Where the hell is the Justice Department and Merrick Garland on McCarthy and 11 other Republicans?

[markpkessinger]

Trying to intimidate telecomm companies into not complying with subpoenas issued by the Jan. 6 Commission is a clear violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, which states:

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

So why the hell are AG Garland and the Justice Department just standing by and allowing them to do this?

[Ocelot II]

2. Because the matter is in the hands of a congressional commission, not the DoJ.

At this point it's not a criminal case, but a congressional investigation; furthermore, no subpoenas have even been issued yet. McCarthy is just flapping his gums. If the telecoms refuse to comply due to perceived intimidation, then there's an issue.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

4. But but but he wants to bash the AG!

How can you challenge another Garland sucks rant with facts?

[CatWoman]

5. LOL!!!!

[PortTack]

7. +1000

[markpkessinger]

10. I never said "Garland sucks"

But I think my question is a fair one, especially in light of the language in the second paragraph of the statute that says anyone "who endeavors to impede or obstruct . . ." That language would seem to negate the point that there ios no crime unltil one of the parties refuses to comply.

People are allowed to ask critical questions, even when they are uncomfortable!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

12. Well if an Internet Law Expert says that what it means

That must be what it means

[markpkessinger]

21. one needn't be a lawyer to understand the word 'endeavor' n/t

[TiberiusB]

56. What about a former federal prosecutor?

https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/kevin-mccarthy-2654892290/?cx_testId=1&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s

"'If you comply with an investigation request and turn over MY records to a Congressional committee then next Congress will punish you' sounds even more like corrupt intent under 18 USC 1505. Still not a sure thing but increasingly plausible," [Ken] White wrote.

[StarfishSaver]

19. You did more than just ask a question. The tone and language of your OP screams "Garland sucks!"

[markpkessinger]

22. That is an entiorely subjective interpretation n/t

[Budi]

29. "Where the hell is the Justice Department and Merrick Garland ..."

Where the hell is ..the Justice Department and Merrick Garland on McCarthy and 11 other Republicans?

What's left to 'interperate'.

[markpkessinger]

31. My discourse is a little salty sometimes . . .

. . . and "hell" is a pretty mild word in any case!

[StarfishSaver]

18. And if DOJ threw McCarthy in jail today

people would be pissed off because his prison jumpsuit was blue, not orange.

[markpkessinger]

23. Utter nonsense n/t

[markpkessinger]

6. But isn't that like saying . . .

. . . that if a person attempts to rob a bank, but is thwarted by a security guard, that there is no criminal issue? That makes no sense. Note the second paragraph of the statute:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

[emphasis added]

McCarthy has already "endeavored to influence or impede" the investigation by sending the letter!

[Ocelot II]

8. Like I said, the whole matter is under the jurisdiction of the House commission.

They could refer the matter to the DoJ, but they won't unless the telecoms actually ignore subpoenas because of McCarthy's letter.

[markpkessinger]

11. Okay, that makes a little more sense n/t

[Ocelot II]

15. The DoJ is not going to interfere in a House commission investigation

unless it is asked to do so. Separation of powers and all that. I really don't think Bennie Thompson is likely to refer this issue to DoJ, and it's not up to DoJ to take it on without that referral.

[markpkessinger]

27. Yes, got it. Thanks!

[gab13by13]

30. Why?

Why can't DOJ and the select committee both investigate? The DOJ has more clout than the select committee has.

The way I see the question asked by the poster; it seems to this internet lawyer that McCarthy has already committed a crime. The select committee is only empowered to investigate, not to indict or bring criminal charges.

McCarthy even put it in writing.

[Bobstandard]

37. This!

[StarfishSaver]

52. Because they'd step all over each other and interfere with each other's investigations

This would run a serious risk of halting the
Congressional investigation in its tracks and getting a conviction thrown out.

There's a reason these things proceed the way they do and several people have tried to explain it to you repeatedly, yet you doggedly insist that they're doing it all wrong and they should do it the way you want it done.

It's clear you think you know more about how to proceed in these very complex matters than the people who actually have the experience, expertise, and responsibility in this area. It's also clear that you're sorely mistaken.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Get outta here with your facts

You're getting in the way of another "Garland and the DOJ and shish" rant.

[markpkessinger]

24. Except that is not at all how I responded to Ocelot's message, is it? n/t

[Bobstandard]

28. If you or I did it we'd be charged immediately

If you or I did it in a remotely similar case we’d be charged immediately. And you know it.

Let’s face it. Merrick Garland is a bust. You don’t need to win every case, you don’t have to have an airtight case before you, oh, say, charge the former guy with any one of his many obvious crimes. For the deterrent effect to work you have to show that there are some consequences. So far, the only consequences are that tfg and the like have to cough up documents during investigations. And they don’t even do that.

Why not drag them into court? Why not make a show of at calling them to account. Just calling them to account. Why not make them defend themselves?

Say you charge them and they win. So what? That’s better than nothing, which is what we have now. At least the legal system is shown to be going through it’s paces. As it is, everything is behind closed doors. Which means that effectively, in the real world, nothing is happening. Which means, in the minds of their supporters, what they’ve done and are doing is just fine.

So don’t give me this bullshit that “things are going on behind the scenes,” and, “these things take time”, and similar ‘wise man’ crap. Nothing is happening and it won’t.

[StarfishSaver]

39. I doubt you'd be charged with a crime if you told telecoms not to respond to a Congressional inquiry

Can you cite any other instance in which a Member of Congress was prosecuted by the Department of Justice for telling any entity not to respond to a Congressional inquiry?

If you can't point to any other case where a Member was charged with a crime for what McCarthy did - or, in your words, engaging in remotely similar behavior - your attacks on DOJ for not charging McCarthy with a crime are completely baseless.

[Ocelot II]

44. The Speech or Debate clause probably protects him anyhow.

[Bobstandard]

49. Precedent results from action.

If one is not willing to challenge the status quo, there will be no precedent to cite.

See, that’s the point. Barr et al would have had no problem bringing charges, whether they would stick or not. That’s how they play the game. We don’t. We don’t get on the field. As a result, they win.

Playing by the old rules—and I’m being generous here—doesn’t work with folks who have already abandoned them.

[StarfishSaver]

51. Nice try it changing the subject.

Given your inability to offer even one instance when a Member of Congress was prosecuted by DOJ - under Barr or anyone else - for anything they said in a communication with a potential witness, your claim that Barr would without question charge a Democrat in McCarthy's position is just a baseless assumption.

You're flailing all over this thread and digging yourself in deeper with every response.

[Bobstandard]

60. You keep missing the point

I don’t think you’re willfully obtuse, but you’re missing the point in your replies to me and to others in this thread. You do seem to be an apologist for inaction, but I may be reading you wrong.

[StarfishSaver]

61. No, I'm not "an apologist for inaction"

I just happen to know that investigations and preparations for indictment and prosecution happen out of the public eye and the fact that the general public isn't getting a blow-by-blow account of everything DOJ is doing does not equate with "inaction."

I and many others here have repeatedly tried to explain that to people, but some folks are so wedded complaining and spreading the "DOJ isn't doing anything!" myth that the facts no longer matter.

[Ocelot II]

43. One other thing: The Speech or Debate clause of the Constitution

has been held to grant members of Congress immunity from legal challenges to “actions within the ‘legislative sphere,’” that is, when they are acting within the scope of their legislative or other congressional duties, as to both criminal prosecutions and civil suits. In light of the broad protection of the Speech and Debate clause, McCarthy probably can't be prosecuted even if he did violate the referenced statute.

[Bobstandard]

50. Violating the law is not within "the legislative sphere" n/t

[Ocelot II]

53. I think the courts would find he was acting in his capacity as a congressman

even if the consequence of his action was not lawful. That’s what the SD clause does.

[StarfishSaver]

54. That's pretty much the point of the Speech or Debate Clause ..

I appreciate your patience.

[uponit7771]

58. Unnn, Trump is tried this and was denied help by DOJ

[Ocelot II]

59. The Speech or Debate clause doesn't apply to the president.

[treestar]

63. If we did what?

Got elected to Congress and flapped our gums?

[Eyeball_Kid]

47. Telecoms will comply because there's no benefit to them if they don't. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

3. Maybe our republic has simply reached the end of its natural lifespan.

I'm trying to come to a point of acceptance on this.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

9. IT'S BEEN A WEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG NOTHING IS BEING DONE!!!!!!!!

[markpkessinger]

14. That's plenty of time to issue a cease and deisst letter n/t

[AZSkiffyGeek]

25. Who would be ceasing and resisting what?

Stopping McCarthy from sending another letter?
Keep up your Internet Lawyerin’.

[markpkessinger]

26. The Republican members of the committee . . .

. . . would be told to cease and desist from attempts to intimidate witnesses or potential witnesses to the investigation.

And as for your "Internet Lawyer" comment, go fuck yourself. My post was an honest question -- I was not looking to trash Garland.ea And to the ONE person -- Ocelot II -- who responded in a civil manner, I responded in kind!

[Bobstandard]

32. It hasn't been just a week. Wake up!

How many cases are there out there that are “under investigation,’ or where they’re “building a case”. Dozens? Dozens of dozens?

Case in point. Matt Gaetz. Nothing.

I could go on and on but it makes me too upset. Same status. Nothing.

So far only the guys who cooperate are doing worse than the malefactor.

Finally, if you think something is being done, why don’t you enumerate a few of those? Lay ‘em out. I’m eager to know.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

34. McCarthy sent his letter last week

Try to stay with the discussion.
And if you want to know what’s going on with DoJ investigations, maybe join the DoJ and get involved in the investigations?
You DO know that the things you know are because people leaked the information, and not because Garland feels the need to a) let you know, or b) politicize the DoJ..

[Bobstandard]

40. Note the OP's headline

This is about Garland. McCarthy is just a symptom of the problem.

I don’t need Garland to tell me what he’s doing. I need to see that he’s doing something. A charging document, for instance. And against somebody a little higher up than just the knuckle draggers who invaded the Capitol. (At this point, they serve the function of distracting us from inaction elsewhere as much as anything).

The DOJ was wildly politicized under Trump. Sitting on your hands apparently doing nothing does not de-politicize the institution.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

41. I did notice the headline

It was about Garland going after McCarthy. But you apparently took it as a place to complain about a Democratic AG because he hasn’t let you know what he’s doing.

[littlemissmartypants]

57. So much this!!

Reminds me of a Tom Petty song.

❤

[treestar]

62. call Congress right fuckin' now!!!!!!!1111

or call Garland and offer to help! All that paperwork that has to be done, and surely DUers can do it!!!!

[NewHendoLib]

13. we have two parties that now play by entirely different guidelines.

one is bloodsport that is all about power and control. the other wants to serve the public and are not equipped in any capacity to deal with the other.

it is and has been for a long time now sad to behold. Using reason only works with reasonable people.

[ShazamIam]

20. Doesn't the DOJ (FBI) investigation of the Jan 6 attackers include a wider investigation into

the question of a conspiracy and the origins and support of the attack and planning including for example that AG Association that seems to have been involved, and the people who paid for the buses and promotions on social network sites. Where paid posters are used to boost and spread the messaging.

An example of boosting and spreading the message.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-ags-group-sent-robocalls-urging-march-capitol-n1253581

[gab13by13]

33. Is DOJ investigating all of that?

[ShazamIam]

35. The FBI Director reports to the U.S. AG/DOJ

[Mr.Bill]

36. Has Garland

indicted anyone for any signifigant crimes?

[Scrivener7]

38. Not that I have seen. And it's not like we have any dearth of significant crimes.

[onenote]

42. Has it occurred to anyone

that maybe, just maybe, neither the Committee nor the DOJ want to become in a distracting court case, with all of the risk inherent in such a proceeding, in which a judge will be asked to determine whether the request from the Committee constituted a "due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress"? Sure, we all think it was. The Committee thinks it was. But the repubs have argued that it wasn't. And the initial court case will be followed inevitably by an appeal. And then another appeal. And it will simple be a distraction.

[Bettie]

45. Those guys? They are white, rich, and most important:

Republican. No one will touch them.

Had they not been any one of those things, they'd be on the hot seat already.

[StarfishSaver]

46. Really?

Can you name any Democratic Member of Congress - minority, non-wealthy, or otherwise - who was charged by DOJ with witness intimidation based on any communication they had with a potential Congressional witness?

[JoeOtterbein]

48. K n R ! Thanks for posting! BTW...

...it's because it's easy to look the other way.

[Hekate]

55. Have our DU lawyers (the real ones) weighed in, or do you have some special access?