DOJ Criminal Investigation Discussion

[SSHoya]

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has asked the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack for transcripts of interviews it is conducting, which have included discussions with associates of former President Donald J. Trump, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

SOURCE: NY Times, May 17, 2022

AAG for Criminal Division Kenneth Polite and US Attorney for DC Matthew Graves made request on April 20th relevant to a criminal investigation.

Nail the seditious dotards.

www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/5/17/2098605/-Step-by-Step-NY-Times-reports-that-DoJ-requests-1-6-transcripts?pm_campaign=blog&pm_medium=rss&pm_source=

[SSHoya]

State and local prosecutors as well. Likely the states with the MAGA GOP false electors and the Georgia special grand jury investigation.

The Justice Department has asked the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress to share the results of its interviews — a rare moment of potential collaboration between the criminal investigation of the riot and the legislative inquiry.

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), the chair of the committee, told reporters Tuesday that the Justice Department — and some state and local investigators — requested that the committee share copies of interviews conducted by House lawmakers and investigators.

“My understanding is they want to have access to our work product, and we told them, ‘No, we’re not giving that to anybody,’” Thompson said. The committee may allow investigators to review records in the committee’s office, he said.

www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/17/justice-jan-6-house-transcripts/

[SSHoya]

The crime-fraud exception would apply to vitiate any claim of privilege. As the article notes, this the same judge who already determined by a preponderance of the evidence that Eastman and the orange psychopath criminally conspired to illegally delay or stop the certification of the election.

www.politico.com/news/2022/05/20/eastman-trump-role-legal-overturn-election-00034023

[SSHoya]

DOJ ramping up.

Peter Navarro, a former White House aide to Donald Trump, says he’s been served a grand jury subpoena by federal prosecutors probing the Jan. 6 insurrection — and claims they have asked for records of “any communications” with the former president.

www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/05/30/peter-navarro-grand-jury-trump-00035904

[SSHoya]

More supporters of the orange psychopath and MAGA "Republicans" indicted for seditious conspiracy. And no comments from our HoyaTalk "Republicans"? Or instead are you simply contributing to the Proud Boys's defense fund?

Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, longtime chairman of the extremist group Proud Boys, was indicted on a new federal charge of seditious conspiracy with four top lieutenants on Monday. The charges expand the Justice Department’s allegations of an organized plot to unleash political violence to prevent the confirmation of President Biden’s election victory on Jan. 6, 2021, when a pro-Trump mob attacked the U.S. Capitol.

www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/06/tarrio-proud-boys-seditious-conpiracy/

[SSHoya]

Consciousness of guilt in the fake elector conspiracy. If the supporters of the "soft" coup believe that the Green Bay Sweep was legal, why the secrecy?

A staffer for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign instructed Republicans planning to cast electoral college votes for Trump in Georgia despite Joe Biden’s victory to operate in “complete secrecy,” an email obtained by The Washington Post shows.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/fake-trump-electors-ga-told-shroud-plans-secrecy-email-shows/

[DanMcQ]

[SSHoya]

If the former President is charged, what exactly would the charges be, and how tough would the case be to prosecute? To talk about this, I recently spoke by phone with Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. (She resigned from her position, which she’d held since 2010, in the early days of the Trump Administration.) During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why Trump’s mind-set is so important to any criminal case, the arguments he might make to defend himself, and whether the Justice Department is too concerned about the optics of charging a former President.

www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-two-pronged-test-that-could-put-trump-in-prison?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_061422&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&utm_term=tny_daily_digest&bxid=60eb3ca9fc56726d5a7d06bd&cndid=65667993&hasha=c17e2afcbe826627e33d6ef97bb296a3&hashb=50dbe655e98f214af28c2b4c050d55a3fb4c32e2&hashc=1c2906f8d0962167e501299a4844b40bdc997624479fec636a58094b40592bf1&esrc=growl2-regGate-0521&mbid=CRMNYR012019

[SSHoya]

More Americans say former President Trump should face criminal charges in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to a new poll.

The ABC News-Ipsos survey published on Sunday found that 58 percent of respondents said Trump should be criminally charged, while 40 percent of respondents said Trump should not face charges.


Forty-six percent of respondents said that they believe Trump bears a great amount of responsibility for the Capitol attack, and 12 percent of those surveyed said that the former president bears a good amount of responsibility. Seventeen percent of respondents, by comparison, said Trump bears some amount of responsibility for what transpired on Jan 6., and 24 percent of those surveyed believe Trump bears no responsibility for the Capitol insurrection.

A similar ABC News-Washington Post-ABC News poll published in early May found that 52 percent of those surveyed said Trump should be criminally charged for his role in the Jan 6 insurrection, while 42 percent disagreed.

SOURCE: The Hill, June 19, 2022

[tashoya]

Jun 19, 2022 18:03:50 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

More Americans say former President Trump should face criminal charges in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to a new poll.

The ABC News-Ipsos survey published on Sunday found that 58 percent of respondents said Trump should be criminally charged, while 40 percent of respondents said Trump should not face charges.


Forty-six percent of respondents said that they believe Trump bears a great amount of responsibility for the Capitol attack, and 12 percent of those surveyed said that the former president bears a good amount of responsibility. Seventeen percent of respondents, by comparison, said Trump bears some amount of responsibility for what transpired on Jan 6., and 24 percent of those surveyed believe Trump bears no responsibility for the Capitol insurrection.

A similar ABC News-Washington Post-ABC News poll published in early May found that 52 percent of those surveyed said Trump should be criminally charged for his role in the Jan 6 insurrection, while 42 percent disagreed.

SOURCE: The Hill, June 19, 2022

So, 24% of people are completely divorced from reality and, apparently, hate American democracy? That sounds less than great.

[SSHoya]

Jun 19, 2022 21:28:57 GMT -5 tashoya said:

Jun 19, 2022 18:03:50 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

More Americans say former President Trump should face criminal charges in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to a new poll.

The ABC News-Ipsos survey published on Sunday found that 58 percent of respondents said Trump should be criminally charged, while 40 percent of respondents said Trump should not face charges.


Forty-six percent of respondents said that they believe Trump bears a great amount of responsibility for the Capitol attack, and 12 percent of those surveyed said that the former president bears a good amount of responsibility. Seventeen percent of respondents, by comparison, said Trump bears some amount of responsibility for what transpired on Jan 6., and 24 percent of those surveyed believe Trump bears no responsibility for the Capitol insurrection.

A similar ABC News-Washington Post-ABC News poll published in early May found that 52 percent of those surveyed said Trump should be criminally charged for his role in the Jan 6 insurrection, while 42 percent disagreed.

SOURCE: The Hill, June 19, 2022

So, 24% of people are completely divorced from reality and, apparently, hate American democracy? That sounds less than great.

Probably the same 24% of fools who gave the grifter $250 million. Ignorant fools but can they claim that "they vote their wallets?"

[hoyarooter]

Jun 19, 2022 21:28:57 GMT -5 tashoya said:

Jun 19, 2022 18:03:50 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

More Americans say former President Trump should face criminal charges in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to a new poll.

The ABC News-Ipsos survey published on Sunday found that 58 percent of respondents said Trump should be criminally charged, while 40 percent of respondents said Trump should not face charges.


Forty-six percent of respondents said that they believe Trump bears a great amount of responsibility for the Capitol attack, and 12 percent of those surveyed said that the former president bears a good amount of responsibility. Seventeen percent of respondents, by comparison, said Trump bears some amount of responsibility for what transpired on Jan 6., and 24 percent of those surveyed believe Trump bears no responsibility for the Capitol insurrection.

A similar ABC News-Washington Post-ABC News poll published in early May found that 52 percent of those surveyed said Trump should be criminally charged for his role in the Jan 6 insurrection, while 42 percent disagreed.

SOURCE: The Hill, June 19, 2022

So, 24% of people are completely divorced from reality and, apparently, hate American democracy? That sounds less than great.

Deplorables.

[SSHoya]

I hope the mango maniac throws Eastman under the bus. Then, maybe Eastman flips on the orange psycho. The "barely knows him" defense won't work since a federal court already determined that Eastman had established an attorney-client relationship with the orange psycho and found that by a preponderance of the evidence that both had committed felonies; thus, the crime-fraud exception applied to Eastman's emails.

With the Justice Department and Jan. 6 committee taking a close look at Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, he and his cronies could certainly use a fall guy, and it looks like they’ve found their patsy: right-wing lawyer John Eastman.

Eastman worked for Trump as the attorney devised legal strategies to overturn the election to keep the outgoing president in power. But, in recent weeks, Trump has confided to those close to him that he sees no reason to publicly defend Eastman, two people familiar with the matter tell Rolling Stone. The ex-president is also deeply annoyed with Eastman and all the negative “attention” and media coverage that the lawyer’s work has brought Trump and his inner sanctum, including during the ongoing Jan. 6 hearings on Capitol Hill.

Furthermore, to those who’ve spoken Trump about Eastman in recent months, the ex-president has repeated an excuse he often uses when backed into a corner, as investigators confront him with an associates’ misdeeds: He has privately insisted he “hardly” or “barely” knows Eastman, despite the fact that he counseled Trump on taking a string of extra-legal measures in a bid to stay in power and wrote the so-called “coup memo,” which laid out the facsimile of a legal argument for reversing Trump’s election defeat.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jan6-eastman-trump-committee-investigation-pardons-1371419/

[SSHoya]

With the latest Jan. 6 congressional hearings focusing on what then-President Trump’s closest advisers and associates told him—that there was no fraud in the 2020 elections and that Vice President Pence did not have legal authority to refuse to count Electoral College votes—many observers are (once again) speculating about Trump’s potential criminal liability. Make no mistake, no responsible Justice Department prosecutor would restrict her analysis to the law and the facts when deciding whether to bring any criminal case, let alone one against a former president. Considerations of the public interest will regularly counsel against a prosecution, even when the elements of an offense can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

But a foundational premise for those calling for criminal charges against Trump is that the law and facts support such charges. And assessing that premise requires an understanding of the relevant law, including the doctrine of “willful blindness.”

www.lawfareblog.com/actual-knowledge-willful-blindness-and-jan-6-hearings

[SSHoya]

DOJ ramping up . . .

The Justice Department’s investigation of the Jan. 6 attack ratcheted up Wednesday as federal agents dropped subpoenas on people in at least two states, in what appeared to be a widening probe of how political activists supporting President Donald Trump tried to use invalid electors to thwart Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory.

Agents conducted court authorized law enforcement activity Wednesday morning at two locations, FBI officials confirmed to The Washington Post. One was the home of Brad Carver, a Georgia lawyer who allegedly signed a document claiming to be a Trump elector. The other was the Virginia home of Thomas Lane, who worked on the Trump campaign’s efforts in Arizona and New Mexico. The FBI officials did not identify the people associated with those addresses, but public records list each of the locations as the home addresses of the men.

www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/06/22/jan6-fbi-electors-subpoenas/

[SSHoya]

FBI reportedly executed a Court-authorized search warrant on Jeffrey Bossert Clark's house in Northern Virginia. I wonder if the FBI timed its reported search with the 1/6 Select Committee Hearing today. Sneaky. But I like it if it did.

Ha ha ha. I hope you lose your bar license you effing ambitious power-hungry POS. "Go back to your office and we'll call you if there's an oil spill." Ha ha ha.

Federal investigators descended on the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official, on Wednesday in connection with the department’s sprawling inquiry into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to people familiar with the matter.

It remained unclear exactly what the investigators may have been looking for, but Mr. Clark was central to President Donald J. Trump’s unsuccessful effort in late 2020 to strong-arm the nation’s top prosecutors into supporting his claims of election fraud.

The law enforcement action at Mr. Clark’s home in suburban Virginia came just one day before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol was poised to hold a hearing examining Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure the Justice Department after his election defeat.

www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/politics/jeffrey-clark-trump-justice-dept.html?fbclid=IwAR2UhJEYivcg6h73DgLYoGQVnDHlM1H61sqbi8YfIO9_xCtJ8N3UiV9kyYg

How appropriate that Clark's house is in Lorton, Virginia, the former location of the District of Columbia's prison.

Asked if federal authorities were at Clark’s home in Lorton, Va., on Wednesday, around the time that federal agents were delivering subpoenas and taking other investigative steps around the country, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office confirmed that “there was law enforcement activity in that general area yesterday."

www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/06/23/jeffrey-clark-house-search/

[hoyarooter]

The Big Insurrectionist did a really rotten job hiring his DOJ assistant attorney generals. Whoever gave TBI advice on these folks should have been fired long ago. Who would have thought that they would actually have the gumption to tell TBI to go F himself if he brought in Jeffrey Clark to be AG? Shocking and shameful.

[hoya73]

Jun 23, 2022 19:40:48 GMT -5 hoyarooter said:

The Big Insurrectionist did a really rotten job hiring his DOJ assistant attorney generals. Whoever gave TBI advice on these folks should have been fired long ago. Who would have thought that they would actually have the gumption to tell TBI to go F himself if he brought in Jeffrey Clark to be AG? Shocking and shameful.

But, not surprising that they lacked the cojones to go publlc with an account of that meeting as soon as it happened.

[hoyarooter]

Jun 24, 2022 9:57:18 GMT -5 hoya73 said:

Jun 23, 2022 19:40:48 GMT -5 hoyarooter said:

The Big Insurrectionist did a really rotten job hiring his DOJ assistant attorney generals. Whoever gave TBI advice on these folks should have been fired long ago. Who would have thought that they would actually have the gumption to tell TBI to go F himself if he brought in Jeffrey Clark to be AG? Shocking and shameful.

But, not surprising that they lacked the cojones to go publlc with an account of that meeting as soon as it happened.

I would like SS's view on this, but it seems to me that going public while still working at DOJ would not have been appropriate, even though what was happening here was truly radical and outrageous.

[SSHoya]

Jun 24, 2022 18:24:04 GMT -5 hoyarooter said:

Jun 24, 2022 9:57:18 GMT -5 hoya73 said:

But, not surprising that they lacked the cojones to go publlc with an account of that meeting as soon as it happened.

I would like SS's view on this, but it seems to me that going public while still working at DOJ would not have been appropriate, even though what was happening here was truly radical and outrageous.

Based upon my 30 years at DOJ it would have been difficult to disclose the insanity they witnessed. However, there is an office, the Professional Responsibilty Advisory Office (PRAO) from whom you may seek ethics guidance prior to taking an action that raises ethical issues. However, that typically renders opinions to line attorneys and the senior levels may not necessarily use it.

Essentially, it actually raised 25th Amendment issues I think.