’re facing.”

[CrispyQ]

1. The report of a dispute comes from the NYT.

Jan. 6 Panel Has Evidence for Criminal Referral of Trump, but Splits on Sending

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/politics/jan-6-trump-criminal-referral.html

WASHINGTON — The leaders of the House committee investigating the Capitol attack have grown divided over whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department of former President Donald J. Trump, even though they have concluded that they have enough evidence to do so, people involved in the discussions said.

The debate centers on whether making a referral — a largely symbolic act — would backfire by politically tainting the Justice Department’s expanding investigation into the Jan. 6 assault and what led up to it.

more...

The shift in the committee’s perspective on making a referral was prompted in part by a ruling two weeks ago by Judge David O. Carter of the Federal District Court for Central California. Deciding a civil case in which the committee had sought access to more than 100 emails written by John C. Eastman, a lawyer who advised Mr. Trump on efforts to derail certification of the Electoral College outcome, Judge Carter found that it was “more likely than not” that Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman had committed federal crimes.

The ruling led some committee and staff members to argue that even though they felt they had amassed enough evidence to justify calling for a prosecution for obstructing a congressional proceeding and conspiring to defraud the American people, the judge’s decision would carry far greater weight with Mr. Garland than any referral letter they could write, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.

The story's behind a paywall. I must not have used up my free articles yet this month.

[Nevilledog]

2. No paywall link

https://archive.ph/QOK5h

[CrispyQ]

3. Thanks. I've never seen that site before. -nt

[Nevilledog]

4. It's what I use for all paywalled articles

[Baked Potato]

5. Our whole system is "political." The "official proceeding" is the result

of an election.

There can’t be a blanket condemnation of Justice when it involves some perp who happens to be in politics. Evidence is evidence.

The charges and administration of justice just has to be rock solid and air tight. Americans need equal justice now more than ever before.

[TeamProg]

6. It feels weird to THANK a Cheney.. n/t

[Joinfortmill]

7. I know, really weird.

[EndlessWire]

8. I don't understand this.

"The debate centers on whether making a referral — a largely symbolic act — would backfire by politically tainting the Justice Department’s expanding investigation into the Jan. 6 assault and what led up to it."

If Trump, et al. have committed what, to me, amounts to treason, then they need to be held accountable by being charged. Are they saying that they are afraid of tasking Garland? What are they saying, that their committed jobs in the committee are worth less than what the questionable DOJ is doing? Why, then, were they convened?

I want to KNOW what they found out. Just lay it all out on the table, complete transparency. After the failed Mueller Report, I think we deserve that much.

I am a big fan of timing and nuance; I'll understand if the game that is being played is a chess game of huge proportions. But, don't give me bullshit reasons. I'm a citizen, I pay your salary, tell me the damned truth.

I am not against Garland. I was happy when he was appointed. But, he is very quiet, and I am beginning to be upset over everything. Sure, we're glad that those bozos who overran Congress on Jan. 6th are going to jail. But, the real problems are in the higher ups who infest our government. Are we going to wait another two years, a la the Mueller report, only to find that, due to government security, it's all redacted, and no one is now accountable?

I believe in Democracy. I served to defend Democracy, as did all my people. I will not let it go quietly. Fuck the GOP, and anyone who tries to take it from me.

[rainy]

10. The whole "dispute" is over; should the

comity make the referral to DOJ and make the whole thing appear political or allow the DOJ to publicly make the charges on their own so the right doesn’t scream “it’s all political.” However they will scream that anyway.

[stopdiggin]

9. this is a media scrimmage - far more than among

Last edited Tue Apr 12, 2022, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

the politicians it purports to 'cover.'

" .. working in a really collaborative way to discuss these issues .."
Is miles away from refuting the idea that there are differences of opinion. (which is really all that the original story suggested). This has largely been a tempest in a teapot from the get go. Differences of opinion are neither rare - nor necessarily harbingers of doom. Hardly reason to get into a major lather.
----- -----