General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGarlands silence on Mark (he will sing) Meadows is really loud.
Just a gut feeling, something is going on there. Meadows knows everything because he was involved in everything.
Haggard Celine
(16,820 posts)Otherwise, I'm thinking he would have been indicted by now. He might as well cooperate. He's already given a lot to the committee, including those texts.
former9thward
(31,802 posts)And that means he is cooperating with it? Ok...
viva la
(3,227 posts)he might not want to screw things up by testifying to the committee.
I don't know how "immunity" works in these situations. But I think Ollie North back in Iran-Contra days got his conviction reversed because he'd testified to Congress, and had been given some immunity, and then the prosecutors used some of the same info in the trial.
It might be safer for the DOJ to get a deal done, and THEN let Meadows testify. Of course, they can't say that because that would then make clear he's cooperating (if he is).
I wish that Ollie North conviction had stuck. He's been a right-wing pustule ever since.
sdfernando
(4,896 posts)meadows is a weak-minded sycophant. He has no backbone and will be out to save his own skin.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)This is simply how DoJ operates, they say nothing about ongoing activities and criminal referrals as a modus operandi to protect individual rights.
Also, the referrals for contempt of Congress do NOT go to the Attorney General, they go to the USA of the jurisdiction, that being DC, and the statute stipulates the USA present to a grand jury. So we need to wait for them to do their jobs and not fall for the many Republican false narratives blaming Garland for everything and anything and including following the rules at DoJ.
Budi
(15,325 posts)They know damned well he'll pluck everyone of them from their hidey holes.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)WA-03 Democrat
(3,017 posts)Comey and "her emails" twice once in front of Congress and once unprovoked in October on Humma's BS laptop find. Took what was a good rule and killed it multiple times with the desired political effect.
Once a rule is broken I say the rule is gone.
Time for a new rule and the only rule that is left is if you have any power-use it now. Time is running short.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)But not for the reason he was. First, Comey had to know that there was no "new" email to be found on Humma's laptop. There is only one email server so all she could have would be a backup file and nothing dated after the backup was taken.
And while they had a search warrant on her husband and his legal problems that warrant did not cover this. They may have expected pushback in getting a new search warrant so they pretended they could use Wieners search warrant.
What Comey was on was a fishing expedition, looking for email Clinton may have deleted after the backup was taken but before she turned over her server to the FBI. Clinton was entitled to delete email that was not related to government business. Indeed, they did find some such email. One example was where Humma asked what Clinton was going to wear at an event both were attending that night and Clinton later deleted that email. What it really did was to further exonerate Clinton, but the damage was already done. Comey handed the election to Trump on a platter.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)...stand. The 1/6 committee asked the Supreme Court to rule quickly (mid January I believe) on Trump's appeal that his executive privilege claim negates Biden not asserting executive privilege on Trump administration materials related to 1/6. If the Supreme Court honors that request their ruling should be very very soon. If the SC refuses to hear the appeal, that badly damages any basis Meadows has to claim executive privilege for refusing to testify.
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)Today is day 33 since the select committee sent the Mark Meadow's criminal referral to DOJ.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Would think delay benefits FG. Is there a set period of time allowed before the lower courts decision is final? If SC refuses to take case they are certainly in doodoo
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)I put nothing past this court.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)want to be in limbo. Vs pure delay for delay's sake
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)his lawyers told meadows and bannon not to honor subpoena. So it's odd that Meadows pleaded to SC to rush against FGs wishes. All along he's seemed a bit torn between cooperating and defying. It has been suggested that he wants a plea deal.
Obviously, I don't know, but I'm picking up that something's funny about him. Remember the transcript of how he talked to trump on the phone on 1-6? Others overheard. Had a strong tone of disrespect IMHO... Not lapdoggy enough
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)or another so he can know what he's dealing with for Nov election. His best hope is that SC overturns. So he can keep his own records secret. Bet he's in turmoil not knowing what his future holds. In his mind, may mean him being Speaker or not.
Takket
(21,424 posts)Especially since they indicated bannon almost immediately. I would think Meadows must have offered something to avoid the same treatment Bannon got. and I'm sure DOJ moved quickly on Bannon because they know he would never help until actually tried and covicted for contempt of congress
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)not a politician, not in Trump's cabinet. Garland is worried about the appearance of partisanship. Mark Meadows was in Trump's cabinet he is claiming executive privilege> Garland won't act on Meadows until the SC makes its ruling on the validity of the select committee.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Yes. And did he even try to fight subpoena based on EP?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Bev54
(9,961 posts)marie999
(3,334 posts)It is "Don't do the crime if you don't know someone who has done a much worse crime.".
William Seger
(10,742 posts)Two members of a criminal organization are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge, but they have enough to convict both on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The possible outcomes are:
If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves two years in prison
If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve three years in prison
If A remains silent but B betrays A, A will serve three years in prison and B will be set free
If A and B both remain silent, both of them will serve only one year in prison (on the lesser charge).
It is implied that the prisoners will have no opportunity to reward or punish their partner other than the prison sentences they get and that their decision by itself will not affect their reputation in the future. As betraying a partner offers a greater reward than cooperating with them, all purely rational self-interested prisoners will betray the other, meaning the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is for them to betray each other, even though mutual cooperation would yield greater reward.[2]
NoMoreRepugs
(9,260 posts)ENORMOUS that it may cause confusion in some pundits.
calimary
(80,693 posts)jaxexpat
(6,703 posts)couldn't it also be that our 4th estate, a media sized estate slave-bound to its Nielsonian wisdom, has declined all current opportunities to rumor mong or dutifully spin conjecture into ad-man gold to keep the huddled satisfied because they feel that those "masses" have had enough red meat already? Could they be waiting, sitting on this story? Waiting for ANYTHING which would give ANY justification to bothsiderize this shelf-ready news morsel, they seem pensive, the poor, pancake-faced darlings. I mean, really, enough with facts already. There is, you know, a very interesting showdown at the old Kievian corral setting up. One that needs all the energy it can get. If not, it may just fizzle into a miss for "the" Vladold's opportunity to be more than a mere comfort, companion clown for our Trumpster, tragically dropped, forgotten and kicked into a dusty corner of the name-branded nursery we call Mar-a-Lago.
I didn't invent this MO, I read some NY Times opinion columns last century. You should'a seen Maureen use similar style to go after ol' Al Gore in the day. We'd have been saved a world of hurt if Trump had only lactated in public more often.
erronis
(14,952 posts)Do you write somewhere that us mere word stringers could visit?
GB_RN
(2,267 posts)That's not taking holidays into account. Meadows' referral for contempt was what, early December? So, an indictment for contempt of Congress might not come until next month. Keep in mind that Garland/the DOJ didn't say anything about Batshit Bannon's indictment for contempt of Congress until it happened.
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)Today is day 33 since the select committee sent the referral.
GB_RN
(2,267 posts)The full House vote for contempt was on what, 12/13? Pelosi then made the referral to the DOJ after that. Then the US Attorney's office has to take the case before the grand jury, and I would be willing to bet that the holidays probably affected the scheduling of that.
I'm not saying that there aren't alternative explanations. I'm just saying that we need to keep in mind that the holiday period probably threw off any meetings of federal grand juries, so any indictment of Meadows would be slower in coming than the one for Bannon.
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)I'm not so sure that DOJ has to act on it.
GB_RN
(2,267 posts)But, there's no reason that the DOJ couldn't/wouldn't pursue an indictment to put additional pressure on Meadows, either. An indictment hanging over his head gives Meadows additional incentive to cooperate with whatever other probes the DOJ has going on: They can tell him that if he cooperates, then since the contempt of Congress charge is a misdemeanor, they'll let that slide completely when it comes to any additional charges that may come up.
I'm not a lawyer, but I know a few. So, I just regurgitate what they tell me.
True, but I would think theyd have to reply either way, whether they are prosecuting, or declining.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)FakeNoose
(32,349 posts)While the authors were researching the book last year, obviously the criminal investigation had already started. The authors did have contact with Mark Meadows, along other former staffers and White House advisors. It seems that the authors hadn't determined the degree of complicity (yet) for Meadows when they wrote the book.
The authors are clear that certain people had no part of the Big Lie conspiracy, certain others were definitely going along with it. But with Mark Meadows, they never actually say yes or no. I'd be interested to see if Woodward or Costa have a more solid opinion in light of what's been revealed in the past few weeks. Perhaps they learned things that they couldn't publish because it became impossible to confirm certain facts?
The only thing we know for sure is this: by December 2020 Chump fired everyone who didn't play along with his Big Lie conspiracy and he replaced them with complicit toadies. Meadows didn't get fired but he was AWOL for indefinite periods claiming "Covid protocol." Something tells me another book will be coming out before next year.
rso
(2,261 posts)Since DOJ received a formal criminal referral on Meadows from the US House, would not DOJ have to reply either way, whether they are proceeding with the prosecution or declining it ?