Why Can't DOJ Indict John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark

[gab13by13]

It just makes me sick that the insurrection is ongoing. Jack Smith named Eastman and Clark unindicted co-conspirators and the only reason he did not include them in his Trump indictment was because he understood the importance of time, including them would have delayed his trials even more so than they are.

Clark and Eastman are both on the verge of being disbarred, whoopi-fucking-ding. It isn't stopping Clark from continuing with the insurrection. Clark is the lead person in drawing up the details of how to weaponize the justice department once Trump becomes president. Clark has actually drawn up the blueprint.

Why can't Merrick Garland devote some DOJ resources to following up on these 2 unindicted co-conspirators, Garland spent plenty of money going after Hunter and Joe Biden. The only reason I can think of is that Garland promised Republicans that he would not be partisan. It has zero to do with discovery because Fani Willis has indicted both Clark and Eastman in her RICO prosecution. Fani Willis has guts that's why the Magats went on a crusade to discredit her.

By the bye, when will Scott Perry be indicted? Oh yeah, I forgot, the promise Garland made.

The insurrection continues.

[marble falls]

1. Because grand juries indict.

[gab13by13]

2. You get my point.

Here: Why can't Merrick Garland devote some resources into prosecuting Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman? The ducks are lined up just quacking to be heard.

[marble falls]

3. Eastman's been indicted already, not by the Feds, but he has been recommended for prosecution to DoJ ...

https://apnews.com › article › trump-georgia-election-indictment-fulton-county-clark-7641b5c61dbcc39ee3f0edbe51558925
Attorney John Eastman surrenders on charges in Trump's Georgia 2020 ...
Aug 23, 2023John Eastman, center, an attorney indicted with former President Donald Trump, makes a statement to media outside the Fulton County Jail in Atlanta, where he was booked on Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2023. (Arvin Temkar/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP)

https://www.latimes.com › politics › story › 2022-12-19 › jan-6-charges-who-is-john-eastman
Jan. 6 committee recommends charges against John Eastman - Los Angeles ...
Dec 19, 2022Former Chapman University professor John Eastman is among the individuals whom the Jan. 6 committee has recommended face federal criminal charges for their roles in the attack on the Capitol on ...

No doubt in my mind his lawyer has already gotten the letter Eastman is under investigation.

Clark is indicted already and been disbarred (Eastman's been disbarred) and referred to DoJ, too.

They are not going scott free.

[gab13by13]

6. That is one hell of a cop out then by DOJ

Fani also indicted Trump, maybe Jack Smith should just drop his prosecution and allow Fani to take over, if she doesn't get removed by Georgia legislators. Then what?

You are suggesting another repeat of "individual one." Mueller laid it all out for Garland to indict Trump over the Stormy Daniels campaign finance violations. Garland, for whatever reasons, passed on indicting Trump so Alvin Bragg and the state of New York had to carry the ball.

The campaign finance violations and cover up would have carried more weight if it had been prosecuted at the federal level, after all Trump was running for federal office.

[PortTack]

12. And...he's going to be recommended by the law bar to be disbarred.

[MichMan]

14. Needs to be locked up behind bars for at least 10 years

[gab13by13]

19. Clark won't need his law degree working for Trump,

Stealing this from George Orwell, he will become the Minister of Truth.

[onecaliberal]

26. They are literally planning the next one.

[Trueblue Texan]

4. Garland refusing to prosecute Republicans that are sabotaging our democracy is most definitely partisan. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. No action yet / no comment is NOT the same as "refusing"

And the assertion of inaction is not tenable.

[Bobstandard]

23. Except for the fact that there is no action

There are lies, damned lies, and semantics.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. I'm calling you on that. Post links to "lies and damned lies" on the part of the DoJ

This post is two minutes after yours, so you have almost certainly seen it right away.

But take your time. If it takes too long, post that you are looking.

[Nutty Putty]

25. semantics

Spare us. The DOJ under Garland has been a disaster and the continued efforts to defend it is an embarrassment.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. Welcome to DU. I'm not defending DoJ as strongly as you might think, but regardless, I'm not embarrassed. . . .nt

[Nutty Putty]

30. Telling n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. "Telling"? You've got nothing or you would have posted it. . . . . nt

[Nutty Putty]

35. Yes. Apologists

TSF is still on the loose doing unimaginable damage to this country (and the world, for that matter). And this is because we have a coward Attorney General who's too afraid of his own shadow to save this country. His "strategy" has only made magats stronger.

But, Garland's reputation....

[onecaliberal]

29. He's federalist society. He's protecting them.

[Trueblue Texan]

42. He's too afraid of being called partisan by the right.

He needs to get over that...no matter what he does they'll accuse him of partisanship. Just do the damn job you were hired to do.

[onecaliberal]

44. I'm of another opinion.

He stood in front of cameras and told the American people no man was above the law. Then seemingly went to bed and took a nap while the plotters, planners and even un-indicted co-conspirators are free to keep working on the slow rolling coup.

[Bettie]

5. Might look partisan

and we can't have that...

[edhopper]

7. Why has TSF not been indicted

for the Fraud he has been found guilty of in NY? Including tax fraud.

[gab13by13]

8. Pomerantz and Dunne worked 2 years building a case for financial fraud

Cy Vance gave the go ahead to indict Trump then he retired. Alvin Bragg took over then shit canned the prosecution.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. Once again, you don't know what you don't know

My hunch is that it is at least partially due to discovery.

Despite your claims the Willis’ case erases discovery issues, the fact is, we don’t know just what the extent of the evidence DOJ has against Trump (and Clark and Eastman) is. There could be all sorts of testimony and comms in DOJ’s hands that Willis doesn’t have. (The language in the indictments implies that there is).

At some point, I do expect DOJ to seek indictments against the co-conspirators, but the timing will be when it is most advantageous and least damaging to Smith’s prosecution of Trump.

Edit: also, I think Smith didn’t want the burden/circus of trying multiple defendants simultaneously, as Willis is necessarily facing with her RICO prosecution.

Just my opinion, because I know that I don’t know what I don’t know

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. It could easily be that DoJ doesn't want to upset the tRump case in DC. Plus they

Plus they may be building cases against Congress members and don't want to tip their hand.

Further, it might be a hell of a lot easier to convict the lawyers and the Congress members after conviction of tRump.

If they charged the lawyers, it could muddy the waters of the tRump case, giving him more grounds for delays and obfuscation. There might be issues of law and issues of evidence to litigate. Defence results might be easier to obtain for the lawyers and then on to impacting tRump's case.

I don't know. I don't have the information that DoJ has and Smith has. Neither do you.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/merrick-garland-isn-t-to-blame-for-delays-in-trump-s-election-interference-case/ar-BB1jrCWq (emphasis added)

The department took overt investigative steps against three of the six alleged co-conspirators identified in Trump’s Jan. 6 indictment in 2021, long before Garland appointed Smith to the case. Days after a New York Times report on Jeffrey Clark’s role in Jan. 6, on Jan. 25, 2021, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced an investigation into “whether any former or current DOJ official engaged in an improper attempt to have DOJ seek to alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election.” The IG investigators remained involved when FBI agents seized Clark’s phone June 23, 2022. The department had already, a month earlier, obtained a warrant for one of Clark’s private email accounts and would obtain a second one the following day. The August 2023 indictment of Trump describes Clark as co-conspirator 4.

Those often ignored early moves against Trump’s co-conspirators — and other investigative developments, such as the purported cooperation of Jan. 6 defendant Brandon Straka, investigative steps implicating Roger Stone, and the prosecution of Alex Jones’ sidekick — go unmentioned in reports that claim Garland delayed the investigation. For good reason: Most happened where reporters and pundits weren’t looking.Consider the impact Covid had on all prosecutions, nationwide, in 2021. A year of pandemic measures created a backlog that delayed not just trials, but also court hearings and grand jury investigations. It took 14 months to bring the first Jan. 6 defendant to trial, even though that defendant was identified to the FBI before the attack. The conspiracy indictment of the several rioters who first broke into the Senate chamber — whose GoPro video prosecutors may use to show Trump’s direct influence on rioters at his trial — had to be delayed from April to September 2021 because of Covid challenges.

Plus, investigating Trump was like investigating a very corrupt law firm. According to a filing from Jack Smith, “at least 25 witnesses withheld information, communications, and documents based on assertions of the attorney-client privilege under circumstances where the privilege holder appears to be the defendant or his 2020 presidential campaign.” Some of these witnesses are obvious — and central to the plot to steal the election: Giuliani, John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro were all described as co-conspirators. Several lawyers worked for Giuliani — people such as Christina Bobb and Jenna Ellis. Others worked for the campaign, or participated in state-level conspiracies or lawsuits.

The delays created by Covid, use of encryption, attorney-client and executive privilege claims were unavoidable, even for the most obvious evidence. Take the tweet Trump sent at 2:24 p.m. Jan. 6: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage.” It was right there in public! But to present that in court first required the exploitation of at least two phones, nine months of fights over executive privilege, a 23-day stall from Twitter and two sets of interviews with at least eight different top aides. One delay that was unnecessary was caused by some of the people who most loudly blamed Garland: the Jan. 6 Committee.

[jaxexpat]

13. Garland is too busy to pursue these criminals.

It is, after all, hard work finding comparable instances of equal crimes by Democratic operatives.

Dear Garland,
The country is tired of you mealy mouthed malingering.
Your friend,
Concerned American citizen

[surfered]

15. And Smith wanted to move faster..

…by only indicting Trump. See the Georgia case for an example. The indictment indicated other co-conspirators. He can pick them off later.

[gab13by13]

17. I already said that, did you read my thread?

I am the "Time Matters" guy. There may not be a later so I ask my question once again, why can't DOJ prosecute Eastman and Clark while Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump?

[gab13by13]

16. I never said that I know what I don't know.

I asked a question because it pissed me off that Jeffrey Clark is drawing up the blueprint to weaponize the justice department if Trump becomes president.

I have no idea why Garland hasn't indicted any of the 18 people that Fani Willis indicted, including Eastman and Clark.

I dismiss discovery because these people committed crimes out in the open for all to see. A mediocre prosecutor could build a case against Eastman and Clark just from watching Deadline White House, or watching Stephanie Miller or Thom Hartmann.

The insurrection is continuing and you bet it pisses me off that people like Eastman, Clark, and Perry have not been held accountable by DOJ.

Oh and, justice delayed is justice denied.

Until Scott Perry is indicted I will continue to believe that members of Congress have immunity. Scott Perry was made chairman of a committee and the first thing he did was to launch an investigation into the FBI, he laughed in the face of the justice department.

[Jersey Devil]

18. Co-conspirators have not been indicted due to DOJ (Jack Smith) strategy

If all the co-ccnspirators were indicted along with Trump then the cases brought by DOJ would each have many more defendants, which would, in turn, prolong the tiime it would take to get to a trial, almost assuring the cases would not be tried until after the election. Smith chose to keep it simple with only one defendant (Trump) for speed.

There is nothing (except statutes of limitations) that would prevent Smith from indicting them once the Trump trials take place, which hopefully may be done.

[gab13by13]

21. I already said that, I agree with you,

My question needs to be more clear; why can't DOJ prosecute people like Eastman and Clark while Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump.

[Ponietz]

40. I presume there are hundreds of Rod Rosensteins still within DOJ

[onecaliberal]

31. Now that we know things are not speedy, they should be indicted.

[usonian]

20. Ignore the nut in the brown shirt.

He'll kill himself before he can do any damage. /s

[Wild blueberry]

22. Can't or WON'T?

[gab13by13]

28. So far I have gotten one possible reason: discovery.

We can't let the cat out of the bag the evidence we have against these traitors, evidence that has been plastered all over the MSM.

[onecaliberal]

32. Recommend,

[dchill]

34. You must have forgotten the lesson of that old...

...law professor, Pontius Pilate!

[gab13by13]

36. Nope, believe it or not,

I thought about using the Pontius Pilate analogy.

[dchill]

38. Hands must appear to be clean...

It fools some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. Almost.

[gab13by13]

37. This is another way of asking my question,

What if new evidence were uncovered that Clark was working with Russians and Magats in 2020 to rig voting machines and they planned on doing it in the upcoming election, should DOJ prosecute Jeffrey Clark then or wait for Jack Smith?

Clark has been actively working to undermine our democracy for the past 4 years.

[617Blue]

39. Not enough manpower, gotta investigate Hunter Biden's peepee first

[republianmushroom]

41. To political.

[brooklynite]

43. Answer: Defendants aren't convicted based on "we know he's guilty"....

You need evidence to convince a Jury of ordinary citizens who don't hang out on political blogs. Perhaps Garland and Smith don't think there's a convincing case to be made.