House 1/6 panel rejects Justice Dept.'s transcript request

[OneCrazyDiamond]

Source: Associated Press

The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol is rejecting a request from the Justice Department for access to the committee’s interviews, for now.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the committee’s chairman, said Tuesday that the Justice Department had made the request as part of its ongoing criminal investigation into the attack. But he said it was “premature” for the committee to share its work at this point because the panel’s probe is ongoing.

The Justice Department’s request comes as prosecutors have been issuing subpoenas and seeking interviews with people who had been involved in planning events leading up to the attack on the Capitol last year. The request to the House panel — which has conducted more than 1,000 interviews so far — exemplifies the breadth of the Justice investigation into one of the largest attacks on democracy in American history.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-government-and-politics-subpoenas-criminal-investigations-merrick-garland-73d8309734a5dad4532f96c53f14a403

[2naSalit]

1. Oh my!

[Fullduplexxx]

2. Lol

[Ray Bruns]

3. If DOJ wants to investigate, then sit a grand jury and subpoena those repug bastards that

organized it.

[Novara]

19. Why should they duplicate the J6 panel's investigation ...

... and risk the treasonous bastards not cooperating any further?

[Mawspam2]

25. Because I don't trust the MAGA infiltrated FBI to...

...keep the transcripts internal. There would be leaks to the other GQPers so they could coordinate their stories and invent shit to discredit the testimony. COMEY!!

[Farmer-Rick]

4. Hmmm, weird

Are there a lot of GQPers still in the justice department? The House and the justice department sound like they are on 2 different teams. This is the kind of stuff Barr use to pull.

Sounds like a gambit to get the details of the house investigation. Not so sure the justice department, like the Post Office, is under Democratic control. They seem very lax about enforcing any laws to do with TFG.

[Rebl2]

6. I believe

there are still a lot of tfg loyalists in the JD.

[Beastly Boy]

5. Goes to show that the legislative and the executive branches don't necessarily share priorities.

Each has a constitutionally assigned function to serve as a check and balance on the other. Each branch defending their respective turf is not out of the ordinary at all. I doubt that DOJ ever shared any of their proprietary information with the 1/6 committee.

Having said this, I see no reason why the 1/6 Committee wouldn't share, at their discretion and with due diligence taken to protect their interests, at least some or most of the transcripts requested by DOJ after the Committee's report goes public.

[lastlib]

32. I can see the Committee's POV here....

If they share the stuff, it might make other witnesses, especially those pending, hesitant to talk to them. I want them to get everything they can; once they have it, THEN share away.

[keopeli]

7. Perhaps because the DOJ has been silent and many of the requests that the J6 Comm has made,

including pursuing subpoenas and providing other material support, that J6 Comm is holding their cards close to their chest. I have to say I would do the same. The DOJ has seemed to say "We'll address your request when we get around to it." To be clear, the DOJ has pursued SOME requests, but that is the minority response. In general, DOJ has been slow and silent. Also, why does the DOJ need Congress's evidence? Don't they have all the power to get it themselves?

This incident, the request, and this denial is the strongest indicator I've seen that the DOJ is not pursuing J6 cases as aggressively as the crimes deserve. In spite of all the cries of "be patient", this exchange seems to indicate that the J6 Committee has its own concerns about the DOJ's pursuit of justice. I could be wrong, but it seems that way.

[gab13by13]

9. Bazinga! You beat me to it.

Let's just talk turkey, the select committee is pissed at DOJ. DOJ is going to look pretty bad if the select committee, with much less resources, produces evidence of wrongdoing that DOJ has never even looked into.

[JudyM]

16. This. They also may be planning the release of info for its most dramatic impact with the public.

They have been hinting that there will be dramatic revelations, and may be counting on that to get people’s attention to increase viewership. Don’t want any DOJ leaks dampening the impact.

[867-5309.]

24. Dueling prosecutions. YAY!

A turf war is what we need?

[gab13by13]

8. Here is my take, take it or leave it,

The select committee is getting close to prime time show time. The select committee is going to present boat loads of evidence showing all kinds of possible crimes by all kinds of people. The committee is going to have documented evidence, and it is going to be overwhelming.

Remember when Liz Cheney publicly stated what statute Trump should be charged with, well the select committee is going to do something similar on a much larger scale. Once the select committee's presentations are over, everyone is going to look squarely at DOJ and start asking questions and if DOJ never even investigated what the select committee revealed to the American public then DOJ is going to have some explaining to do.

I believe that the select committee refused to give over evidence to DOJ because it is upset with DOJ's inaction. jmo.

[childfreebychoice]

10. Sad to say, but I trust the committee, more than doj

So I think u are right

[onecaliberal]

12. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[Justice matters.]

11. I agree and will speculate further...

The J6 select committee is working on the prime time hearings and doesn't want the DOJ to 'shortcircuit' its findings and indict anyone it intends to call to testify (so they can't invoke any official indictment for their refusal to show up).

Once the public hearings will be over, the committee will make all the criminal referrals on hand with the overwhelming evidence to the DOJ (the public pressure for Justice will be sky high).

So it's not a bad thing to wait a little longer. The criminal GQPs ain't going nowhere 'til November and it's doubtful any indictments will be charged before the midterms anyway. AFTER, though...

[everyonematters]

15. I mostly agree. The committee thinks that it has political dynamite, and they are going to get it

out on there terms. That's political, but everything that is done in Congress has a political aspect. This definitely deserves to be investigated. The Republican Party deserves every thing it gets from this.

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

28. Damaging to prosecutions?

My one concern is if somehow the J6 hearings out a number of wrongdoers publicly, but do it in such a way that the wrongdoers can use the outing as some sort of defense against prosecution.

Perhaps an argument that the potential jury pool has been tainted due to significant politicization and publicity or something, for example. Or the advance notice gives the bad guys time to destroy evidence before the Justice Dept can collect it for use in a trial.

I would think that achieving prosecution of the wrongdoers is more important than making political hay on their exposure.

I doubt this is the issue, but I have a tendency to think in terms of rotten outcomes.

[Justice matters.]

30. The committee will refer prosecutions based on their evidence so...

... the bad guys won't be able to destroy the evidence since it will accompany the criminal referrals themselves. All the DOJ will have to do then, will be to review it according to the criminal code and decide to convene the Grand Jury for it to vote, based on its 51% majority rule, whether to issue indictments (or not).

You can't make criminal references to the DOJ without the incriminating evidence that support them. One doesn't go without the other. That's the point.

[hamsterjill]

14. I tend to agree.

But it will ultimately be up to the DOJ to pursue any charges, right?

So even if the committee presents clear and damning evidence, can we count on the DOJ to do anything? Public pressure maybe?

[OneCrazyDiamond]

26. I'll take that.

I am hoping they send over their stuff as close to the election as needed to be effective. I am thinking of Comey's stunt.

[kentuck]

13. Possibly a CYA move by the DOJ?

Once all the testimony and evidence is made public, they do not wish to look like they have been asleep at the wheel?

[gab13by13]

17. That is my thought also.

I mean, this reads for itself;

Thompson said the panel had shared some information with federal, state and local agencies but they could only review it in a specified location — a common government practice with sensitive documents known as an in-camera review. It’s unclear which specific interviews or documents the Justice Department had sought.

“They made a request, and we told them that as a committee, the product was ours, and we’re not giving anyone access to the work product,” Thompson told reporters Tuesday.

“We can’t share it, the document, with them,” Thompson said. “Big difference ... we can’t give them unilateral access.”

That begs the question, why did Thompson say they can't give DOJ unilateral access? Is it for legal reasons? Is it because the committee doesn't trust DOJ?

I would have thought that the select committee would work closely with DOJ but that has not happened. The select committee has given DOJ next to nothing.

[kentuck]

18. It's not like they did not have a hint about how deep the conspiracy went.

It''s been about 5 months since they received the referral on Mark Meadows.

But, I do not see Merrick Garland as the obstacle in all of this. I think a lot of the decision-making may be coming from the FBI side? That is just my opinion. As much as we would like to believe that the FBI and the entire DOJ are committed to only finding justice, I think many of the Trump cult are still implanted in the FBI.

In my opinion, the Committee is fearful that the entire investigation would be deep-sixed if the DOJ took over all the documents from the Committee. They do not want that to happen.

[Lymond]

22. I hate both choices.

If we take Thompson's statement at face value (“They made a request, and we told them that as a committee, the product was ours, and we’re not giving anyone access to the work product,” ) it implies a certain pride of ownership in their information.

They don't want the criminal prosecutions that NEED to occur to steal their thunder or diminish their accomplishment? WTF?

If he's not being truthful here and this is actually distrust of DOJ (too much remaining corruption from TFG?) or petulance at Garland for real or imagined slights, we are doomed entirely.

After all this time I simply cannot believe we aren't all pulling together here.

[Novara]

20. I don't see ANYTHING nefarious about this

This is how I see it:

The J6 committee isn't done. They've done over 1000 interviews. So far. Do you think they have the staff to compile everything in real time? It takes time to get this sort of evidence in order, and I'm sure they're going to be doing a lot of cross-checking as well. Keep in mind that they are working on what they're going to present to the public next month at the same time. Plus legislative issues! They have real jobs on top of this.

I don't think they have the time and the staff resources to conduct interviews, cross-check the information given by all the sources, AND get the public hearings ready all at the same time, let alone getting the evidence packaged up for the DOJ in order to present prosecutable evidence.

Plus, what if during the public hearings, new evidence comes up that contradicts some of the interviews? They're going to want to cross-check that as much as possible before presenting it to the DOJ. There may be perjury charges as well.

I dunno about you, but I want them to give a neat, clear package to the DOJ that explains exactly who did what, with whom, and when in order to help the DOJ see clearly who needs to be prosecuted. That stuff takes time and resources.

[Lymond]

23. But why not tell us that?

I like your thoughts, but why couldn't Thompson just say that? What's all this BS about their damn "work product".

[OneCrazyDiamond]

27. I agree.

Not being done is the stated reason.

[llashram]

21. why can't they work together

are they afraid of leaks? I do understand that thinking. If many people have access, not known by each Committee and Department, things get out of hand. Yet even with possible trump-pets still in government everywhere, these two government entities could probably find a way to work things out...I guess, but what the hell do I know. I am just surmising based on this kind of process of government.

[Joinfortmill]

29. 'For now', people. DOJ will get them after hearings.

[LudwigPastorius]

31. A pissing contest with all that's at stake?

The committee is playing 'payback' at Garland and the DOJ because they haven't moved yet to indict Mark Meadows for contempt of congress.

This is not helpful.