As Adam Schiff continues to complain about the DOJ, he leaves something out.

[fightforfreedom]

The Committee refused to cooperate with the DOJ. Long ago the DOJ asked the committee for the transcripts of their interviews. They needed their evidence. You need all the evidence before you can move forward with prosecutions.

It has been reported the DOJ was surprised by the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony. If that's true, then why didn't the committee turn over her transcripts to the DOJ before she testified in front of the country. Why did they blindside the DOJ. Maybe there was a good reason the DOJ has not interviewed people like Hutchinson yet. The committee did not turn over all their evidence to the DOJ until last month. They withheld evidence from the DOJ, that is a fact.

People like Schiff have the right to complain the DOJ is moving too slowly. However they slowed things down by not cooperating with the DOJ. It was a turf battle.

There are two sides to every story.

[Emile]

1. I agree with the Adam Schiff side.

[gab13by13]

2. So do I

The sedition caucus plans to hold an investigation into Schiff, we certainly do not need to help them out.

The Magats understand that Schiff is one of the top Democratic leaders and that is why they are going after him.

[hlthe2b]

21. So do I!!!

[Magoo48]

26. Me too.

[mountain grammy]

34. Me too!

He is exactly right on this..

[Peregrine Took]

40. Me, too.

[FakeNoose]

44. Yes because DOJ made no effort to reciprocate

If the Committee had turned over their evidence, it would have been gone forever. I don't blame them one bit.

Now that the House J-6 Committee has concluded, well sure they can turn over what they have to the Feds.

[lostnfound]

77. I do too. And two years of imminent threat is too much.

None of the leaders have been held accountable and in fact they have grown in power in the house, will be a force to be reckoned with .

[Native]

3. His point was this....

Look what our little committee was able to accomplish in 2 years and compare that with what the DOJ and their more formidable manpower and budget accomplished.

I imagine that if you personally served on that committee (put yourself in his shoes), you'd likely feel the same way.

[gab13by13]

8. All I know is this,

the Magat sedition caucus plans to go after Schiff. I ask my friend fff, why do you suppose that Magats in the House want to bring Schiff down? Do we really need to help them out?

The J6 committee was not a prosecutorial body, it was an investigative body which was created to find out the causes of the insurrection and what to do to make sure it never happens again.

The job of DOJ is to hold people accountable who are behind this ongoing insurrection. The insurrection was not defeated on J6, it is growing.

In the words of Adam Schiff, "Too much caution turns into immunity." Well said Mr. Schiff.

[fightforfreedom]

30. Then Schiff should have turned over the committee evidence immediately to the DOJ.

Even if Garland had finished his investigation he could not move forward until he received the evidence the committee found. You need all the evidence.

The committee withheld evidence from the DOJ until last month. It's a fact. Was the committee using too much caution?

[PuraVidaDreamin]

56. Maybe Liz was the one who didn't want to turn it over?

We don't know all the particulars.

[treestar]

52. DOJ does not have just one case to work on

They prosecute all federal crimes. The Committee didn't have much else to do, unless there was a bill that might get a Senate vote, and the other reps not on the committee could do a lot of that work.

[panader0]

74. Yeah, I think a part of the reason the J-6 committee withheld stuff for a while was to scold the DOJ

[Orrex]

4. If nothing else, Trump should already have been arrested for stealing classified docs

And held without bail pending trial due to credible flight risk. Other charges could follow, but there’s no reason that he should be walking free while people languish in jail for much lesser crimes.

Someone at this point usually jumps in to assure me that we have one system of equal justic for all, despite numerous daily reminders to the contrary.

[Mister Ed]

5. My own speculation is that..

...the reason the J6 committee wouldn't share its evidence with the DOJ is that there are Trump cultists within the DOJ who might pass the information along.

It stands to reason. There are Trump cultists throughout the population. There are some in my workplace, and in almost everyone else's. It defies logic that there could be none in the DOJ.

That's my own personal speculation.

[Native]

6. My speculation is that they are wrapping it up so it's a slam dunk when they indict TFG.

[gab13by13]

11. Who is wrapping up? DOJ?

They are only now asking for communications gathered by the Michigan SOS regarding the fake elector scheme. The Michigan SOS sent a criminal referral to DOJ over a year ago. It has taken Jack Smith to follow up on her referral, DOJ did nothing.

[Native]

16. Rhetorical question for the win.

Seriously, don't you think they have to have an airtight case if they indict that sick SOB? Look what happened with the Mueller investigation. Any slip up, any little pinprick of a hole, any room for his disgusting ass to wiggle is dangerous.

And in the last few weeks several well connected individuals have expressed confidence that he'll be indicted in the next few months, like by the end of March.

[gab13by13]

24. Every former prosecutor that I have listened to on TV

has said there is more than enough evidence right now to indict Trump on several crimes. Some of the crimes are more complicated and DOJ should not even go after Trump for those more complicated crimes, seditious conspiracy would be hard to prove.

Give me the name of one prosecutor or former prosecutor who feels that more evidence is needed to indict Trump for his theft of documents. Just give me one name.

[Native]

28. I said they've been saying it's imminent.

[treestar]

54. commenting on TV is not the same as actually having

to do it.

If he were acquitted that would be really bad.

[Tree Lady]

73. Maybe they are afraid of jurors

All it takes is one republican on the jury to let him off. And can you imagine if the jury was only democrats?

I have been thinking they are trying to make it so absolutely sure even a republican will feel pushed to say guilty.

[Genki Hikari]

75. You do realize that the DOJ indicts no one

Grand juries do.

If the grand jury won't indict, for whatever reason, then the DOJ's hands are tied with moving forward.

[gab13by13]

9. I agree with your speculation,

there was a good possibility that the evidence that the J6 committee gathered could have found its way to Trump and others had they turned it over.

[mopinko]

10. that's what i think, too. and still.

there r leave behinds burrowed throughout the fed govt. til i read about a blizzard of pink slips i’m going to assume there still wreaking havoc.

[fightforfreedom]

25. The committee could have given the evidence to Garland directly.

Let Garland worry about who to share it with.

[intheflow]

29. My supposition as well.

The J6 Committee played it all close to the vest because it was clear early on that the DOJ was compromised under Trump and they wanted to have their facts in order to be able to deflect any attempt from within to undermine their work.

[cachukis]

49. Agreed.

[Lovie777]

7. Schiff knows that the DOJ is on top of this ......

he also knows that the military is on high alert because of the insurgents, and they know too.

RWers may have more money than us, but we have the reason for democracy survival.

[GoCubsGo]

12. He also knows they can't give RWers more chances to accuse the DOJ

of being on a political witch hunt. No doubt they will anyway, but this just shows the people that the evidence is to the contrary to their claims.

Also...What Mr. Ed said above.

[gab13by13]

15. Isn't going out of the way to ne non-partisan, being partisan?

If DOJ's main concern is to not appear to be partisan then god help all of us.

I do not believe that Merrick Garland has made up his mind yet if it is proper to indict a former president, and the more I see, that may also include sitting members of Congress.

[gab13by13]

13. So then why, in your opinion,

is Schiff lying? If Schiff knows that DOJ is on top of this what purpose is he serving by questioning DOJ's lack of urgency?

Adam Schiff would not say that too much caution leads to immunity if he believed that DOJ was on top of this.

I believe Adam Schiff. DOJ has a record to be judged on, it's 2 years and counting since the attack on our Capitol and neither Trump nor his inner circle have been held accountable. There are still classified documents that are unaccounted for.

The sedition caucus is in control of the House of Representatives. The insurrection is growing and only people like Schiff seem to see that.

[agingdem]

14. I agree..

I think the world of Adam Schiff but I get tired of his DOJ broadsides...as a former prosecutor he is well aware justice is slow moving...it took the J6 committee 18 months before they issued their final report..from the onset of the committee, they were inundated with new information/new witnesses every day...subpoenas were issued and subpoenas were ignored..all this took time..and unlike DOJ investigations shrouded in secrecy, members of the J6 committee would hit the cable talk shows with "blow the roof off the house"/"worse than we thought" teasers..and, yet, the transcripts and final report were released only days before the Republicans were set to take over the House...so Adam Schiff can insinuate and attempt to intimidate Garland and the DOJ, but he, like us, have no choice but to wait..

[gab13by13]

18. Donald Trump stole classified documents

some of which revealed sources and methods. "Sources and methods" means that our foreign agents were outed and most likely killed.

There are still classified documents unaccounted for. Trump stole documents related to information on military nuclear weapons and the answer is we should wait and get our ducks in a row?

In my opinion, had DOJ held Trump and his inner circle accountable the Magats would not have won the House. Just wait and see what damage these traitors are going to do now that they have more power.

[Emile]

22. Great points!

[fightforfreedom]

37. No, they are not.

[Emile]

39. Yes they are 😊

[fightforfreedom]

42. We just received proof the DOJ is still investigating the secret document case.

The DOJ just went to a judge to force Trump to give up the names of the people who searched his properties for documents. They are still investigating for a reason. They are not still investigating for the hell of it. Something is going on we don't know about it.

Trump may still be obstructing justice, hiding evidence, committing crimes.

[Autumn]

48. I think the people who searched for the docs will be prosecuted before Trump will. nt

[AZSkiffyGeek]

33. How do you know what those secret documents say?

Oh, right you don't. Neither do any pundits on TV. Neither do Laurence Tribe. Or Glenn Kirschner. Adam Schiff might, but he's not going to tell you.
You know why? Because they're "TOP SECRET".
Here's a little clue for you. When the words "TOP SECRET" are used, you aren't going to learn what is in them. Because random posters on the Internet don't get to find out what is in "TOP SECRET" files.

[Meowmee]

43. Agree

There was already enough to have charged and arrested him etc. According to two prosecutors who resigned over it AB also had enough evidence to proceed in NY for that case.

[fightforfreedom]

19. Good post.

The committee also didn't have to have to track down over 900 people around the country, arrest them, indict them and put them on trial.

Even if the DOJ had interviewed people like Cassidy Hutchinson before the committee, they still would have had to wait for the committees evidence before they could move forward. The committee could have shared evidence, the transcripts, with Garland earlier. They decided not to. That slowed things down. It's a fact.

[gab13by13]

27. I ask you once again,

give me the name of one prosecutor, one former prosecutor who believes that DOJ needs more evidence to indict Donald Trump for his theft of documents.

The manpower and clout that DOJ has compared with the J6 committee is mountainous. DOJ can issue search warrants, DOJ can enforce subpoenas. Give me a break, there is no comparison and still the J6 committee put DOJ to shame.

You are incorrect, if DOJ had to wait for the J6 committee's evidence then our country is truly fucked.

[fightforfreedom]

35. Garland and Smith believe they need more evidence. That's all that matters.

It was just reported they just went to a judge to force Trump to give up the names of the people who he hired to search his properties for missing documents. Trump may still be committing crimes in that investigation and the DOJ is paying attention.

By the way, you cannot prosecute without all the evidence. That would be incompetent, negligent, and you could lose the case. Of course they need the committees evidence. To say they don't is absurd.

[agingdem]

45. you're right

they can't go into court without all the evidence and the law to back it up..they can't go into court without a slam dunk unambiguous incontrovertible charge because we're on their asses and they want to make us happy..

[CentralMass]

17. I agree with Adam Schiff.

[gab13by13]

20. The sedition caucus nominated Trump to be Speaker,

they are fucking laughing at us, throwing what they did back into our faces.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

23. Team Adam Schiff all the way.

[Pobeka]

31. I highly recommend listening to the "Jack" podcast -- Andrew McCabe & Allison Gill

They do a great job IMHO of conveying actual legal challenges and procedures the DOJ must get through in order to get a case with good chance of conviction.

Andrew McCabe was a former deputy director of the FBI, ousted by TFG

While I think the J6 committee was doing great work in the court of public opinion, there are complications created with the parallel investigations that now the DOJ must handle.

I found the podcast very illuminating and understand why the DOJ can't move so fast on the J6 side of things. The classified document theft is a cleaner case, for many reasons. I believe we will see indictments on this very soon.

Just my two cents.

[fightforfreedom]

32. You get it, some people never will.

These investigations are complicated, they take time. There was a turf battle between the committee and the DOJ. Schiff is offering his opinion. I simply pointed out the inconsistencies of his opinion.

[LenaBaby61]

38. THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[hlthe2b]

41. It seems like some are conflating a lot of issues here and sugggesting those who

believe Schiff was right about DOJ working too slowly are instead claiming that DOJ SC Jack Smith is doing that (moving too slowly) NOW. That is not at all what I see people arguing. DOJ and Jan 6 committees have different roles and methods. That DOJ appeared to be many many months behind the committee is hard to argue, yet the committee was still working at the point DOJ was seeking transcripts (before Smith came on board). Knowing DOJ has Trump infiltration and that the committee had a need to gain more testimony, they sought to protect THEIR process first, rather than let testimony possibly slip to inform other Trump figures. That hardly left DOJ with no tools--the damned hearings alone were all but a NEON lit roadmap, as well as the work of Fannie Willis in Fulton CO, GA, the NY STATE inquiries, the inquiries into the fake electors that MI AG had started, as well as in GA and AZ.

Now, that having been said, DOJ may have been slow to focus beyond the foot soldiers on Jan 6, but I see them rapidly catching up. And it is likewise true that they need very solid evidence to proceed with prosecutions that will stand up to cross-examination, something the committee was not faced with. So, my comments are not in any way a blanket criticism of the DOJ's efforts thus far, including many that we are not privy to. But, I don't see cause to criticize Schiff--a former prosecutor in his own right. It does appear that DOJ WAS caught flat-footed for many months during the time the committee's hearings were giving them plenty to consider. That the committee was served by prosecutors, investigators, and others who formerly had worked within the most critical parts of DOJ Main, meant that they were relating what DOJ would be interested in and how to present it. My guess is it was some of these who recommended hanging onto the transcripts until the committee's work had ended.

But no. Agreeing with aspects of Schiff's comments and arguments DOES NOT EQUAL DUers necessarily accusing the current DOJ investigation as "doing nothing" nor suggesting that the committee had given them EVERYTHING necessary for prosecutions to have begun sans further investigation. Nor does it equate to a lack of understanding of what is required for both groups to do their work--their unique missions--including the very different standards of proof for the DOJ to proceed with prosecutions.

These are complex issues. We do each other no good simplifying it so much that it skews what many on this thread are ACTUALLY saying.

But I do agree with you on the value of that podcast.

[cachukis]

53. Well put.

[fightforfreedom]

36. Schiff believes Garland has been too cautious. That is his opinion.

One can easily argue, Schiff and the committee were being too cautious by withholding evidence from the DOJ for over a year.

Sorry Schiff, You can't have it both ways.

[hlthe2b]

46. And you need to review Separation of Powers. DOJ (Executive BR) v Legislative

To suggest that the committee was withholding information is bunk. They are equal and independent branches that often seek to cooperate on common goals (as is apparent with the meticulous documentation that the Jan 6 committee has provided to the public and DOJ). They were under no expectation nor requirement to provide transcripted testimony to DOJ prior to their completing their work--leaks which could well have impacted the testimony of others they were interviewing. That they were so cautious preempted the MAGAT wing of Congress from leaking all this to Trump and his allies--thereby destroying the validity of any further testimony. And there are conduits between Trump loyalists in Congress, within DOJ, and those being investigated.

See my earlier post (post 41) before trying to accuse me of not understanding DOJ's very different role. I fully appreciate the intensely complex issues for DOJ, Garland, Smith, and others, the probability of what we do and do not know about their work, and what it will take to effectively prosecute any of these cases. I accuse them of nothing except, as Schiff suggests prior to Smith coming on, that there seemed to be a focus entrenched on the 01/06 foot soldiers while a considerable delay or reluctance to fully investigate the organizers and the money trail. He's certainly not alone in believing that. Nearly all the former DOJ and US-DAGs that have weighed in the past couple of years agree. If anyone has a good handle on that it is those who know Merrick Garland personally (e.g., former professor and personal friend, Laurence Tribe) and Andrew Weissman. But they are hardly the only ones.

Yes, this is complex, but it doesn't help to falsely overly simplify what people are saying. There is truth in nearly all the comments on this thread. Schiff is worthy of respect. Merrick Garland and Jack Smith, likewise. Stop personally tearing apart the people that are trying to deliver us justice--even if there are hiccups along the way and differences of opinion on methods, direction, speed, and intermediate outputs.

[PortTack]

51. Last paragraph.....Great summation absolutely lays it out in a nut shell!

[cachukis]

55. Diplomacy, on the highest levels, requires few words.

Schiff is doing his job, as a top manager, nudging the best, to stay on it, as time races.
Garland gets it.
Schiff wants us to know he is aware of our impatience.
He has Garland's ear and a mother's love for reminding us to do well.

[fightforfreedom]

57. I have said I respect Schiff's opinion.

I was simply pointing out there are two sides to every story. The committee did not turn over all their evidence to the DOJ until they were finished. That was their choice. There is no rule, law, that stopped them from turning over important evidence to Garland until they were finished.

It was reported the DOJ was blindsided by the Hutchinson testimony. They could have turned over her testimony to The DOJ before she testified. There may have been some cooperation between the committee and the DOJ, but it is clear to me there were some turf battles going on.

I like Schiff, my post was not about trashing Schiff. My post is about everyone has their opinion. They are just opinions. Schiff has been complaining a long time about the DOJ and when people see that they believe the DOJ is being negligent. They believe Trump and others should have been indicted already. They use Schiffs opinion as evidence.

I did not suggest the committee withheld evidence from the DOJ. They did, it's a fact. They withheld it until they were finished.

[hlthe2b]

60. You know full well that "withhold' has legal implications. They are a separate branch

and had NO (ZERO, ZILCH) legal responsibilities to be providing those transcripts mid-investigation whatsoever. Using the term "withheld implies strongly that they had been requested EARLY ON and were legally REQUIRED to comply. NOT TRUE.

If you had read and fully comprehended what I wrote, you should note that the committee had MANY directing the investigations, interviews, transcripts, and decision-making that were former DOJ attorneys, prosecutors, and investigators. So your suggestion that the committee was merely protecting their turf--rather than WISELY protecting the validity of their continuing investigation shows your bias. Those on the committee who had previously worked with DOJ--as well as the committee themselves had no desire to handicap DOJ, but it is NOT the case that investigations run simultaneously with lateral distribution/sharing of information. In fact, DOJ policies disallow that. I've read every single page of the report and most of the transcripts. If you have, you know that they have meticulously documented everything and intentionally designed their work to do so. What a gift for DOJ to aid their own investigations--something that all those who have previously worked for DOJ have fully acknowledged. Turf wars? Hell no. Two independent branches--separate, but equal-- seeking to do what the constitution designed them to do. And the Jan 6 committee likewise had the responsibility to protect their witnesses from RW House and Trumpist sympathizers' backlash that the premature release of transcripts or other information might have allowed. Different methods at times, and different goals, but with areas for cooperation, and the public release of everything totally confirm that they did. But your pov is noted even while I find it totally biased.

[iemanja]

72. There is one fact you do not mention

Garland chose not to prosecute himself. He appointed Smith to create an air of objectivity, something that has had no such effect.

[iemanja]

47. Patently false

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2023, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)

The committee did turn over materials and is handing over more--ALL OF THEM.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/20/politics/january-6-committee-justice-department-handoff/index.html

CNN
—
The House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, has started handing over evidence and transcripts from its probe to the Department of Justice, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee parts of the DOJ’s investigation into the insurrection, sent a letter to the committee earlier this month requesting all of the information from the panel’s investigation, one of the sources told CNN.

Smith’s investigators will ultimately have all of the evidence the House committee has obtained, the source said.

In previous investigations, DOJ has often been ahead of the relevant committee. This whitewashing of Garland at the expense of people who did a fantastic job is bullshit.

[fightforfreedom]

58. The committee obviously did not hand over some of the most important evidence to the DOJ.

The transcript of Cassidy Hutchinson. They could have given her transcript to the DOJ before she testified. In your post you show the committee starting handing over transcripts long ago. Looks like they left out some important transcripts, evidence, until they were finished. There is a lot we do not know and everyone is expressing their opinions.

[iemanja]

61. Is there some reason DOJ couldn't interview Hutchinson themselves?

They knew she was cooperating with the committee. All it took was one phone call. They have hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal, but somehow they weren't capable of conducting interviews that the committee did with a much smaller staff--that's in your estimation. But we do know that some months later, Cassidy did cooperate with a grand jury--once she was asked.

Since we're expressing opinions, seems to me a lot of people will do just about anything to cover for Garland and DOJ. The evidence is plain to see. You can make all excuses you want. It doesn't change reality.

[fightforfreedom]

66. Ask Garland that question. Everyone is guessing and expressing their opinions.

You are accusing Garland of negligence. You are saying the evidence is showing Garland is negligent, incompetent.

[hlthe2b]

68. It was reported July 27, 2022 that Hutchison was cooperating WITH DOJ!

Do your homework before slinging accusations! They clearly were not waiting--nor did they need to wait-- for the release of transcripts nearly six months later.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3577259-cassidy-hutchinson-jan-6-panel-star-witness-now-cooperating-with-doj-probe/

[iemanja]

71. That's right

And DOJ never needs to wait for congressional hearings to do their job.

[iemanja]

70. I'm saying he chose not to prosecute

and instead appointed Smith to do the job. The notion behind that was that people would see a special prosecutor as more impartial. Clearly that is not the case.

As for his action on Trump, I agree completely with Schiff, and I submit he is in a far better position to gauge the relative strength of the case than the Garland fan club on DU. The constant excuses are wearing thin.
I'm sorry you resent the Jan 6 hearings. Without them, we'd know next to nothing about Trump's involvement in Jan. 6.

[hlthe2b]

67. Reported July27, 2022 that Cassidy was cooperating with DOJ probe

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3577259-cassidy-hutchinson-jan-6-panel-star-witness-now-cooperating-with-doj-probe/

[Autumn]

50. I'll side with Adam Schiff. Jack Smith requested all of the information from the panel's

investigation earlier this month. Did Garland ever request any information? I believe had they requested it they would have gotten it. This is where "Too Much Caution Turns Into Immunity." Maybe the DOJ was surprised, and as you say, blindsided by the Hutchinson testimony because they weren't paying attention. I don't consider Schiff's remarks to be complaining, I say he's finally letting us know how many agencies are not doing their jobs.

[dalton99a]

59. +1. Garland was a well-intentioned but terrible choice for DOJ

[Autumn]

62. What really gets me is that there was never any sense of urgency. The people now in charge of the

house should have been investigated by the DOJ immediately for their known part in the insurrection. The fact that they weren't says a lot.

[dalton99a]

63. Garland is no longer what made him famous

Through each turn of his career, Garland’s work in Oklahoma City has been revisited and commended. After he was nominated to the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia by Bill Clinton, Garland received a letter of support from Oklahoma’s Republican governor, Frank Keating.

“Merrick distinguished himself in a situation where he had to lead a highly complicated investigation and make quick decisions during critical times,” Keating wrote.

Nominating him for a supreme court seat, Barack Obama called Garland’s work on the Oklahoma City bombing case “particularly notable and inspiring”.

“In the wake of the bombing, he traveled to Oklahoma to oversee the case, and in the ensuing months coordinated every aspect of the government’s response,” Obama said, “working with federal agents, rescue workers, local officials, and others to bring the perpetrators to justice.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/01/merrick-garland-oklahoma-city-timothy-mcveigh-attorney-general

-------------------------------

MONTHS, not YEARS

[Autumn]

64. It almost seem that it was decided that going after elected members of Congress

was off the table.

[dalton99a]

65. Yep. Verboten.

[Hotler]

79. +1 nt

[fightforfreedom]

69. I wonder if Garland agrees with Schiff's opinion.

Oh, I forgot. Garland keeps his mouth shut. I guess we will never know.

A lot of people are insinuating Garland is not doing his job. That he has been incompetent and negligent. Time will tell if they are right.

[kacekwl]

76. The more time that goes by

is giving the answer.

[fightforfreedom]

78. No it is not.

Every investigation is moving forward. Some are expanding in size. All the grand juries are still in place doing their work. The DOJ works at their own pace whether people like it or not.