I was really optimistic when I heard the "Breaking News" yesterday that the DOJ was seeking...

[kentuck]

... the documents and interviews that the Committee had done in their investigation.

There was finally some hope in the voice of Nicolle Wallace as she read the article on her show. She has worked tirelessly and diligently to report on this story. Probably moreso than any reporter out there ? Was there finally some light at the end of the tunnel?

But, when Chairman Bennie Thompson put the kibosh on turning over the documents to the DOJ, people began to speculate and ask questions. What was going on??

It appears that the Committee does not trust the DOJ to have the documents until they have finished with their investigation. Why would they feel that way? Do they know something that we do not know about the DOJ?

I am not so optimistic today that the DOJ will get the documents anytime soon? There seems to be something going down that we do not know about?

[BSdetect]

1. Did tfg not constantly project corruption at the FBI, DOJ etc etc?

Perhaps there were a few toadies like Barr there?

[TheRealNorth]

13. That is my #1 suspicion

DOJ leaks like a sieve, especially when the leaks benefit the GOP.

[Hoyt]

2. Turf war, something we don't need.

[dem4decades]

3. Maybe the Jeffery Clarke division of DOJ was put in charge of the J6 investigation.

I've fallen for the ruse that something is going to matter too many times, wake me up when something actually happens.

And if what happens is nothing and Trump is reelected, or installed, don't bother waking me up at all.

Thank you

[Novara]

4. THEY'RE NOT DONE YET

Would you submit an incomplete work product? Here's a hypothetical: what if several people gave testimony that contradicted others? Don't you think the J6 committee would want to pursue that and connect some dots before submitting what they have to the DOJ?

Don't you want the evidence submitted to be clear, cross-referenced, and to show exactly who should be prosecuted and why? That takes time and resources and these legislators have their real jobs on top of this. No wonder they're not done. I mean, do they even have enough staff to get this stuff in order? Does anybody know? I don't.

Everybody jumps to the worst possible conclusions. Open your minds to other possibilities.

To me, the DOJ asking for the data before it's ready signals some impatience on their part to get going on prosecutions. And that is a damn good thing IMO.

And no. No one has ever called me a Pollyanna.

[gab13by13]

6. We don't know what documents DOJ requested.

So it's pretty hard to speculate that the select committee isn't finished with whatever documents DOJ asked for, besides, the complete report about the 1/6 insurrection will never be completed. We will never know everything that went on.

[agingdem]

7. Bennie Thompson backtracked..

probably figured out he sounded kind of petulant.. and he needs the MSM to focus on the hearings not a squabble with Garland and the DOJ...wise move...

[global1]

9. If This Is The Case Then Bennie Thompson Should Provide That As An Explanation For....

the committee's decision not to pass on the info just yet to the DOJ.

[inthewind21]

15. NO

It's not "jumping to conclusions" it's making an observation based on the performance of the DOJ historically. Watergate, Iran Contra, GW Bush and war crimes. Any of those end in prosecution of anyone other than underlings who don't really matter? Do I need to go on?

[hamsterjill]

5. I feel like the J6 Committee is tired of the DOJ not doing anything

The J6 Committee has referred items to the DOJ and the DOJ has not acted assertively on most of those referrals. Committee members have voiced frustration.

Could this be a “negotiation” type of thing? Like, you take action, and we will give you the transcripts?

Either way, I have more confidence in the J6 Committee than in the DOJ. I’m not a fan of Garland’s and I don’t buy the idea that there are still Trump loyalists in the DOJ. If that’s true today, Garland should have been cleaning house for 15 months now.

[gab13by13]

12. I mean, I share your sentiments.

I know that Kamala Harris has had to vote to break numerous ties in the Senate to get president Biden's people confirmed. The GQP does not vote for much of anything or anyone who president Biden wants.

So it is at least out of the ordinary that 10 Republicans voted to confirm Merrick Garland, including Ron Johnson. I am not saying that Garland is corrupt, is a plant, I don't believe that. I do believe that Garland is an institutionalist, in his own words, and that could be a problem prosecuting politicians, former politicians, former cabinet members, or former presidents.

Garland proved that he is an institutionalist when he defended the office of the presidency in the libel suit between E. Jeanne Carroll and Trump. Imagine, an official duty of the presidency is to possibly slander a woman who is accusing the holder of the office of the presidency of raping her in a department store. That is a hard core institutionalist.

[brush]

8. Perhaps Garland's DOJ could've done it's own investigations...

of J6 which happened 16 1/2 months ago. There was plenty of time to do it.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Something we don't know about

Like 140 years of deals, rules, opinions, alterations. Things to keep a lid on. The J6 report will be out soon. We can wait 5 weeks. But as soon as it's out, DOJ should get their documents in my view.

[malaise]

11. I remain very optimistic

That is all

[867-5309.]

14. Your mistake was being "really optimistic" n/t