Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco says DOJ will hold perpetrators accountable..all levels.

[MLAA]

From Axios Article 5 hrs ago:

What they're saying: Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said on Monday that the Jan. 6 investigation is "among the most wide-ranging and most complex that this department has ever undertaken."

She added: "Regardless of whatever resources we seek or get, let's be very, very clear: We are going to continue to do those cases. We are going to hold those perpetrators accountable, no matter where the facts lead us, [and] as the attorney general has said, no matter at what level. We will do those cases."




https://www.axios.com/jan-6-prosecutions-doj-hire-lawyers-cf73990c-c318-43fb-a9e5-736984ff2429.html

[sop]

1. Prove it.

[dutch777]

6. Yeah, any chance of doing something before say 2024?

I once had a lawyer explain to me "due course" as he saw it legally. I as a lay person could best interpret it as meaning almost any passable lawyer could talk almost any judge into giving them more time to prepare their side of the case no matter how long that delays justice, with the belief that justice will still and always prevail. The fact that the added time involved means the plaintiff continues to suffer or may even be dead by the time justice is rendered is not really of much judicial concern. Justice delayed is justice choked and muted in all too many instances and this one is kind of top of the list for where that is really a dangerous place for a "just society" to be.

[sop]

12. As Gladstone noted, "Justice delayed is justice denied."

[treestar]

67. There's a line to be drawn like everything else

Overly fast "justice" can be a denial too.

[tblue37]

27. A main theme of Dickens' "Bleak House."

[ananda]

61. Good analogy!

Also Shakespeare: The law is a ass.

[Emile]

95. They have to investigate all the lower levels first.

Crazy ehh. .

[Firestorm49]

34. Indeed. Seeing is believing.

[Beastly Boy]

35. Prove what? That she is officially stating the DOJ objectives in her capacity as Deputy AG?

Mmm...kay! She is the Deputy AG, and she just stated what she stated for the record. Proof enough?

[sop]

45. "Hold those perpetrators accountable...no matter where the facts lead us,

[and] as the attorney general has said, no matter at what level."

Still waiting for proof of that.

[Beastly Boy]

47. So far, over 700 perpetrators were held accountable. Proof enough?

Are you looking for proof that this process will not continue despite this recent official statement from the Deputy AG?

You must know that you cannot prove a negative, yes?

[sop]

56. I remain agnostic as to the DOJ's commitment to go after the 1/6 ringleaders.

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be proven wrong.

[Beastly Boy]

68. On this case, you must be very pleased with my previous post.

BTW, I too am agnostic as to the DOJ commitment to go after the traitors. But my neutrality on the subject tomes from not knowing enough about the process, not because I am unimpressed with DOJ's progress to date.

[sop]

69. Not particularly, but you seem to believe justice has been done in this case.

[Beastly Boy]

72. I don't usually intrajecr my beliefs into matters that require fact-based conclusions, so

my conclusion based on what little I KNOW so far, is that justice IS BEING done. Not that justice has been done, by any means.

[HUAJIAO]

2. What does "do" mean?

NOW they want to hire more lawyers !

Sorry, I just do not trust this. Time is running out. On the BIG FISH !

[HUAJIAO]

4. Exactly. we've heard basically the same story for months.

[MineralMan]

5. And there you are. A direct statement from the DOJ.

A fact. Unlike those who keep posting that the DOJ is not doing anything, those of us who believe that it is doing things actually have information from the DOJ to support our belief.

Those who claim there is no action have no information at all. Just suspicions and doubts.

And, here we have someone speaking for the DOJ, assuring us that the investigations and prosecutions are happening right now, and at "all levels."

Is that enough to convince you? It is for me.

[dchill]

13. Timing is everything.

The first prosecution if any of the Trump inner circle will not come until after the midterms. And then, with the GOP criminals in charge of all the House committees, it will all just blow away.

It is my opinion that your faith is misplaced, I truly regret to say.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

15. The House controls the DoJ????

When did that change go into effect?

[dchill]

18. They do NOT. You know it and I know it.

We also both know that I'm not the only one concerned about the inaction of the DOJ. Members of the J6 Committee.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

31. So you understand the House has nothing to do with the DoJ, yet you brought it up as if it does

Got it.
Your panic is noted, and perhaps rather than spreading FUD you could work to make sure we don't lose the House...

[William Seger]

42. I think you misread that post (n/t)

[Celerity]

83. +1

[uponit7771]

90. Dems hold the house but after Nov we have a good chance NOT to and that would be the end of

... house investigations feeding the DOJ information.

I think that's the reference to timing, DOJ doesn't act BEFORE congress changing hands we're fucked in regards to J6 investigations.

[MLAA]

28. And the person speaking for the DOJ is a Deputy Attorney General!

[mcar]

32. Note the responses

Nothing is ever good enough.

[MineralMan]

57. FUD!

Just FUD IT!

[KS Toronado]

54. A round of applause for Merrick Garland is in order

[MineralMan]

59. I don't disagree!

[Scrivener7]

80. Oh, Lord.

[grumpyduck]

7. Lisa, have you heard the story about

the boy who cried wolf?

[MineralMan]

11. And, perhaps the DOJ is timing its announcements for maximum

impact on the midterm elections. Did you ever consider that? The American public has a serious attention deficit. We forget stuff quickly. Timing is hugely important in elections.

It's all more complicated that it might seem, I think.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

14. If they're not putting every bit of evidence in public, they're obviously not doing anything

How can we know what they're doing if they don't spoil the case?

[MineralMan]

16. Yeah. It's ridiculous.

The thing is that the bigger the person being charged, the more preparation a case needs to be successful in court. These are very complex cases to present. Demonstrating mens rea, for example, in the case of a President of the United States is going to be challenging, and will need solid evidence that can be presented effectively.

Most people have no freaking idea what goes into a complex prosecution. They think it's like a TV courtroom show. It's not. Not at all.

[MLAA]

30. You almost got me as I read your title...then I read the rest of your post 🙂

I’m going to start a petition that all prosecutors must make public all their evidence within 24 hrs of finding it. We have a right to know! I’m sure all defense attorneys and defendants will sign the petition 😬

[sop]

17. Since 2008 DOJ policy has been to not prosecute political crimes during election season.

(Lawfare) - The policy has remained remarkably similar across administrations. Whether prosecutors read the memo issued in 2008 by Attorney General Michael Mukasey, or 2012 by Attorney General Eric Holder, or 2016 by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, they read virtually similar guidance. All three memos were issued early (March or April) in the election year, bore the same title (“Election Year Sensitivities”) and contained the same two sections in the same order: one that addressed the “Investigation and Prosecution of Election Crimes” and one that addressed the Hatch Act, a federal law prohibiting executive branch employees from engaging in partisan political activity under certain circumstances.

Those three memoranda all state that Justice Department employees “may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” They also encourage prosecutors to contact the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division for further guidance regarding “the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election.”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-policy-against-election-interference-open-abuse

(Apparently, it always seems to be election season these days.)

[MineralMan]

19. It's always election season, though.

As you said. I don't think that is going to stop the DOJ one bit.

[Scrivener7]

85. And perhaps they are not.

[MineralMan]

96. Yes. Perhaps has a meaning.

That's why I used the word.

[Scrivener7]

98. Lol!

[Celerity]

86. Strange take.

And, perhaps the DOJ is timing its announcements for maximum
impact on the midterm elections.

Many of the most strident Garland backers, when discussing this, often claimed the opposite, that Garland was the ultimate non-political animal, and thus unassailable.

I am one of (apparently) the few undecideds in this. I am patient (to a point, a point not near yet) and am waiting to see what shakes out, but, at the same time, some of the 'doff the cap and kiss the ring' style appeals to authority from another side (and certainly not just limited to Garland) greatly irritate me as well.

[MineralMan]

97. Ergo, Perhaps...

[empedocles]

24. One does not ''tip one's hand'' in poker or chess - if one wants to win.

Why do football teams huddle before the play is revealed?

Why would DOJ or WH, keep the public, or our enemies, informed every two weeks?

[empedocles]

26. I did not either. I'm suggesting the Garland critics will not be satisflied, w/o extensive,

US/NATO self-damaging revelations.

"The big picture:

More than 770 people have been charged in prosecutions related to the Jan. 6 attack, according to Business Insider.

Earlier this month, the first Jan. 6 defendant to go to trial, Guy Wesley Reffitt, was found guilty on all charges. - Business Insider

[gab13by13]

46. Curious why you read Business Insider for that type of news?

I have issues with it.

Except people are forgetting something; DOJ has already dropped the ball several times, has chosen not to prosecute.

Robert Mueller did not indict Trump because he went by the DOJ memo that a sitting president can't be indicted, but he laid out the evidence for when Trump was out of office.

Fact; Merrick Garland chose not to prosecute Trump in the Stormy Daniels campaign finance violations. (individual one) Too late now, the statute of limitations has expired.

Mueller also laid out the evidence to indict Trump in numerous cases of obstruction of justice, Merrick Garland chose not to indict Trump.

Merrick Garland chose not to prosecute the Cyber Ninjas, a fake company with a mailbox for an office, who violated federal and state law by having access to ballots, voter information, and election material and equipment which by law should have remained in the possession of election officials. The Federal law violated is Title 52. because DOJ failed to act these fraudits spread across the country and perpetrated the Big lie and has led to honest election officials being replaced by Magats and people going door to door which DOJ asked the Ninjas not to do in a stern letter to them.

Day 104 since the select committee sent DOJ the Mark Meadows criminal referral
Day 76 since the Michigan AG sent DOJ the fake elector referral. Lisa Monaco commented a month and a half ago that DOJ was investigating the referral.

In 3 months Robert Mueller got indictments or guilty pleas from 34 people and 3 companies.

[Scrivener7]

81. Garland critics will be thrilled with any indictment of an organizer of the coup.

Garland critics will be thrilled with ANY indictment that discourages future coups.

[Backseat Driver]

66. My question then: How would DOJ

EVER find an impartial Grand Jury that would move any evidence into an indictment/conviction when DOJ would openly lay out their case to the public at large?

[Beastly Boy]

36. For gawd's sake, will anyone ever clearly define "big fish"?

Not so long ago it was the participants and organizers of the riot. Then it was the seditious conspirators. Apparently, since over 700 of them were charged, nobody is including them in the "big fish" category anymore because that would discredit the whole "big fish" narrative. And now, some claim that Trump is the only big fish by which the success of DOJ can be measured.

So what's the definition of "big fish" nowadays, and for how long?

[Beastly Boy]

74. Perfect. Let's all use it consistently as a standard to apply to Garland's investigations, shall we?

Now, all you need to do is define the minimum size limit.

[Beastly Boy]

76. So, based on this latest definition, DOJ already has 11 big fish that we know of in their bucket.

Will they still count, say, two months from now?

On edit: And, as per your initial post, DOJ already counts for something. They met your "time is of the essence" threshold. And, they matter, right?

[Sherman A1]

20. Believe it when I see it

Not before.

[comradebillyboy]

33. Yes. I share that sentiment. Actions speak louder than

words. No action so far.

[Scrivener7]

82. Yep. The DOJ is sprinkling fairy dust and the usual suspect are proclaiming their virtuous faith.

Also tossing straw men all over the place.

Same shit, different day. Meanwhile the statute of limitations has passed on whole tranches of tfg crimes.

I, too, will believe it when I see it.

[Marius25]

21. I'll believe it when people start getting indictments and prison sentences.

And by that I mean the high ups who planned it, not just the moron Trump supporters who broke into the Capitol.

[GoodRaisin]

22. Good to hear. Inspires hope. nt

[empedocles]

23. I compare this to the Ukraine situation. Some wanted President Biden to go all out

against putin/russia from day one!

'Time' suggests Biden's judicious process approach has been the right one.

Time has realigned/strengthened NATO.

Time has developed support in countries and publics around the world. Even among Republican voters - causing even a number of hate-driven republicon politicians to publicly support Ukraine.

[Scrivener7]

87. Yeah... um... this is nothing like the Ukraine situation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Am I the only one uneasy over the use of the term "January 6th Investigation"?

Is it intentionally narrower in scope that an investigation into all crimes associated with any attempt to interfere with the lawful certification of the 2020 Presidential Election results, including efforts to unlawfully influence/change the work/findings of state election officials and/or the Electoral College? I know that the House Special Committee on January 6th has explicitly defined their work in very broad terms that go well beyond investigating crimes that occurred on January 6th and the mob insurrection of that date. But to my knowledge the Justice Department has not been similarly explicit about that. When the Justice Department talks about their January 6th investigation, does that include holding accountable all those who attempted to interfere with the legitimate transfer of Presidential power, including efforts that did not necessarily involve planning and perpetrating the illegal invasion of Congress on January 6th??

[Beastly Boy]

39. Ditto.

But it is not yet time to call it "the Trump presidency investigation". At this point, DOJ is only tasked with investigating the events related to the insurrection.

[gab13by13]

58. Tasked by whom?

DOJ was tasked 104 days ago with a criminal referral from the select committee for Mark Meadows defying a subpoena.

I know the answer, DOJ is waiting because it is building a much bigger case against Meadows, and DOJ is afraid of having to give discovery evidence which is plastered everywhere. We even know that Meadows was involved with burner phones and that his communications on 1/6 have disappeared from the record.

[Beastly Boy]

70. You may know the answer, but it's not my answer.

Being tasked by the select committee to act on Mark Meadows contempt of Congress doesn't make it a Trump presidency investigation. Meadows was never Trump, and he wasn't president either.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Under that definition asking Georgia officials to find votes for Trump isn't yet being investigated

Which means that when the DOJ affirms that "We are going to hold those perpetrators accountable, no matter where the facts lead us, [and] as the attorney general has said, no matter at what level" as of this time that does not include, for example, holding Trump accountable for "asking" Georgia's Secretary of State to find 11,000+ votes for him while issuing thinly veiled threats against him should he not.

[Beastly Boy]

71. Georgia DA is investigating the matter as we speak

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/georgia-da-investigating-trump-closer-decision-charges-82178527

She has far better standing to investigate than the DC district attorney or the AG. Does this count as a legal action to hold Trump accountable for the incident you brought up?

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. Yes, of course that counts as "a legal action" to hold Trump accountable etc.

But I just used that as an obvious and well known example of how far reaching the efforts were to overturn Joe Biden's lawful election, above and beyond actions taken at or in support of the insurrection at the Capital on January 6th. Many have pointed out that Federal law was also potentially broken in that case in addition to Georgia law. Others have pointed out other instances when Federal law may have been broken during the long and coordinated effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to a duly elected President Biden. The statement that is the subject of the OP we are responding to seems to sidestep comment on any of that.

[Beastly Boy]

78. I am not suggesting that DOJ shouldn't investigate beyond events of Jan. 6.

What I posted before was that, at this point, DOJ is only tasked with investigating the events related to the insurrection. In response, you brought up Georgia as an illustration that was supposed to challenge my understanding of the current limits of the DOJ investigation.

I believe we are talking about different things here: I am talking about what I think the current state of the DOJ investigation is, and you are talking about what you think the investigation ought to encompass. The OP appears to address both perspectives. Both can be applicable to it at the same time.

[Jetheels]

37. "We will do those cases". Wow, how much confidence does that sentence inspire?

But no worries, she’s probably still setting up her stationary.

[Beastly Boy]

40. What were you expecting?

"We will act as judge, jury and executioner and will lynch Trump as soon as the tar barrel gets here"?

[Kablooie]

50. After all that's happened, YES!

[Beastly Boy]

52. You are not a big fan of the US Constitution, are you?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

55. The loudest voices don't seem to be

They really seem to want the Democrats to be just as authoritarian as the Republicans were, and don't see the problem with that.

[Scrivener7]

88. That stapler isn't going to align itself!

[BlueJac]

38. I still won't be happy until something happens to Trump and his enablers!

I am still not optimistic about getting this done!

[calimary]

41. Any idea WHEN, Ms. Monaco?

Sometime in the next century or so? Waiting til everybody but history nerds forgets and we can just pass it off and say “let’s get over it and move on”?

[bringthePaine]

43. this is what military aviators call "chaff"

[L. Coyote]

44. Those who doubted this need to reassess their own thinking and biases.

And admit they were wrong, of course.

[Celerity]

84. Far, far too early for the determination of who was right and who was wrong.

[Scrivener7]

89. Speaking of biases, looks like faith in things unseen makes one feel pretty virtuous.

[DallasNE]

48. When?

[Kablooie]

49. By the time they get around to charging anyone we may well have Trump as president again.

And the new AG will shelve the whole thing forever.

Time is the most important factor and Trump is expert at running out the clock.
I see nothing to counteract that.

I have lost hope that any serious consequences will happen to Trump or any of his close minions.

[iluvtennis]

51. TFG could be president again - please don't speak that into being. PLEASE.....

[UT_democrat]

53. I said I was going to get in shape this year...

so, theres that.

[Mysmi]

62. Good call

And the leader of those criminals is Donald Trump.

[Tacan]

63. All evidence to the contrary

The DOJ won't even enforce a subpoena.

[eShirl]

93. I wish they would explain THIS. (n/t)

[Karma13612]

94. [phone]

[Snackshack]

64. Actions speak louder then Words.

I am not going to hold my breath that the DOJ is going to do anything to anyone in the GOP beyond the people DT/Brooks/Stone whipped up into a fury 1/6 and then sent to the Capitol.

[left-of-center2012]

65. When ? !

Tired of waiting.

[Goodheart]

79. Tick tock.

He should be in prison, instead he's bragging about a hole-in-one on the golf course.

[Emile]

91. Yawn. . Why are they starting at the bottom level?

[Karma13612]

92. I'll believe it when I see it. Hop to it!!!!!

Other than the actual insurrectionists there at the capital on Jan 6, no one has been truly held accountable. Heck, we’ve barely gotten into contempt of Congress charges.

Actions speak louder than words. Nothing has been louder than a whisper in my book.