WOW: DOJ wrote to select committee yesterday saying committee is hampering criminal investigation

[kpete]

WOW: DOJ wrote to the select committee yesterday saying the committee is hampering criminal invsetigations by their "failure" to provide witness transcripts.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=kkF6Yq-IgMIWW74UvZULnA

[cilla4progress]

1. What is

really going on here?!

[elleng]

4. Huge amounts of evidence, obtained by EACH branch.

[gab13by13]

12. Huge amount of evidence,

that we know of, gathered by the select committee. We have no idea if DOJ gathered evidence since I am told a lot, that DOJ doesn't leak.

[JohnSJ]

7. Seems like the DOJ doesn't know how to interview witnesses

[Magoo48]

37. Looks like to me the DOJ is beginning construction on a tower of horseshit and gunsmoke,

from which, upon completion, will flow all forms of excuses, non actions, and unanswered questions.

Cynical I know, yet, cynicism with a strong foundation.

[brooklynite]

105. Don't be shy; tell us who to blame.

And be sure to share your letter to President Biden demanding a better performance by DOJ staff.

[Magoo48]

110. Until such time I am hopefully proven wrong, I will remain skeptical.

As for our President, I imagine the entire business is extremely frustrating for him. He’s nagged by a Senate majority which isn’t a majority, a congress in which some members appear mulish and apathetic, and the ongoing torture of having tfg’s name surrounding him constantly throughout his first term.

[JohnSJ]

2. If that is accurate then the DOJ isn't doing their job. Why isn't the DOJ interviewing those

witnesses

[Bev54]

19. It will save a lot of time to choose which witnesses they want to interview

by reading the transcripts. There are over 1,000 witnesses and why wouldn't they work together.

[lostnfound]

42. Maybe the DOJ can't be trusted

Maybe the committee is keeping certain things close to their chest so that the trump team can’t get to work on pre-emotive media spin and cover stories

[azureblue]

87. how a case is put together

What the DOJ is referring to the the fact that they already have enough to make their cases, and the information the DOJ is showing complicates what they have ready to go. This means the DOJ will have to stop and re- write to accommodate what the committee is presenting. They do not need to interview any more people, All the DOJ is doing right now is waiting until the hearings are done, then, because the DOJ knows there will be no more new information coming out that would affect their cases, they can go ahead with the confidence they will win and not get a case pitched on a technicality. And you know the traitors will try anything to derail the cases.

[wnylib]

109. Good points. Thank you.

Looks like some media are stirring up controversy over this. Maybe they just want to ramp up their ratings. Maybe they want to discredit the J6 committee or DOJ. Maybe they want to see Trump and his circle get info that they can spin.

[TeamProg]

94. +1 Parts of the DOJ cannot. n/t

[Scrivener7]

101. Have they not chosen yet?

[jcgoldie]

35. I'm disposed to trust the work of the committee at this point over DOJ but...

Even if they did interview all the same people having those transcripts would be a great opportunity to compare the records and uncover lies...

[Claustrum]

3. I don't mind it if they are ready to indict those people.

They should have talked to the committee if there is important evidence that they want to stay private, not after the fact. The committee has no idea what the DoJ has in mind.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

5. WITF?! The Committee doesn't work for DOJ!

[choie]

6. Hey DOJ

Do your own fucking questioning of witnesses.

[dchill]

8. Dick move, DOJ!

[usonian]

9. Someone there must be able to type real fast!!

And there is technology to do this.... Some posturing going on?

[gab13by13]

10. Wow, looks to me like DOJ should have started investigations a year ago.

Reminds of a day in trig class back in 1965, when i asked Alexis if I could copy her homework that I didn't do the night before. When she told me no, I know how DOJ feels right now.

[Jarqui]

11. If I was sitting on the fence for Jan 6 culpability,

that letter might have knocked me off to cut a deal ...

Having said that, letting the DoJ leak them to the GOP will allow the GOP & culprits to spin their stories and rebuttals.
So I'm not so sure I blame the house.

[gab13by13]

14. Please interpret your post,

I'm slow, I don't understand your point. Who is on the fence, they committed crimes out in the open and we have 1st hand evidence, including written and oral. We know who the traitors are, the only question left to be answered is, will DOJ indict a former president and his inner circle, or would that look partisan?

[Jarqui]

22. There are bound to be different degrees of guilt here

So many appear to have been involved.
We don't know the whole story yet. None of the "good guys" do .. again, yet.

Some of those who have been playing games or trying to distance themselves might be rethinking after reading that letter and looking at the recent events of this presentation by the House.

[gab13by13]

28. Why did Laurence Tribe

say 2 days ago that there is enough evidence to indict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt for several crimes?

[Jarqui]

76. You'll have to ask Lawrence

But again, there are many others involved. That's why there are degrees of guilt. Some are more guilty or involved than others. Some of those folks on the periphery might be motivated by the DoJ letter to get with the program.

Trump will NEVER EVER admit guilt. Look at him today demanding equal time to continue the BS.

[gab13by13]

30. Just repeating what Merrick Garland said,

he won't be partisan.

[onenote]

55. Presumably that poster doesn't want the Committee to make criminal referrals

since that would involve giving DOJ the relevant information behind those referrals.

Presumably, that poster doesn't understand the requirement that defendants be given an opportunity to see the evidence that will be used against them, including any exculpatory evidence.

[newdayneeded]

13. Come on guys!

Their busy ramping up a laptop investigation into Hunter....You know....the big problem in the US right now!

[gab13by13]

17. Don't forget defending Trump

(the office of the presidency) in the E. Jeanne Carroll defamation law suit.

[sop]

15. Does the DOJ prosecute the deceased?

The Proud Boys prosecution is a slam dunk, yet the trial won't take place till December, nearly two years after the crime. At this rate, Trump will be dead by the time the DOJ decides what to do with him.

[gab13by13]

18. It takes a long time to get ducks in a row,

especially if one waits a year and a half before beginning to investigate. If DOJ decides to indict Trump his trial would never be before 2025, but hey, be patient.

[JoeOtterbein]

16. Sounds like...

...the DOJ is AWOL.

[gab13by13]

20. Let's cut to the chase,

watching the committee hearings, the select committee is making DOJ look bad.

John Eastman and Jeffrey Clarke should have been indicted months ago. Now I am not sure that DOJ has even started investigating them.

[bottrott]

21. Last I saw the FBI was the investigative arm of the DOJ

This is a responsibility dodge and makes it appear Garland doesn't have confidence in the FBI to conduct a fair investigation. That's HIS damned job to fix and while he can't directly fire Wray, he can certainly request the Director conduct interviews in service to DOJ investigations or inform Biden as well as Congress as to his lack of confidence in the Bureau. This is straight BS from DOJ and this kind of finger pointing is a disservice to the nation.

[onenote]

40. Wrong.

From these documents it is clear that DOJ has investigated and is continuing to do so. In some instances, those investigations have led to pending prosecutions. Moreover, there are ongoing grand jury proceedings.

DOJ needs -- and should have -- the transcripts from the Committee's investigations in order to assist not only in determining whether there are additional witnesses not identified, but also in order to check the credibility of the witnesses/targets that DOJ has interviewed as well as to avoid potential objections during trial from defendants who weren't provided with all of the available evidence.

The other day, folks were freaking out at the suggestion that the Committee wouldn't make any criminal referrals. Now folks are applauding the Committee for not sharing information with DOJ.

[bottrott]

78. Not in my estimation

Count me in the camp that would like to see referrals from this but I never claimed there is no investigation by the FBI. The DOJ has its own tools, separate from a co-equal branch and considerably more potent, to pursue identical paths of investigation. As a matter of fact, that's it's sole function. If the FBI truly interviews the same folks there's no reason they shouldn't have the same witness lists and evidence unless one or the other is being lied to.

Why don't they, then? Frankly, I'm content to chalk that up to they're effn busy as hell, give them time, but that doesn't give them the right to place the onus on Congress. Honestly, the only reason I can see the Committee not releasing them would be distrust of the DOJ to corrupt their process, though I wish that weren't the case.

But to be clear, the Exec doesn't have an automatic right to the work product of another branch of gov't, especially when it is, itself, the target of that ongoing investigation. That's FBI policy as well and the DOJ is aware of that. The attempted corruption of the DOJ through Clark and others is an essential component here. A criminal referral would necessarily contain the evidence required for the DOJ to pursue, but there hasn't yet been a determination by the Committee to even refer. FBI reports to Garland and he does have the ability to guide their investigations independent of the Committee.

[onenote]

79. Why don't they conduct parallel investigations? They ARE conducting parallel investigation

And as DOJ indicated, one of the specific reasons for wanting to review the Committee transcripts is to ascertain the credibility of the witnesses/potential defendants/defendants that they have investigated.

[bottrott]

106. I think you may have misread

Why don't they conduct parallel investigations?

That's not what I asked and it's a little presumptuous to rephrase me incorrectly. You keep insinuating I said there is no DOJ investigation when I said no such thing, though I may not have been very clear. My question was regarding these apparent gaps in the DOJ's investigation and the proper agency for them to correct those is currently the FBI. Not once have I intended to intimate the DOJ isn't moving on this.

This is a separation of powers issue. Were the Committee to hand over anything before completion of its work and issuance of its report, it would lose any legitimacy as a legislative body and instead become nothing more than a prosecutorial tool of the DOJ (a function for which it has no Constitutional authority) aka the right-wing narrative. Both are in an untenable position here.

The seditionist's are set up to take advantage of any perceived impropriety, regardless how hypocritical that may be. The Committee is being smart, despite my wish they could be more upfront with information.

[onenote]

107. Your words:

"If the FBI truly interviews the same folks there's no reason they shouldn't have the same witness lists and evidence unless one or the other is being lied to.

Why don't they, then?"

What did you mean by "why don't they" if it wasn't a suggestion that the DOJ wasn't interviewing the witnesses that the Committee is interviewing.

The filing made by DOJ relating to their request for access to the Committee interview transcripts was made in the context of the case being prosecuted by DOJ against the Proud Boy leaders. The docket from that case shows that the DOJ has conducted a massive investigation of the defendants in that case. The DOJ references the fact that statements have been given to "multiple government entities." Why would you assume that the DOJ and the Committee aren't those "multiple entities" that have conducted interviews of individuals that would be relevant to their prosecution efforts?

[kacekwl]

23. Merrick Garland

is an honorable person.

[gab13by13]

31. There is no question about that.

He may not be the right person for his job.

[NewHendoLib]

24. projection?

[CentralMass]

25. WTF ?

[Novara]

26. I think some of you have it backwards

The DOJ is on the clock. They have indicted a bunch of seditionists and must proceed with prosecutions. The committee is holding them up by not turning over some of the evidence they've asked for.

My question is: why is the committee not turning over documentation to the DOJ? The DOJ is trying to do its job and it needs to move on this. What does the committee have on the indicted seditionists? Why won't they turn it over?

All this criticism of the DOJ has it wrong. They're moving, starting at the bottom and working their way up - that is clear to me. The committee has evidence the DOJ needs for their prosecutions - they don't have time or resources to duplicate the committee's work, and it would be really stupid for them to do so. That would drag things out even longer and I KNOW many of you don't want that.

[OnDoutside]

29. Where is this fairytale land you speak of ? I must visit.

[gab13by13]

32. Pretty sad state of affairs,

if the select committee has gathered more evidence than DOJ which has many more resources and agents, and clout.

Fanni Willis disputes your idea of starting at the bottom, she went straight for the head of the snake.

[bigtree]

93. that's fiction

...anyone who knows spit about investigations would realize DOJ doesn't just arrest dozens of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and tromp into court without their own stream of evidence, waiting, I guess you think, for Congress to act.

What DoJ is saying here is they are already set to go to court, and after asking for these transcripts since the beginning of the year, they are set to actually go into trial with Proud Boys as defendants, as early as August.

Now, with what may be ADDITIONAL evidence in front of them, not just in a committee folder somewhere, but in public for everyone from prosecutors and defendants alike to see, it's past time to turn over the documents so they can get on with their cases.

Understand that DOJ can certainly want to proceed, but they are now subject to defense requests for any relevant testimony that may be used in the trial.

DOJ is correctly giving the committee the opportunity for their evidence to be part of their prosecutions, but they need actual depositions, which would be unfortunate to need to duplicate for the same information, or produce something in court which conflicts with what's being shown when those are right there in the committee's hands.

[onenote]

36. Novara has it exactly right.

I wonder if those attacking DOJ actually read the documents attached to OP.

[uponit7771]

59. What we've been CONSTANTLY told on DU is DOJ is doing their own thing and not dependent on

... J6 committee because they have their own resources to prosecute J6 bastards.

DOJ memo goes against that narrative as a whole

[onenote]

69. And what the DOJ said in those documents confirms they are doing their own investigation

And that they want to be able to review what was said to the Committee to assess the credibility of those the DOJ interviewed and/or is pursuing through criminal indictments and grand jury investigation. Also, to ensure those prosecutions don't get upended by due process objections from defendants.


How is that a bad thing?

[uponit7771]

75. "How is that a bad thing?" on the face of it sets up a needless dependency. There are too many ...

... issues on the face of these memos that causes concern.

The other obvious one is the J6C alerted everyone and their mother's dog about what they were going to do with the evidence in the hearings and just now the DOJ is screaming about delaying trials because of public predjudice?!

Something aint right, not something there's something being done wrong but something aint right

[bigtree]

98. that's just wrong

...they don't go into court without their own evidence. They've been running what they have in front of grand juries all year, and have produced these sedition charges against Proud Boys and Oath keepers, with many cooperating with prosecutors, providing even more evidence.

Why anyone would need to be convinced of that shows just how absurd this haranguing of the DOJ has become.

This is potentially ADDITIONAL evidence that DoJ can certainly ignore (but why would they?).

Moreover, this is evidence Congress could have provided MONTHS ago when DoJ first began requesting it. Now, with actual Proud Boys cases moving forward as early as August, it's becoming clear that what Congress is televising will not only need to be made a part of the prosecutions, but will be demanded by defendants, under Discovery, as relevant to their cases.

Those valid demands by defense will cause the DOJ to either leave all of it out of their prosecutions, or delay their cases until they have access to it. That's the main impetus for the request.

Prosecutors have obligations to the accused to share all evidence used against them, but it's not like they'd willingly leave any behind to prevent that obligation.

Also, it makes little sense for DoJ to duplicate what Congress has done, especially depositions which need to be consistent to make them effective in court.

Again this is a Proud Boys trial that could benefit, at the least, from every bit of evidence available. That's it's still being withheld isn't DOJ's fault. Congress needs to do it's job without becoming an obstacle to actual prosecutions. That's shouldn't be hard to understand.

[uponit7771]

99. I never claimed they went into court without their own evidence. I'm claiming we've been ...

... intimated to multiple times on DU that the DOJ is doing their own thing and isn't dependent on the J6C.

Both DOJ memos in the OP seem to indicate this is not true, I would expect the DOJ to be able to move forward on their own plans in most if not every category no matter what the J6C did outside of leaking DOJ prosecuting plans for instance.

On the face of it for the first DOJ memo the DOJ *KNEW* the J6C hearings were coming why delay anything because of "potential prejudice" !?!

[bigtree]

104. I don't know where you mashed that up from but it's not accurate

... Congress has released 'selected details' of the DOJ investigation in their hearings, and defense counsels are demanding full depositions and transcripts as part of their rights under 'discovery' of the prosecution evidence against them.

There is an obvious conflict of prosecutors and defendants alike causht offguard by release of evidence, for myriad reasons both harmful to the prosecution, and subject to objection from defense.


... prosecutors are facing increasing complaints from defense attorneys that the Jan. 6 panel releasing selected details of their investigation — including in currently ongoing public hearings — is unfair to their clients. They are demanding access to all the records and have expressed concerns that they might all be abruptly made public right in the middle of a Proud Boys trial.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/16/tensions-escalate-as-doj-renews-request-for-jan-6-panel-transcripts-00040267

I really don't get viewing Congress' hearings as consequential, but waving them on as they hoard their product away from the people who actually prosecute criminals.

[fightforfreedom]

33. The DOJ is investigating. They need the witness interviews the committee has.

This is good news people. The DOJ needs to see those interviews because they could effect what they are doing. People are complaining the DOJ is doing nothing. This is proof they are doing something. Make up your minds.

[gab13by13]

84. We know DOJ is investigating the Proud Boys,

what if there wasn't a select committee, where would DOJ be right now?

[onenote]

34. Did anyone complaining that DOJ should do their own investigation

actually read these documents?

While the letter to the Committee states that the Committee's failure to grant access to the transcripts "complicates" the DOJ ability to investigate and prosecute those engaged in criminal conduct, the specific reason is that DOJ needs to review the transcripts because "it is critical that the Department be able to evaluate the credibility of witnesses who have provided statements to multiple governmental entities in assessing the strength of any potential criminal prosecutions and to ensure that all relevant evidence is considered during the criminal investigations. We cannot be sure that all relevant evidence has been considered without access to the transcripts that are uniquely within the
Select Committee's possession."

In other words, the assumption made by many of those that DOJ should do its "own investigation" seem to have missed the point that DOJ HAS done its own investigation and wants the transcripts to supplement the information they received and to assess the credibility of the statements they have gotten.

Moreover, as is implicit in the filing with DOJ's filing with the court, if the defendants in criminal cases can't get access to the transcripts before they are tried, it could prejudice the government's ability to obtain a conviction that would stand up on appeal.

What justification could there be for the Committee to withhold the transcripts from DOJ?

[OneGrassRoot]

39. lol. I just posted much the same. 👍 n/t

[fightforfreedom]

41. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

This was not hard to understand and people immediately assumed Garland is doing nothing. The DOJ is doing nothing. They have been investigating Jan 6th for months. They are now asking for evidence from the committee. This is good news. Lets see how the committee responds.

[Yonnie3]

49. I was just about to post similar - thank you

My main point was what you stated

"Moreover, as is implicit in the filing with DOJ's filing with the court, if the defendants in criminal cases can't get access to the transcripts before they are tried, it could prejudice the government's ability to obtain a conviction that would stand up on appeal. "

For many it seems that everything is tl;dr and they just go with the headline.

[OneGrassRoot]

38. Help me out here...

DOJ sent a letter to the Jan 6 committee requesting transcripts of all depositions they conducted -calling them “not just potentially relevant to our overall criminal investigations, but are likely relevant to specific prosecutions that have already commenced.”

None of us know enough to understand why the committee is withholding this information and I wouldn’t presume to judge their decision, but isn’t this a good thing, proving the DOJ is seemingly quite active with 1/6-related criminal investigations? And since they are dealing with grunts so far, and the committee is focused on those higher up, that seems to suggest they are, in fact, investigating some of the very people we’ve been hoping they are. maybe they feel they need these transcripts in order to dot the i’s and cross t’s with regard to conflicting testimonies between those given to the DOJ and committee?

[fightforfreedom]

43. Lol. It looks like the Garland will do nothing crowd has caught up.

They stopped posting.

[OneGrassRoot]

64. You mean by DOJ traitors? n/t

[Baked Potato]

44. This implies the Committee is highly legit and thorough and

also gets viewers to pay attention knowing that DOJ wants what the Committee has.

[fightforfreedom]

45. Just a guess. The committee may want to finish their hearings before turning over their evidence.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Baked Potato]

48. Yes, agreed.

[uponit7771]

68. +1,

[OneGrassRoot]

46. Great point. If one were a ...

“conspiracy theorist” it could be speculated that it’s a coordinated strategy by DOJ and the committee to squeeze more people into turning and/or ramp up the fear in Trump & Co. I don’t think Garland would do that but I’d like to daydream that this whole thing has been veryyyyy carefully choreographed.

😊

[Baked Potato]

47. IMO, it is all very methodically planned and being worked

expertly both in public and behind the scenes by very competent people.

It would not be unethical at all for AG Garland to strategically maneuver through the process to maximize public attention and support while applying maximum pressure on the perps. And all the while nailing down corroborated evidence to be used later.

[OneGrassRoot]

51. Well, good. I'm gonna continue...

with that delectable train of thought.

Thx!

[Baked Potato]

58. I certainly don't think it is all a waste of time. Pretty serious business.

[BlueLucy]

61. I hope you're right.

I want to be optimistic.

[iemanja]

50. If it weren't for the committee, we'd know nothing about the events of Jan 6

It's odd that DOJ only now tells the committee there is a conflict. The Committee has been investigating for many months.

[onenote]

52. Where does DOJ say there is a conflict?

[iemanja]

67. Here:

DOJ agrees to delay Proud Boys trial until December, citing potential prejudice caused by timing of Jan. 6 select committee hearings.

[uponit7771]

70. That's some weak shit there, all this info was going to come out anyway and the DOJ knew the timing

... of it!!

Why delay now when the J6C said what they were going to do ?!?!?

[iemanja]

72. My question exactly.

[onenote]

71. And DOJ is right. It would threaten their prosecutions

if the defendants aren't given access to the transcripts before they are tried.

[iemanja]

74. I don't understand why the committee wouldn't give them

Have they said why?

[uponit7771]

56. **********WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK !!!********* Why doesn't the DOJ have their OWN ...

... shit ?!

If they've been following the J6 committee these people should already be on point !!

K, something aint right ... not saying somethings wrong but something aint right

[onenote]

77. They do. Apparently you missed the point.

So let's repeat it again:

The specific reason given by DOJ for needing to review the transcripts because "it is critical that the Department be able to evaluate the credibility of witnesses who have provided statements to multiple governmental entities in assessing the strength of any potential criminal prosecutions and to ensure that all relevant evidence is considered during the criminal investigations. We cannot be sure that all relevant evidence has been considered without access to the transcripts that are uniquely within the Select Committee's possession." Potential prosecutions include those, of course, that DOJ is seeking to initiate through ongoing grand jury proceedings.

Apparently some people now are happy that the Chairman Thompson suggested there would be no criminal referrals, since such referrals would require the Committee to share the relevant evidence, including transcripts.

[uponit7771]

81. No I didn't miss the point, I've been told on DU 123431 times DOJ has its own investigation and ..

... nothing stating there's any kind of dependency.

Any ... dependency on J6 investigations is 100% stupid and not the way things have moved forward in the past.

Also, the DOJ *KNEW* the J6C was going to have a hearing why now delay *ANYTHING* ?!

Again, something aint right ... not saying someone did wrong but something aint right

[onenote]

88. Again. DOJ is doing its own investigations.

And the delay only exists because the Committee won't share the transcripts. They've been asked and have yet to give a clear and credible answer why they won't share the transcripts with DOJ.

So...why do you think the Committee (or at least some on the Committee) don't want to assists in criminal prosecutions?

[uponit7771]

89. Independent investigations? Also the 1st DOJ memo in the OP doesn't say what you claiming as the

... reasoning behind the delay.

The DOJ new the J6C hearings was coming, why delay now?

[fightforfreedom]

92. You tried. some people won't listen.

The committee may want to wait till the hearings are over before they hand over their evidence. That is a reasonable guess. It makes sense.

[ancianita]

63. The DOJ's waited this long, it can wait longer, and give the Jan 6 Comte its DUE PROCESS.

Suddenly their collective hair's on fire? pfffft!

[uponit7771]

66. RIGHT !!! There's too much wrong with this memo, if DOJ was on step they'd be ahead of J6C not

... asking them for their shit.

I would think the DOJ would be able to convict without J6C information.

[ancianita]

80. Doesn't really matter, anyway, because of course they'll get their shit.

The DOJ and the Jan 6 committee have had an ocean of content and process to get through, so in the end, even if their wires are crossed, we now understand how both are actually now meeting at the point of action.

The DOJ is a huge territory to run, and they get hundreds of things done daily. So as big a scale of the Jan 6 committee's work, look over what the DOJ does every day.

https://www.justice.gov/news

[uponit7771]

82. Agreed which is why I'm kinda of miffed the DOJ doesn't have a 10 billion dollar budget to get more

... staff to go through every jot and tittle and everyone who was involved life to the nth degree.

This wasn't a hotel room that was broken in to so a party can get a leg up this was 100% treason and history has shown OVER and OVER again unless the gov takes traitors seriously and give swift justice they'll just come back to do it again.

Spain circa 1937 is what we're looking at here.

[ancianita]

91. It's DEFINITELY underfunded to handle the messes it's been left.

I bet the DOJ is grateful that the Jan 6 Committee has done its job for justice so well.

And enough ADULT Republicans came forward to help Democrats do that.


MAN, the roof really got blown off today, didn't it??!!

[uponit7771]

95. +1, I was thinking the first day was the big explosion. I OP'd talking to a MAGA about the fake TFG

... electors being the lynch pen in the Trump plan and the timing of the traitors attacking the capital building

CNN just showed a vid of the announcement that Pence wasn't going along with the fake electors and that's when the CC traitors attacked.

Jus damn, how many fake TFG electors where there? Like 10 or something right ?!

I bet some of them are going to commit "suicide" here soon like those capital police did shortly after the terrorist attack.

Yeah, ... then 8 senators voted not to ceritfy the election afterwards ... bunch f**kin sellouts. They knew about the treason too, I'd put good money on it.

[ancianita]

97. I thought it was fast out of the gate. But THIS one is the hard, definitive proof of crimeS

and won't even be a challenge to DOJ prosecutors anymore.

Yeah, there were more -- whatever number of electors each state was entitled to TIMES ten states.

Suicide? heh heh... well, I think they'll live to keep making money even if they lose their jobs.

OH, WAY more than 8 -- 138 Republicans of the House, too. Don't forget it was a joint session.

If charges are made against Trump before November 8, THEN all those 147 can ALSO be charged for aiding and abetting whatever charges are brought against Trump. They'll have to spend a lot to each lawyer up and make whatever deals they can devise. All this should help Dems win the midterms.

[sarcasmo]

73. DOJ will use this as an excuse to Not prosecute.

[Deminpenn]

83. J6 committee and DoJ

have the same goal, on the same side.

It's beyond ridiculous for the committee, that has no authority to prosecute anyone, to withhold information that will hold the bad actors accountable. There is no reason to throw a temper tantrum just because DOJ is taking a slower, bottom up approach to unraveling what happened before, during and after Jan 6th.

Further, the committee is using information developed by DoJ during its investigations. They aren't telling the J6 cmte not to use it.

[housecat]

85. So is DOJ setting up an excuse for not moving faster on the criminal investigation?

Maybe we need to find out their agenda, if there is one. Maybe the players are not all on the proverbial "same page."
I trust the J6 committee. (Just noticed Sarcasmo had the same thought re excuses.)

[fightforfreedom]

90. Do you watch the news?

[spanone]

96. And you are who?

[bigtree]

102. no it doesn't

...DOJ is prosecuting actual sedition cases in grand juries and courts which Congress is just talking about.

One of them, a Proud Boys case is scheduled in August. They didn't just arrest dozens of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and move them through the courts on the hope and wish that Congress would fill out their evidence file.

New evidence may well help prosecutors gain convictions. Why would anyone here care if they added to the evidence they already amassed to further ensure convicting targets?

The point is that what may or not be new evidence and testimony is being broadcast for prosecutors and perps alike. That puts the obligation on DOJ to either ignore it, or use it. If they use it, it needs to be available to the defense.

This shouldn't be hard to understand. DOJ has asked for these transcripts for months, in anticipation of upcoming cases and evidence requests from defense counsels.

The disconnect between griping about DOJ doing more, and Congress deliberately holding back evidence from prosecutors is stunning. It's supposed to be DOJ's fault, I guess, that Congress wants them to act right away, but won't lift a finger to get that evidence they gathered into actual courts.

What's the actual point in making DOJ some antagonist in this, besides "DOJ bad?"

[herding cats]

100. Are they wanting to see if their witnesses said one thing to the January 6 com and another to them?

[bigtree]

103. conflicting testimony can be incriminating

...and it can also taint evidence, which is why it makes no sense for DOJ to try and duplicate the depositions and testimony Congress obtained.

[Voltaire2]

108. AG George B McClellan is proceeding with all due haste.