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

[Novara]

Source: NYT

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.

Since last summer, a team of former federal prosecutors working for the committee has focused on documenting the attack and the preceding efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reverse his defeat in the 2020 election. The panel plans to issue a detailed report on its findings, but in recent months it has regularly signaled that it was also weighing a criminal referral that would pressure Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to open a criminal investigation into Mr. Trump.

...

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

---

DO IT. For fuck's sake, THESE ARE POLITICAL CRIMES! It can't NOT be political.

That orange shitstain is vowing that if he wins the presidency in 2024, he WILL use the DoJ to go after his political enemies.

And the J6 committee is wringing its hands????

[True Blue American]

1. They need to recuse

Themselves if they do not after spending months exposing them all.

[bottomofthehill]

2. Paul Wellstone's funeral was not a political event but it was made one.

Anything can be made into a political event. There is no need to make criminal referrals. Public hearings will bring the truth to light. It is then on the Justice Department to do the right thing. It is the job of the committee to write legislation to prevent this from happening in the future.

[sarcasmo]

3. Above the law.

[agingdem]

4. Excuse me but this is the NYT...

no one from the J6 committee is talking to the NYT...this is their "we hate Trump but he's good for our bottomline" conjecture bilge...members of the J6 committee are not shy about teasing us with what they know and where they're going with the investigation(s)...as for a criminal referral, I suspect the NYT's so-called revelation is backasswards...the DOJ is waiting for the J6 hearings and the final report before they indict...as for the NYT...this is the paper that employs Trump's Maggie Haberman...enough said

[thesquanderer]

8. re: "no one from the J6 committee is talking to the NYT"

The quoted members of the committee in the article.

[agingdem]

10. Liz Cheney just disputed that..she should know

and anytime the paper quotes "people in the know" that's like a reporter throwing straw man questions at Jen Psaki... "I've heard".."people are saying"...

[thesquanderer]

52. Cheney did not dispute it. And the paper quoted people by name.

See my post #51 about the Cheney article, and you can read the entire NYT article with names at https://archive.ph/QOK5h

[agingdem]

55. the bottom line is this..I don't really care if the

J6 committee agrees/doesn't agree...they can interview, investigate, subpoena, hold XYZ in contempt, publicly disparage Garland and the DOJ for slow-walking indictments..they are in front of cameras teasing us with snippets of the newest Trump outrage, but they have yet to hold hearings...I don't want tantalizing tidbits, I want to know the full extent of what they know...

We can argue the J6 committee minutia, who said what to whom..we can defend the committee and we can rag on Garland but it's time for a reckoning because this "will Trump walk" guessing game is making us all nuts...

[JohnSJ]

12. Exactly. Typical shallow reporting based on speculation or hearsay

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Zoe Lofgren has been quoted as saying she leans against making a criminal referral

That’s not speculation or hearsay.

[agingdem]

23. that's doesn't make it a split committee

[Fiendish Thingy]

40. That doesn't mean they all agree on the issue of making a criminal referral either. Nt

[thesquanderer]

48. "Split" doesn't have to mean "Evenly Split." One disagreement from the rest is still a split.

And based on the article, she's not the only one.

[Novara]

26. She didn't explicitly say that

She said because of the California judge's conclusion that crimes were likely committed, the J6 committee shouldn't have to make a referral; the DoJ has enough information.

That's a whole different thing. The media idiot who quoted her turned his spin and implied that she wouldn't make a referral, when she did not say that at all.

This is why you should always look for the writer's slant, as many people are doing here with the above-quoted article.

[JohnSJ]

28. Actually she is correct. The DOJ has enough evidence. They don't need the committees referral to

indict

[onetexan]

37. +1 -K&R

[Mr. Evil]

44. Thanx so much for pointing that out.

I didn't notice the link until reading your post. The fact that this came from the NYT says it all.

[Hoyt]

5. "People involved in the discussions said" always leaves me skeptical that the author has talked to

anyone in the know.

If there is any truth in this, you have to wonder where the people on the Committee who are opposed -- at least now -- are coming from. Is the case weak, are they worried about fallout down the road, etc.?

[thesquanderer]

9. Have you read the linked article? Your questions are answered there. (n/t)

[JohnSJ]

13. Unfortunately it wants me to signup for a subscription, and I don't want to

do that, so if there is a specific text that answers the questions, it would be nice to display it

[thesquanderer]

50. Here's a link to the full article

https://archive.ph/QOK5h

[JohnSJ]

54. Perfect. Thanks

[thesquanderer]

6. I guess they could kind of do what Mueller did, to similarly avoid seeming political...

...provide all the info, but simply let the recipient decide what to do with it, rather than making any recommendation.

We see how well that worked out, though.

It's an interesting question, as to whether Garland would prefer the info come with or without a recommendation of what to do with it. No recommendation makes any decision seem arguably more independent. OTOH, coming with a recommendation arguably gives him some cover.

[Novara]

29. excellent point

But I'd rather the J6 committee make explicit referrals because that ratchets up the heat on the DoJ.

Face it, just the mere existence of the J6 committee has republicans vowing to investigate their enemies first chance they get. The Dems' fear of this is real, but it does not matter whether or not they actually make referrals - the Rs will punish them if they are able, anyway, because they are uncovering crimes. That's their job.

[onetexan]

38. Precisely, & hence why they need to muster up the moral strength & backbone to make the referral

Not doing so will set a horrendous standard. If he got away w ot, the next GOP POTUS w do the se, and worse given what we've seen so far.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. I'm not a betting man myself

but, you knew there was a but coming, no? But I think when they get to the subplot surrounding the RNC/DNC bomb planter, and divulge who, what, when, and why, they will have pretty good evidence that might move DOJ. Because what were the potential explosions supposed to be but signals to someone? Chaos, anarchy. Was it a martial law moment? It was planned by someone.

[oldsoftie]

20. I REALLY wish they could find out who that was. Thats a BIG deal.

Seems as though with as many cameras as there are in DC they could follow the person back to a car or hotel or SOMEPLACE.

[bucolic_frolic]

22. Agree

One of the toniest and perhaps the most politically important neighborhoods in the country was open? Nah.

[dsc]

11. Any decision is going to be political

and the GOP will make the politics argument no matter who indicts Trump or how such an indictment unfolds, so they should simply follow the evidence. If the evidence exists to support a referral, and they seem to think that is the case, then make the referral and be done with it.

[Cosmocat]

27. T H I S

They will throw a nutty if he is charged with the committee refers it or not.

We have been dealing with these assholes for over a quarter century now, you would think they would figure it out.

[Novara]

31. EXACTLY

[SoCalDavidS]

43. Which Is The Precise Reason That NOBODY Is Going To Indict Him Or His Cohorts nt

[Orrex]

14. Careful--I've been scolded for my lack of faith in "The System"

Despite any and all evidence to the contrary, we must believe that The System is marching relentlessly forward and will bring Justice to those who have wronged the nation.

So when we read that the body charged with investigating Trump might--despite actionable evidence--be declining to take action, we must still have faith that The System is working.

Because otherwise your lack of faith might, um, send the wrong message or something.

[CanonRay]

15. If they don't refer, they've made the decision that the President is above the law

and that is a very dangerous precedent.

[stopdiggin]

32. nope. that is strictly your interpretation.

as the article clearly lays out - whether or not to 'refer' is completely at the discretion - 100% optional, and doesn't 'imply' anything. (you may construe it to mean this or that, but .. ) The DOJ is the charging party - has access to the same information - and is fully capable ...

[Qutzupalotl]

16. Liz Cheney disputes this story

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216580935

[thesquanderer]

64. Not really.

See my post #51

[Botany]

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

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216580935

[thesquanderer]

51. Funny... she doesn't actually dispute it!

NYT article says they do not have unanimous agreement about whether or not to make the referral.

The Guardian article quotes Cheney's response this way:

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.”

She is confident that they will come to agreement. That means--wait for it--that they don't currently all agree!

These articles are not contradictory of each other.

[Marthe48]

18. traitor is the only one who thinks he is guiltless

The actions being examined were political crimes. Every single person, from the traitor flag corps to traitor needs to be called to account.

Why are we, the people defending the foundations of our country, the ones who are going to end up defending home and family against an army of criminal turnncoats?

The majority of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton. The majority of Americans voted for Joe Biden. The majority of Americans love their country as it was created and as it evolves over time. The majority of Americans want voting rights, civil rights, womens' rights, for God's sake human rights, gun laws and we aren't getting them. We have traitors not only thumbing their Gd noses at the law, but we also have subversives sitting in the House and Senate who rewrite the rules of our law without even putting pen to paper or putting their assbackward kangaroo court pronouncements to a vote. The majority of Americans do not love traitor. They do not love his hate-filled traitor henchmen. It is past time for the good men and women who lead us to point fingers, name names, and take action.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. I'm fine either way if they do or don't make a criminal referral

As long as they have scorched earth televised hearings, write a scathing report, and share all the evidence they’ve gathered with the DOJ.

DOJ doesn’t need a letter from the committee to prosecute.

[stopdiggin]

25. +1. you got there first. -(nt)-

[stopdiggin]

24. are people completely missing ... ?

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.

That doesn't give pause at all? No consideration merited, no hesitation? No reasonable questions?
But no - we must have, "damn the torpedoes .. full speed ahead" - "the committee must .." - or nothing at all.

We really do enjoy our team sports don't we?

[Cosmocat]

30. if they don't refer and he is prosecuted the assholes will use their not referring

as proof that he should not be have been indicted, and then will find a dozen other insane reasons to say it is illegitimate.

Just do the right thing ...

[Novara]

33. good point

[stopdiggin]

34. weak tea

".. as proof that he should not be have been indicted .."
Utter nonsense. It means no such thing. And I refuse to frame it in those terms because, "people will say .." We expect more of grade schoolers.

[Cosmocat]

53. Who exactly are you talking to?

I am not saying I think that them not referring it means the DOJ should indict him, I am saying that is what Rs will say, so they will be who they are, play it which ever way you go, so don't worry about what they are going to lose their demented minds over and simply do the right thing.

[stopdiggin]

60. what the R's say - doesn't mean beans to me

(it appears, with your second post, that we're in agreement there)
Where you and I apparently continue to disagree - is that I'm quite willing to support them in making their own call on the matter(refer or not refer) - regardless of which way the wind is blowing.

[Evolve Dammit]

35. x1000!

[llashram]

36. I really don't

trust the NYT reporting and opinions...anymore. Yet with many sources deliberately telling the truth now...don't need them.

[samsingh]

39. if they don't they are admitting that trump is above the law.

[JohnSJ]

41. Not at all. The DOJ doesn't need any referral. They are supposedly doing their own investigation,

and they don't need the committee referral. They can and should indict independently

[samsingh]

42. nothing has come out of that either, after trump publicly states his treacherous guilt

[JohnSJ]

47. So you know what the DOJ is doing? You realize that the DOJ doesn't comment on on-going

investigations, until it is ready to bring charges

[former9thward]

58. How do we know about other investigations they are doing if they don't comment?

Or is it just Trump that you think they don't comment on?

[JohnSJ]

59. So you are saying the DOJ IS not investigating trump? Is that correct?

Do you think it is prudent that they proceed carefully, and not tell the press what they have and what they are doing, until they have all their ducks lined up?

Garland said quite some time ago that the January 6th investigation is in process, and they will take it wherever it leads them

The DOJ did say they were investigating the classified documents taken by trump, but refused to give details

With your insinuation we could assume the January 6th committee isn’t investigating trump because they have NOT released any information publicly
Actually we don’t know a lot about the other investigations, just very generally, unless they are bringing charges against someone

Your profile says you are a Constitutional Lawyer. So you believe the DOJ should be releasing information about the status of their investigation to the public before they are ready to?

As an example, the watergate investigation took two years

[former9thward]

62. The Watergate investigation took two years because the DOJ was in the hands

of the President being investigated. Now it is in the hands of the opposite party so there are not the limitations of investigating the boss. Also Watergate was largely ignored by most and was only investigated because of the revelations of two reporters. So it was not a two year investigation at all. Not only that but in 1972-74 the DOJ and everyone else did not have the investigative tools unleashed by the internet that we have now.

Do I think anything substantial is being investigated by the DOJ regarding Trump? No I don't. Because I know the DOJ doesn't operate in a vacuum. The talk to people. They call in witnesses. They subpoena documents. All of these things are not done in secret because they can't be. People who are interviewed talk and their lawyers talk. Subpoenas require court hearings. That is the reality.

[JohnSJ]

63. I will bookmark this

“First, the criticism that the Justice Department has decided not to go after defeated former president Donald Trump is, from all appearances, false. The department continues to reaffirm it has not ruled out going after anyone. A grand jury, the New York Times reports, is already “asking for records about people who organized or spoke at several pro-Trump rallies after the election,” including two events before Jan. 6. It is also seeking “records about anyone who provided security at those events and about those who were deemed to be ‘V.I.P. attendees.’ ” The grand jury has also requested evidence “about any members of the executive and legislative branches who may have taken part in planning or executing the rallies, or tried to ‘obstruct, influence, impede or delay’ the certification of the presidential election.” Ostensibly, that would include Trump and former vice president Mike Pence.”

The Post has also similarly reported that the Justice Department is investigating the conspiracy to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election victory. Again, there is no sign that Trump or any senior official has been excluded.
Second, none of this means that the Justice Department is acting with a sufficient sense of urgency. The rationale that the feds have to start at the bottom and work their way up — as though this were a Mafia case — makes no sense.
Prosecutors go after foot soldiers if they have no real proof the kingpin has engaged in criminal activity. But the former president has shouted from the rooftops that he wanted Pence to overturn the election. And there is an audio recording of Trump trying to twist the Georgia secretary of state’s arm to find just enough votes to flip his state’s results. Former senior advisers have written books, blabbed in TV interviews and testified before the Jan. 6 committee concerning communications with Trump and other senior advisers

……..

Finally, it doesn’t really matter whether the Jan. 6 committee makes a “referral” to the Justice Department suggesting criminal prosecution. A referral, although the media and lawmakers have made much ado about it, would have no real legal significance, especially because the Justice Department is already well along in its investigation.
That said, public hearings in prime time laying out a powerful case against Trump and a written report summarizing those findings followed by a referral may convey to the public the gravity of the matter. It may also force the Justice Department to explain itself if it decides not to prosecute.
In sum, Attorney General Merrick Garland seems to be conducting a full investigation that could implicate Trump for, among other things, conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States or seditious conspiracy. Someone would be wise to point out to Garland the dangers of unnecessary delay. As publicly available information and daily revelations from Trump’s inner circle accumulates, Americans have every right to expect the former president’s prosecution in a timely fashion — or a darn good reason why the Justice Department won’t pursue him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/10/doj-justice-department-investigation-jan-6-donald-trump-prosecution/

[Baitball Blogger]

45. It will be easier for the Justice Department to do their job if all fingers point in the

same direction.

The criminal justice department is full of people who support white privilege, so don't make it easy for them to pass on this one.

[Achilleaze]

46. Republican traitors deserve justice

Lock them up.

[Neutered Goldstone]

56. Politically Tainting the Justice Dept?

You're fucking kidding me, right? RIGHT???

[stopdiggin]

61. so you approve of the machinations

of the Dept under previous heads? Or you think it is pointless to attempt to clean it up? I'm afraid I didn't quite catch your meaning.

[twodogsbarking]

57. Fear of Trump. It is a thing.

He has a mob.