WaPo: DoJ is investigating Trump’s actions.

[GermanSuplex]

The fire is getting hotter. Trump isn’t going away. Garland said in his interview with Lester Holt the J6 hearings - from a legal standpoint - aren’t within their scope. That was actually reassuring. They will still take any evidence given to them, and Garland, being intentionally obtuse, says they have their own investigation and stressed over and over they will prosecute anyone and everyone involved. Given the seizing of evidence from Clark and Eastman, it’s possible they just don’t have many leaks and will drop an unexpected bombshell at any time.

It may be for nothing, but I’m confident in his ability, and I expect he feels the same that doing nothing would be worse than the fallout from prosecuting a former president. There’s a first time for everything, and I can’t think of a better first than Trump. He can add it to his resume of other “firsts”, like losing the popular vote twice and being twice-impeached.

Justice Dept. investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe — The Washington Post

People familiar with the probe said investigators are examining the former president’s conversations with lawyers and advisers and have seized phone records of top aides.

apple.news

 

[sgtaylor5]

Emails Reveal Details of Trump Fake Electors Plan - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Under a paywall, sorry.

"On Twitter, lawyer George Conway wrote: “If you had asked me to hypothesize, for illustrative purposes, a set of emails that prosecutors would find helpful in proving a fake-elector fraud conspiracy, I would not have come up with anything nearly as incriminating as the emails that the Times just reported on today.”" - from HCR Substack newsletter last night.

Trump, meet figurative noose. What a nice way to wake up this morning.

 

[Eric]

The fire is getting hotter. Trump isn’t going away. Garland said in his interview with Lester Holt the J6 hearings - from a legal standpoint - aren’t within their scope. That was actually reassuring. They will still take any evidence given to them, and Garland, being intentionally obtuse, says they have their own investigation and stressed over and over they will prosecute anyone and everyone involved. Given the seizing of evidence from Clark and Eastman, it’s possible they just don’t have many leaks and will drop an unexpected bombshell at any time.

It may be for nothing, but I’m confident in his ability, and I expect he feels the same that doing nothing would be worse than the fallout from prosecuting a former president. There’s a first time for everything, and I can’t think of a better first than Trump. He can add it to his resume of other “firsts”, like losing the popular vote twice and being twice-impeached.

Justice Dept. investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe — The Washington Post

People familiar with the probe said investigators are examining the former president’s conversations with lawyers and advisers and have seized phone records of top aides.

apple.news

Regardless of what party is in power, this will appear to be partisan but the reality is if they don't do anything it will show that even a Democratically appointed AG will have refused to apply the law where it was broken just because he was a president. I hope they do a thorough investigation and follow through as they would any other person, that's how it should be done.

 

[Alli]

I’m so glad this happened. I have been getting so angry at the people who say that Garland is not doing his job. How do they know? Do they work with him? Arggghhh.

 

[Citysnaps]

I’m so glad this happened. I have been getting so angry at the people who say that Garland is not doing his job. How do they know? Do they work with him? Arggghhh.

Totally agree. Apparently some people believe the DOJ and AG should be releasing daily summaries and news releases of leads they're investigating and suspects they are pursuing. I have no worries about Garland.

 

[Eric]

To be fair, to date nobody has lifted a finger to show any interest in charging or prosecuting Trump, including Garland. So you'll have to forgive those of us who are skeptical.

 

[Renzatic]

To be fair, to date nobody has lifted a finger to show any interest in charging or prosecuting Trump, including Garland. So you'll have to forgive those of us who are skeptical.

Garland well understands the stakes that are at play here, and the consequences of rushing a less than stellar case against Trump and his co-conspirators.

I think we'll see the DOJ move against Trump at some point, though it probably won't be as soon as most of us would like.

 

[Citysnaps]

To be fair, to date nobody has lifted a finger to show any interest in charging or prosecuting Trump, including Garland. So you'll have to forgive those of us who are skeptical.

But how would we know as the DOJ doesn't broadcast what they're doing behind closed doors? Releasing any collected information/evidence to the public (which would include trump's and others' attorneys) would jeopardize any potential prosecutions down the road.

 

[Eric]

Garland well understands the stakes that are at play here, and the consequences of rushing a less than stellar case against Trump and his co-conspirators.

I think we'll see the DOJ move against Trump at some point, though it probably won't be as soon as most of us would like.

Heard this in many variations over the years, I'm hopeful but will believe it when I see it.

 

[Citysnaps]

Another bit of good news, though not unexpected...

Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson cooperating with DOJ probe | CNN Politics

Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson is cooperating with the Justice Department's criminal investigation into the plots to subvert the 2020 election, a source with knowledge of the discussions confirmed to CNN.

www.cnn.com

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

If the DOJ ever finds out what a podcast is Trump is fucked. Equally so if they find out what a nationally televised live event is.

But I'm no whistleblower. Hopefully, they'll find out what these things are on their own.

 

[Renzatic]

In the meanwhile, Trump is threatening to sue CNN for defamation.

Trump threatens CNN with lawsuit over ‘defamatory’ reporting

Former President Trump on Wednesday said he planned to file a lawsuit against CNN, alleging the network has repeatedly defamed him dating back to his 2016 campaign for the presidency. “I have notif…

thehill.com

I'll bet $5 he doesn't go through with it, and this is yet another Trumped up (olol) publicity stunt to give him another talking point at his rallies. Anyone want to take me up on that?

 

[Cmaier]

In the meanwhile, Trump is threatening to sue CNN for defamation.

Trump threatens CNN with lawsuit over ‘defamatory’ reporting

Former President Trump on Wednesday said he planned to file a lawsuit against CNN, alleging the network has repeatedly defamed him dating back to his 2016 campaign for the presidency. “I have notif…

thehill.com

I'll bet $5 he doesn't go through with it, and this is yet another Trumped up (olol) publicity stunt to give him another talking point at his rallies. Anyone want to take me up on that?

I hope he sues. Discovery will be awesome.

 

[fooferdoggie]

I hope he sues. Discovery will be awesome.

he has so many dishes in the air but we have not heard anything. I wonder how many he dropped?

 

[Renzatic]

he has so many dishes in the air but we have not heard anything. I wonder how many he dropped?

He hasn't dropped any of them. Any broken dish shards you may or may not see is probably due to Hunter Biden's laptop.

 

[Alli]

To be fair, to date nobody has lifted a finger to show any interest in charging or prosecuting Trump, including Garland. So you'll have to forgive those of us who are skeptical.

They can’t show you their interest. They can’t show you their evidence. They can’t show you their plans.

Patience, grasshopper.

 

[SuperMatt]

They can’t show you their interest. They can’t show you their evidence. They can’t show you their plans.

Patience, grasshopper.

Patience is right. I read an article the other day consisting of interviews with voters aged 18-24. They are so upset that Biden didn’t get them their entire wish list in 1.5 years. Somebody needs to tell them they need to keep voting every time if they have any hope of change.

 

[sgtaylor5]

Patience is right. I read an article the other day consisting of interviews with voters aged 18-24. They are so upset that Biden didn’t get them their entire wish list in 1.5 years. Somebody needs to tell them they need to keep voting every time if they have any hope of change.

In Laboratories of Autocracy by David Pepper, he notes that Republicans fail, and keep trying while Democrats win and stop trying.

That has to change.

 

[SuperMatt]

In Laboratories of Autocracy by David Pepper, he notes that Republicans fail, and keep trying while Democrats win and stop trying.

That has to change.

I wish it would, but in addition to the inattention of youth, there are many barriers to young people voting. Retired old people can go vote on a Tuesday; they’ve got the free time.

Younger people need to work, and can’t always get the day off. Then jurisdictions shorten early voting, prevent mail-in voting, block you from having a friend or family member turn in your ballot, make sure there are long lines in low-income districts, etc.

But for those who don’t have those barriers? No excuse for not voting, and no complaining after you lose if you failed to vote.

 

[Alli]

no complaining after you lose if you failed to vote.

If you abstain you lose the right to complain.