What's with all of the adversarial nonsense toward people who are actually prosecuting the perps?

[bigtree]

...the people who are actively prosecuting the perpetrators Congress is merely talking about, consequence free? Why all of the hostility toward the Biden Justice Dept.?

They're not the opposition. They are the ones working right now in grand juries and courts to make actual accountability for the Capitol invasion a reality. I really don't get chiding them for not doing enough, while at the same time, beating down on them for wanting access to more evidence from the Jan. 6 committee in Congress.

It's become a habit of outside critics, and even congressmen, to holler at DOJ to "stop whining, and get to work!" as even John Dean chimed in yesterday, jumping aboard the apple cart to throw insults at an entity which is institutionally and legally bound to keep silent as they prosecute, knowing full well they can't and won't respond.

If DOJ needs something to advance their investigation, this Democratic Congress should give it to them & stop treating them like the opposition. What's the actual purpose in that?

"It's our work product," is the explanation coming from the chairman of the committee, like he's talking about a go-cart they've built.

What the hell is Congress doing if they don't intend for their evidence to be part of a prosecution? Who do they think is going to advance all of that? Congress has the luxury to adjust their hearings to meet whatever need DOJ may have for transcripts and depositions.

Justice Dept. lawyers proceed at the will and impetus of the courts and grand juries. They wade through challenges of privilege, standing, and other defense motions, then the court schedules hearings and trials. It's not a static enterprise, and it's fraught with obstacles. It's not like putting on a series of hearings with built-in conclusions.

What's more important? What's the value in putting on the show without making certain the product is in the hands of people who can transform that information into actual accountability?

Anything else is just spiteful weirdness which has no rhyme or reason other than political jockeying to protect someone's turf. Congress knows DOJ is restricted in what they can share with the committee, and that seems to be the rub.

Congress also appears to want DoJ to help fill out their own evidence file with what government investigators have gathered, in return for the no-brainer of making certain DOJ has everything they need to make these charges stick.

But that's not the way prosecutions work. The information stream needs to flow into the Justice Dept., not seep out of their investigations or be siphoned off for the sake of a political hearing or any other outside interest other than winning in court. That's what the evidence is ultimately for - not merely to fill out these hearings, but to help accomplish accountability with every resource available.

DOJ absolutely does have their own evidence files, built from depositions given in grand juries, and from cooperating witness like several reported Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who are assisting prosecutors.

We know DOJ is doing their job from the subpoenas issued, and from what's been gleaned from motions in actual court hearings surrounding both the sedition charges, and also from DOJ inquiries into 'alternate elector' schemes in Ga. and elsewhere around the country.

These cases involve many aspects of the evidence Congress is assertively putting out in their public hearing, triggering not only the interest of prosecutors who may want to advantage their cases with whatever Congress can add to them, but from those accused who have a right to demand access to any evidence the prosecution may use against them in court.

Government prosecutors are obligated to either produce the depositions they rely on, in full, or put that evidence aside. What's the actual argument for Congress leaving evidence prosecutors say they can use, in a file somewhere in the Capitol instead of handing it over?

It's as if there's actual pleasure being had at watching hurdles being placed in front of the DOJ. What the hell are we doing if we're not going to use what Congress has achieved to actually advance justice?

And why are some actively fighting the very people working to make that accountability Congress seeks more consequential than just a segment on the evening news?

[wnylib]

1. I don't know what is going on between

the J6 committee and DOJ, but whatever it is, I would not place a lot of trust in Politico's coverage of it.

I will check out other sources about info sharing between DOJ and the J6 committee members.

[Jarqui]

2. In case nobody noticed, Republicans are quite corrupt.

One Republican DoJ person could leak the testimony to the Republicans to allow them to cover their tracks better than they otherwise could. It may be Republican DoJ people making the noise.

These are unusual times and circumstances.
If I were on that committee, I'd probably do the same thing.

They're moving up the tree of responsibility - as investigations often do. You do not want the heads of this snake to slither away spinning what they tell the committee around what they learn the committee knows. It is tougher to do that if they don't know all that the committee knows. The DoJ does that themselves when they investigate and know why one would do that.

In these circumstances, I might release some of the testimony and maybe redactions of it to appease or mislead.

This was NOT a one man operation. The support Trump got was widespread.

When the committee is done, they can release it carefully.

[Novara]

6. Unless you know how many republicans are working in the DOJ and can sabotage these ...

... investigations, I suggest toning down the accusations. Because Garland may have been successfully and quietly cleaning house all along. None of us know what the political makeup of the DOJ is, and if any R-leaning people are even close to these investigations. The DOJ is HUGE and they cover all of these programs.

I highly doubt the committee is hanging onto transcripts because Politco wants us to believe there's a turf war. It's quite possible there are good reasons to not share the information at this time, and they don't feel like sharing them with the public.

However, I agree with you that there really should be some stuff the committee can release without having to give it all up. The DOJ needs these materials and they should be cooperating.

[inthewind21]

9. Why

Doesn't the DOJ have their own investigations? That is their job after all.

[inthewind21]

10. Well

One would think the DOJ has their own investigations and material. It's been 18 months since J6. Are they trying to say they can't do their own job?

[bigtree]

11. everyone with any knowledge of how prosecutions work knows well they have their own evidence

...what they've argued to the committee since April is that the evidence they use in court, which the committee has obliged themself of, along with their own testimony and depositions they present in the hearings, needs to be reconciled with what Congress is releasing in the public. Not in the hearings, but in actual grand juries in action right now, and in upcoming and current court hearings and trials.

DOJ is complaining that not only do they have interest in testimony and depositions Congress is releasing publicly in their hearings they may not have (they can't tell us or Congress what they actually have), but defense counsels for the accused also have rights in court to those materials and are presently demanding access to those items which may be relevant to their prosecution or defense.

Govt. prosecutors have an obligation in court to produce ALL evidence to the court and defense they will use against defendants. It's not negotiable. Defense attorneys have already made such demands in one of the first Proud Boy hearings the DOJ had gotten scheduled for August. Without the ability to produce these materials and documents, they are hampered in the evidence they can use in trial, and have sought to delay the August trial until December.

That decision to delay the trial is ultimately up to the judge and is still pending. This shouldn't be made even harder for prosecutors by Congress defending their turf.

[Novara]

17. thank you

The way I see it, the DOJ is keen about comparing the evidence they do have with the evidence the committee has, and to see if there's additional evidence someone missed somewhere. If they don't have ALL the evidence they are hampered in potential areas they can pursue for prosecution.

Lordy Bob, it behooves us all to prosecute the motherfuckers to the fullest extent of the law, and the committee is NOT helping.

Stop blaming the DOJ, guys. They're doing their job. The committee is the holdup.

Remember, the committee's job is fact-finding. The DOJ's job is to prosecute. The DOJ needs ALL the evidence in order to build a strong case, which is what we all want.

[bigtree]

8. you can't parse what you provide the defense

...if you're going to use the evidence against them.

It's a risk in each and every prosecution that defense counsel will share that information with someone outside the hearing. It's inevitable, because they're often involved in several cases at once.

It's one reason to be cautious, but it isn't as if Congress is trying to keep it secret. More importantly, DOJ knows what they need to make their prosecutions work, more so than Congress which is more than an arm's length away from their court cases.

Besides, this is Biden's DOJ, notwithstanding the career attorneys who span successive presidencies, and are only there because they know how to prosecute, and want to win cases in court as much or more than anyone looking on from the outside.

The career appointees are jettisoned at the start of any presidency transitioning between parties, and Trump's have been replaced with Biden picks.

from February, 2021:

Justice Dept. Directs Trump-Appointed U.S. Attorneys to Leave
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/us/politics/justice-department-us-attorneys.html

U.S. attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in the Justice Department’s offices around the country, are typically political appointments made by presidents. When former President Donald J. Trump’s appointees leave office, their positions will be filled by acting officials, most often career prosecutors from those offices, until their replacements are confirmed, the department said in a statement on Tuesday.

“We are committed to ensuring a seamless transition,” Mr. Wilkinson said in the statement. “Until U.S. attorney nominees are confirmed, the interim and acting leaders in the U.S. attorneys’ offices will make sure that the department continues to accomplish its critical law enforcement mission, vigorously defend the rule of law and pursue the fair and impartial administration of justice for all.”

The Justice Department said that about one-third of the nation’s 94 U.S. attorneys’ offices were already being overseen by acting or interim leaders, and that President Biden would announce his nominees later.

[ashredux]

3. Garland has been "cleaning house"...it is slow... it is moving forward

The DOJ will get what they need.

[malaise]

5. THIS

Slobby planted his Politburo everywhere

[wnylib]

4. This coverage of the issue of sharing

info and making referrals looks less biased to me than the Politico coverage.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/13/politics/thompson-january-6-trump-criminal-referral-justice-department/index.html

[bigtree]

12. the gist is the same

"Pressed again on whether the committee would ever make a formal referral to the Justice Department, the Mississippi Democrat said, "No, that's not our job."

It damn well should be their job to make certain what they uncover is made part of the ongoing and upcoming prosecutions the DOJ is engaged in.

[wnylib]

13. His was just one quote in the article.

Other committee members said they still had to vote on it.

So no definitive decision has been made by the committee yet. All the info will be available when the hearings are finished. In the meantime, there are good reasons for caution about sharing info when there are ongoing trials at DOJ. Submitting information to DOJ at this point would mean that defense lawyers in the current trials could gain information that would be used not just by defendants, but shared with other suspects still under investigation. DOJ can postpone trials and has mentioned doing that so that they have pertinent info for those trials without jeopardizing the J6 committee's investigations.

All that's going on now is a situation of conflicts of interest that no one is intentionally creating. It goes with the territory of 2 large investigations going on simultaneously. The problem can and will be resolved.

Meantime, media are playing it up for their own reasons, whatever they might be. Politico often tends to bias its coverage in ways that paint Dems in a negative light.

[bigtree]

14. DOJ has been asking since April, repeatedly

....the committee has told DOJ they can have the materials in September, well after the upcoming Proud Boys trial referenced in their court statements.

It's mostly sparked by defense requests in Discovery, obligations which the DOJ must fulfill if they want to use the evidence against the perps. In this case, it's actually the defense which is leading the calls to delay the trial, due to the information coming out of the hearings which they say may predudice their defense.

Josh Gerstein @joshgerstein 22h
JUST IN: Defendant in Proud Boys case set for trial in DC in August seeks delay to December, citing publicity around House #Jan6 hearings.

Doc: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.229062/gov.uscourts.dcd.229062.403.0_2.pdf


Look at what DOJ is requesting, and look at what's actually happening on the ground in front of us.

Link to tweet

[wnylib]

15. Whatever your reasons are for

dissatisfaction with the committee, I do not share them. I see the media stirring up a tempest in a teapot.

Have a nice day.

'Bye.

[bigtree]

18. my 'reasons' are right there in my posts

...beyond the link you fixated on.

It's serious until its not. Let's hope this impasse doesn't last until September.

[Deminpenn]

7. Couldn't agree more

When I heard Thompson say "it's (the depositions) our work product" and the committee wasn't going to share it with DoJ, I thought it sounded juvenile, like a 3 yr old throwing a fit.

Being a retired federal civil servant, it felt like a standard bureaucratic turf war, something no one needs to be doing right now.

[MineralMan]

16. I think there are two groups involved in what you describe.

One, and the largest group, is made up of people who have a poor understanding of the criminal justice system at the federal level. Especially when the target subjects are very high ranking former officials. This group is frustrated with the time required and the complexity of bringing cases to trial, so frustration and impatience sometimes lead that group to make assumptions that too little is being done and too slowly.

However, there is a smaller group that is actively engaged in spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the DOJ's efforts. That group does understand the situation, but chooses to foment frustration and impatience, because that potentially interferes with the process.

The difficulty is in differentiating between the two groups. I cannot tell which is which on an individual basis. I wish I could.

In the end, what you describe does interfere with people's understanding of what's going on. For the second group, that is the goal.

We see both groups here on DU. Why? Because this is a political discussion forum, and thus is a likely place for both groups to say what they have to say.

Complicating all of this is the question of separation of powers. That partially explains the reluctance of the legislative brand supplying full information to the executive branch, which includes the DOJ. It's a bit of a turf war, really.