Ted Lieu snaps at DOJ spokesperson for pushing back against speedy Trump indictments

[riversedge]

This gets all so confusing.




Tom Boggioni October 16, 2021

Ted Lieu snaps at DOJ spokesperson for pushing back against speedy Trump indictments


https://www.rawstory.com/ted-lieu-donald-trump/



Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) expressed his frustration with both the Department of Justice and the entire criminal justice system that is allowing members of Donald Trump's inner circle to avoid congressional subpoenas on Saturday.

Late Friday, DOJ spokesperson Anthony Coley pushed back at President Joe Biden after he insisted Attorney General Merrick Garland's move forward with all due haste and charge Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon with criminal contempt for ignoring a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Capitol riot.

As the Guardian's Hugo Lowell tweeted, "Justice Dept spokesperson Anthony Coley pushes back at Biden re Bannon referral: "DOJ will make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law. Period. Full stop."

That, in turn set, Lieu off, who fired back on Twitter on Saturday afternoon in a predominately all-cap tweet using some of Coley's own words.
.....

........................

Link to tweet

?s=20

Link to tweet

?s=20

Link to tweet

?s=20

[gab13by13]

1. Here's the deal folks,

we need DOJ to get involved, it has much more clout than a select committee. A person cannot refuse to appear before a grand jury.

IMO our DOJ has dropped the ball, the House is doing what it can but it is limited. Remember how it took 2 years to get Don McGahan to testify?

Democrats needed to get involved much sooner in the process, but so should have DOJ.

[Igel]

7. This isn't a grand jury.

Eric Holder also resisted appearing before a Congressional committee after being subpoenaed. For years.

It was finally resolved when Pelosi became speaker and decided to stop pursuing the case. Didn't say that there wasn't a subpoena, didn't say there wasn't a law, just decided that there was no point. (This isn't an infrequent occurrence. Play out the clock until you're rescued by a change of Congress.)

[W_HAMILTON]

17. This is false.

Various documents were requested from Holder and he was actively working with the Oversight Committee to provide them; Holder said that he would provide the documents requested, and in exchange, they would satisfy the Republicans' subpoenas and end the dispute. Republicans refused. Obama then exercised executive privilege over the remaining documents requested by the Committee and that was that. The DOJ Inspector General later cleared Holder of any wrongdoing.

So, for those watching at home, the difference in these false equivalencies: (1) Bannon has completely refused to even engage with the House Committee; (2) Bannon was not an executive branch employee and therefore not covered by executive privilege; and (3) Trump is no longer president and has no executive privilege to claim and thus must rely on Biden, who has already denied executive privilege over the materials requested.

[The Magistrate]

2. Inherent Contempt Had Nothing To Do With The Persecution Of Ms. McDougal

She was held for refusing to answer grand jury questions.

Inherent contempt was last used in 1934, during hearings on a scandal involving Post Office air mail contracts. A witness said he needn't answer questions owing to attorney client privilege. Congress decided he wasn't the man's lawyer, and after a fairly comfortable durance vile over a couple of days he returned and answered.

[onenote]

33. Thank you for posting this. The author of that tweet should be embarrassed.

[Hotler]

3. Ted Lieu Lashes Out After DOJ Pushes Back

Are we allowed to use Newsweek here? Make of it what you want, it's the media.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-lieu-lashes-out-after-doj-pushes-back-against-biden-s-advice-to-prosecute-bannon/ar-AAPCeB1?li=BBorjTa

[Scrivener7]

4. Oooohhh! Ted Lieu is going to hear from some DUers about this! Doesn't he know one does

not question the DOJ!

And a DOJ spokesperson signalling that they are not in any rush to enforce a Congressional subpoena? That's just part of their plan! And their plan is so fabulous, it is impossible for mere mortals to understand it!

We have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that the DOJ is doing anything, not someone posting a twitter video of the DOJ impounding a colleague's laptop, not a leak of a witness who has been deposed, nothing. But that is part of the plan too!

The plan will take years and years, but it's a great plan! Normal people like Ted Lieu and me are just to dumb to understand it.

(Hmmm. If memory serves, there is another group out there exhorting the "weak" to "trust the plan." )

[gab13by13]

8. Yeah it reminds me of Groucho and Rummy

Groucho said, "who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes? Rummy said something to the effect of what the wait and see Duers are saying, we don't know if DOJ is doing A, B, and C, and we don't know what we don't know what DOJ may be doing.

The plan is quite simple, run out the clock until Kornacki time and IMO people who don't understand the threat our democracy is in right now are the biggest threat to out democracy.

[Scrivener7]

12. Exactly.

[Firestorm49]

5. It sounds much more involved than we are entitled to know.

This worries me as to what’s really going on at DOJ. Garland has shown his hesitancy to get involved in several issues related to TFG and his band if desperadoes.

What’s truly in store for us? Rather than seeing a bright light in the tunnel, things continue to be in decline. This is worrisome.

[gab13by13]

9. For crying out loud,

our DOJ is defending Trump in the defamation law suit being brought by his accused rapist, E. Jeanne Carrolle. How is defaming an accused rapist a part of a president's official duties?

[Duppers]

30. And...and...

Attorneys for E. Jean Carroll ask court to keep DOJ from defending case!

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/attorneys-trump-accuser-jean-carroll-court-doj-defending/story?id=77128800

This is the damn craziest thing!

[Scrivener7]

13. "Than we are entitled to know"?????? WTF????

[Grasswire2]

15. We are only the people.

Know your place, will ya?

(Sen Blumenthal keeps going before the cameras to lament how "the people deserve to know" information he has just seen that is "shocking" and "horrifying" but he knows that our place is NOT to know information affecting us and how we would act and vote.)

Only SOME are entitled to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In America. Land of the free and home of the brave.

[JohnSJ]

6. Next week Congress will vote on contempt charges for Banon, and what the AG does will be a

strong indicator just how much the DOJ wants to pursue this

[gab13by13]

10. IMO, how long it takes DOJ to decide

what it is going to do will be a strong indicator.

[Me.]

11. Where Has That Opinion Been For The Last 5 Years

Period. Full Stop?

[FoxNewsSucks]

14. He should be patient, right?

Insiders are doing stuff, and know things we don't.

[Peregrine Took]

16. Love my California guys- Adam, Eric, Ted and Ro. n/t

[monkeyman1]

18. we will find out in about 2or 3 yrs from now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[triron]

22. No we won't. 'History' will have been rewritten by the autocrats who have taken over.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Starr didn't use Inherent Contempt, that's a unique power in Congress.

DOJ enforces criminal contempt, Congress enforces Inherent Contempt.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive, just separate processes.

[stillcool]

29. thanks for that...

amazing how much I don't know, and would never know if it weren't for DU.

[elleng]

20. Oh good, let's 'fight' among ourselves in public

NOT.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Should Coley had kept his mouth shut?

[ancianita]

23. K & R with thanks for the informative thread; now I'm less confused.

Thanks to brilliant DU'ers here for what I think I understand here so far.

Ted Lieu is right to push back on that stupid DOJ apologist re Bannon.

It's true that Garland's been busy overseeing Jan 6 adjudications of
643 charged with Jan 6 crimes, and of those (taken from seditiontracker.com),
316 indicted by grand juries, and of those,
104 convicted, and of those,
17 sentenced
-- all this since GARLAND BECAME AG JUST SIX MONTHS AGO.

The last time Congress used inherent contempt was 1934, BUT. Inherent contempt of Congress use is not *instead* of the DOJ, but *alongside* the DOJ.

Lieu's call for using inherent contempt is FINE as a separate branch's EQUAL ability to use its own enforcement process, is all.

And Ted Lieu is right.
The J6 Committee & the House should pull out inherent contempt and damn well save this democracy while the DOJ continues its hundreds of adjudications of justice.
Both branches (legislative and executive, not just judicial) can enforce rule of law from different directions.

So let's go with a win-win law enforcement process rather than some win-lose horse race media presentation, and agree that both branches should use their enforcement capacities.

Then we'll see how the 'inherent' enforcement timeline goes, right?

[PurgedVoter]

24. How about they subpoena Anthony Coley for a clear explaination and ask who made this decision?

Anthony Coley can tell who made the decision or face contempt of congress. This is information gathering, not prosecution. With a simple and honest public inquiry that does not have to be long, the Department of Justice can explain their reasoning and then Congress can either use them to aid the investigation, add them to the investigation, or decide to bypass them in the investigation.

In any case it needs to quite clear to the Justice Department that Congress will not tolerate any destruction of evidence or interference. It need to be clear that Congress will consider any instances of the Justice Department covering up for the planners and instigators of the Jan. 6 insurrection as potentially an attempt to ignore the constitution and overthrow our government. If any evidence is accidentally destroyed, contempt of congress should be immediately enforced on all the individuals who were in a position to stop the destruction.

I am not saying that there are individuals in the Justice Department that might want to cover up their complicit guilt. I am saying that if there are, then the Justice Department should side with the United States of America and not traitors to their duty and nation.

[hamsterjill]

25. Can we please put Ted Lieu and Eric Swalwell in charge?

I think those two might get something done! They “get it” as to what the stakes are in this

[monkeyman1]

26. great idea ! I

[Grasswire2]

31. And Senator Whitehouse as SML. nt

[Arazi]

27. Who the hell does Ted Lieu think he is?! Some Congressional MOC insider?!!!11!

Ffs, everyone needs to shut the fuck up amirite?!!??11

It's OBVIOUS the wheels of justice are turning!!11!!

All these threads with the angst over the coup, and the illegalities of TFG and Co... sheesh. It's only been NINE MONTHS

[Takket]

28. The rawstory article title is sensationalistic and inaccurate

Lieu is not snapping "at" DOJ. He is upset that Congress is being blown off and they have to now wait for DOJ to tell Congress whether or not Bannon can be hauled in. Lieu is therefor pushing for a bill to allow Congress to make that determination itself without asking DOJ "oh please, big mighty DOJ, may we be allowed to make people testify?"

[totodeinhere]

32. I sympathize with both positions on this so I am conflicted.

On the one hand, I support the independence of the Justice Department. And President Biden promised to nominate an attorney general who would protect the independence and integrity of the Justice Department and keep politics out of it. Trump's politicization of the Justice Department was a disgrace.

But on the other hand, in this case I think we need to move forward and throw Trump's cronies in jail if they continue to refuse to cooperate.

The courts move slowly. If we get them involved those people could try to drag it out long enough so it conflicts with the 2022 midterms. And if the GOP should retake control of the House in 2022 then it's over.