WaPo confirms Grand Jury has been convened to subpoena "officials in Trump's orbit"

[Fiendish Thingy]

Last edited Thu Mar 31, 2022, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Don’t know how I missed this story yesterday:

https://apple.news/A9SUrH9RxR-2LVFmtYsZtmg

In the past two months, a federal grand jury in Washington has issued subpoena requests to some officials in former president Donald Trump’s orbit who assisted in planning, funding and executing the Jan. 6 rally, said the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
The development shows the degree to which the Justice Department investigation — which already involves more defendants than any other criminal prosecution in the nation’s history — has moved further beyond the storming of the Capitol to examine events preceding the attack.

Edit to add:

NYT is also on this story:

One subpoena cited by the Times reportedly sought information on those “classified as VIP attendees” of the rally. It also reportedly inquired about any figures in the Executive or Legislative Branches who took part in “planning or execution of any rally or any attempt to obstruct, influence, impede or delay” the certification of election results.

More from the NYT (via MSNBC):

The Times specifically pointed to a grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C., which has issued subpoenas seeking information “about the effort by Trump supporters to put forward alternate slates of electors as Mr. Trump and his allies were seeking to challenge the certification of the Electoral College outcome by Congress on Jan. 6.”

Time for all the recreational complainers to pause and take a breath, and pay attention instead of ranting- you’ve been shown to be utterly, completely and absolutely wrong.

P.S. unlike a Congressional subpoena, one cannot ignore a grand jury subpoena without Swift consequences. Just ask Susan Macdougal.

[Walleye]

1. Does anybody know who got them?

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. WaPo says sources declined to name witnesses subpoenaed, but seem my update from NYT

A little more info, but no names.

[gab13by13]

33. Sounds like people who rented the buses.

[gldstwmn]

83. Please tell me the fat lady is warming up for Clarence.

[True Blue American]

110. The Fat Lady named ,

“Ginni? “

[Jerry2144]

2. When I first read the headline of this post

I thought it said “Trump’s obit”

Imagine my disappointment when I read it again correctly

[Ocelot II]

7. Reminds me of this joke:

A man goes up to a newsstand and buys a newspaper. He glances at the front page, then shakes his head and tosses the whole newspaper straight into the trash bin. Next day, he turns up, and does the same thing. Buys it, glances at the front page, throws it in the trash. Again the next day, the same thing. The newsstand worker is increasingly puzzled, but he doesn't say anything.

But eventually, after a couple of weeks of this, he's just too curious, and he says to the man, "I'm sorry, but I have to ask: Why do you buy the paper every day, just look at the front page and then throw the whole thing away?"

"Oh, I'm just checking for something," the man answers.

"What are you looking for?"

"I'm looking for a particular obituary."

"But the obituaries are at the end of the second section, not on the front page."

"Oh, believe me," the man answers. "The one I'm waiting for will be."

[Evolve Dammit]

17. Yeah that is a big disappointment

[IronLionZion]

109. I'm often disappointed when I see headlines with the word "Trump" nt

[AZSkiffyGeek]

3. Nah, the word is already out - it's time to move the goalposts

Subpoenas are apparently meaningless - we need to bypass the Grand Jury and just throw everyone in jail because Garland is a failure and DUer's KNOW they're guilty.

[gab13by13]

8. Not what it means to me,

it means the wait and see crowd were wrong about DOJ investigating because it doesn't leak. You can't have it both ways man.

I have been calling for a grand jury for 6 months.

[Beastly Boy]

32. I don't get it. How were we wrong?

How do assertions that DOJ doesn't leak make the wait and see stance wrong? On the contrary, absence of leaks calls for a wait and see attitude! It goes like this: there are no leaks, so we don't know what's going on, so we wait and see. Very logical, no?

As opposed to: there are no leaks, so we can assume DOJ has nothing to show for the time they are taking, why were there no grand jury announcements six months ago?"

[uponit7771]

38. Because people were correct in the DOJ **NOT** subpoenaing Trumps orbit nearly a year ago

Just doing this shit is gob smacking in and of itself but I'm glad they did as long as all this can be done to put TFG homies in jail before Nov

[Beastly Boy]

63. You are not making this any clearer. Let's take a step back, shall we?

You are saying that the absence of leaks from DOJ makes the wait and see stance wrong because... people were correct in the DOJ **NOT** subpoenaing Trumps orbit nearly a year ago? No shit, Captain Obvious! While you are technically correct, this is not a huge revelation: people do not get subpoenaed until some sort of an investigation is officially under way by an agency that has subpoena powers, and to start an investigation you need a credible crime report (BTW, a DU rant does not qualify as a credible crime report).

And I fail to see how any of this connects to the absence of DOJ leaks and their effects on the wait and see people being wrong in any conceivable way.

[uponit7771]

64. No, I'm not saying that. My complaints of the DOJ are in line with the J6C

[Beastly Boy]

74. Then say what you are saying!

Never mind that you can't make the connection between absence of DOJ leaks and people stating the obvious a year ago. Just list your complaints and tell me how they are in line with the J6 Committee.

[uponit7771]

75. J6C issues with DOJ are clear and similar to mine

[Beastly Boy]

79. So you can't list your complaints or show how similar they are to the J6C complaints.

Can you at least quote the J6C complaints from reliable sources?

[uponit7771]

80. Link inside

Whatever your questions are can be answered here

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/garland-doj-face-new-pressure-pursue-alleged-jan-6-crimes-rcna21953

[Beastly Boy]

90. Ok, one complaint.

And it has nothing to do with absence of DOJ's leaks or those leaks making the wait and see crowd wrong, or the OP in its entirety, for that matter.

Ok, I think we are done here.

[Grasswire2]

97. maybe not

We all would not know what we know today regarding the investigation if growing pressure from MANY MANY MANY people -- many in high positions as well as rank and file citizens had not driven this news release, their fears and frustrations rising each day time goes by without any news.

So give some credit to the people who've been pushing for some assurance that justice WILL be served -- that the old "Look forward not back" will not apply to this seditious conspiracy and attempted coup.

And still --- all we have is some words. Second hand, not even from DoJ.

So you can stop hammering those who wait for evidence of adjudication.

[uponit7771]

36. +1,

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. You do realize that these reports could come from outside the DOJ?

Witnesses, their attorneys, or even jurors, in violation of their oaths of secrecy, are all potential sources for these reports.

You say you’ve been calling for grand jury for six months; for two of those months that you have called for a grand jury, it already existed, you just didn’t know about it.

So, what else don’t you, and the rest of us, know about?

[we can do it]

13. Did you forget the sarcasm thingy?

[bigtree]

4. this is why it's absurd to go around calling for Garland to resign.

...many people have cautioned that investigations and prosecutions take time.

There's nothing to suggest the process of accountability won't reach Trump, and still every reason to believe our Justice Dept. is making that happen.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. Yup- someone on another thread just posted they"know for a fact" Garland has declined to prosecute

[gab13by13]

10. It may have been me.

Garland declined to prosecute "individual one" Trump, the crime that Cohen went to jail for. The statute of limitations has since expired.

Garland failed to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice after Mueller put the ducks all in a row.

Garland failed to prosecute the Cyber Ninjas who violated federal law, Title 52.

[Steve Canuck]

24. Not only that.

Mark Meadows is still consequence free after ignoring subpoenas, over 3 months later.

The jan 6 committee can't do public hearings if everyone can effectively play out the clock, wait for republican control of the house, then kill the committee.

[Fiendish Thingy]

43. Sure they can- only a handful have refused to testify, hundreds have complied

The committee has interviewed hundreds of witnesses, including most recently, Pence’s staff, some of whom were in the room when the coup was planned and Pence was being pressured to violate the constitution.

[Steve Canuck]

86. You mean the entire inner circle of the Trump admin have refused

Look, any of the top players here, playing out the clock could mean the difference between solid evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

I understand how people have an inclination to "leave it to the experts". However, that ignores the fact we all life in a world where the rich and powerful are handed golden parachutes whenever their closet skeletons get prime time.

Don't leave anything to chance.

[Fiendish Thingy]

92. Just because Trump's inner circle (and only a small portion at that) refused to comply...

Doesn’t mean they are the only ones with critical testimony, and doesn’t mean they are immune from prosecution because they refused to testify.

Trump’s entire inner circle hasn’t even been subpoenaed to testify before the committee.

Perhaps you should review the actual facts before making broad statements about “everyone” being allowed to get away without cooperating; here’s a partial list of those subpoenaed before the committee, along with their deposition dates (except for the few who refused):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack#Subpoenas

The televised hearing will reveal lots of details from the hundreds who have testified in closed door interviews, and should make clearer based on the newly revealed evidence, just who is at risk of prosecution for their roles in the attempted coup,

[Steve Canuck]

104. Many of the inner circle that has not been subpoenaed would likely ignore it.

I'm not trying to discount all of the information the jan 6 committee has gathered, indeed its a great deal of information.

What I'm stressing is that most of the information isn't all the information, and considering what is at stake, leaving doors closed and rocks unturned could have dire consequences.

The simple reality is that no one in the public has access to the same info as the jan 6 committee, they are after all subpoenaing individuals with the a clear goal in mind.

The other thing to take into mind is that many of of the committee members have law degrees, and understand how to conduct a questioning (You don't ask questions you don't already have the answer to.) What I'm saying is, there is an order to who is being called in for hearings, and getting stonewalled by the DOJ absolutely will hinder their investigation.

Last thing to take stock of is resisting the subpoenas. Pretending that all recommendations of indictment for those held in contempt went through in a timely order: fighting the law, and playing for time costs a great deal of money in lawsuits. Not everyone on that wiki list would be willing to dump hundreds of thousand of dollars, just to stay loyal to trump (especially if they kept their nose relatively clean.) Having the book thrown at would be stallers would send a pretty big message to everyone in the same boat.

[HariSeldon]

18. I respect Garland and want his investigations and prosecutions to succeed

But if he takes too much time, there won't be opportunity to use what is uncovered to put the reality in front of the American people in time for them to incorporate this truth in their voting. Political? Yes. But political to save democracy, since the Republicans seem to prefer an end to (little "d&quot democracy.

Our election system was supposed to be based to the American public (historical restrictions on this noted) choosing the best qualified from among the candidates, and was not intended to be "tribal;" there was a point where I would vote for a Republican who stood for good government and careful management of public resources for the benefit of the public at large. But Republicans have, as a party, abandoned those principals and are actively hiding the truth about Jan. 6th, making informed choice -- and therefore the intended functioning of our election system -- impossible.

[bigtree]

60. the Watergate timeline

The complete Watergate timeline (it took longer than you realize)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/complete-watergate-timeline-took-longer-realize

https://qz.com/1008947/the-watergate-scandal-which-began-today-in-1972-shows-how-long-it-takes-to-bring-down-a-corrupt-president/

2 years.

[HariSeldon]

68. But consider also the context

At the time of Watergate, there seemed to be enough Republicans willing to vote conviction on impeachment of Nixon to get him to resign. That ship has now sailed: Republicans no longer put good governance over party loyalty.

The American people need the truth and Garland's Department is key to getting it. If the DoJ won't publicly do their own investigation in a timely manner, then at least we need them to enforce Congressional subpoenas in a timely manner. There is more here than the criminal prosecution -- there is the truth needed by the American public to make informed choices in November's elections. Republicans are stonewalling the Congressional investigation and whatever Garland's DoJ is doing, it's not informing the public to the end of letting them understand who they might be electing. If not the DoJ and not Congress, then who do you think bears responsibility to get these people to testify under oath before November's elections?

[notinkansas]

111. This is key.

If DOJ can't act in a timely manner, that may mean game-over. It would be like giving tfg's modus operandi of dragging things out in the courts forever an assist.

I know this thing can't/shouldn't be carelessly rushed. But it seems like the nature of the situation demands that it be given the highest priority. Waiting till a few months before mid-term elections to finally hire attorneys to prosecute the cases doesn't seem to indicate a sense of urgency on DOJs part.

[spanone]

9. ...K&R...

[Kingofalldems]

11. Kick and rec for Trump's secret pals.

[MineralMan]

12. So this grand jury has been working for 2 months.

Add to that the investigation that had to have taken place to prepare for the presentation to the grand jury, and it's clear that the DOJ has been on this for quite some time.

It is the end of March. Based on previous grand juries and DOJ activities, that means the investigation into this particular thing was going on last year.

AG Garland is on this, and has been on this. The naysayers are simply incorrect that the DOJ is doing nothing. Just the opposite, in fact. And this grand jury is just an early one. Others are probably already hearing from witnesses. The DOJ does not discuss grand jury hearings in public until they are over.

[llashram]

22. you are entitled

to your opinion, even if wrong...Merrick is doing nothing of consequence. 1/6/21 speaks volumes about who, what, when, where, why. Yeah, he's on this alright.

[gab13by13]

27. A grand jury has been convened for 2 months,

that does not mean it has been hearing 1/6 cases for 2 months. A DC grand jury has jurisdiction over all cases that occur in that district.

This DC grand jury was not convened just for 1/6 cases, at least there is no indication it was.

[MineralMan]

29. As far as you know...

I don't know whether it is a standing grand jury, or a special one called for this purpose. There has been no official word from the DOJ regarding this. All of the stories quote anonymous sources on it.

So, you don't know that it's not a special grand jury. I don't know that it's not. We'll find out eventually, won't we. In any case, DOJ investigations come before anything is presented to a grand jury.

[Hekate]

34. This

[MineralMan]

35. Yup.

And there's more of "this" to come, I'm certain. It may be a little hard for some people to accept, as it all develops, but it's going to vindicate Garland's planning and management of it all in the end, I believe.

[uponit7771]

39. The fact that it started two months ago is fvckin scary in and of itself. Now are people going to

... tell us that their hearing case or we should wait on that too ?!

The MAIN thrust of peoples ire in regards to DOJ was lack of urgency against defending democracy when we see GZPs urgency in ILLEGLY attacking democracy on multiple fronts.

I don't see how telling Americans the DOJ just starting grand juries two months ago heading against that thrust of ire if anything it establishes it.

A special prosecutor was setup for Watergate less than a year after break in, back then people saw what Nixon did as some bullshit that needed to be prosecuted and the DOJ didn't worry about being partisan

[MineralMan]

41. When was Nixon prosecuted? I don't remember.

"Now are people going to tell us that their hearing case or we should wait on that too ?!"

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question, so I can't answer it. Maybe you can make it clearer for me.

However, we are not hearing about the actual process the DOJ is following. That is standard practice, really, historically. We don't get daily reports on the progress of investigations. We pay almost no attention to the 700+ people for whom prosecutions have already occurred or are happening. We insist that Trump and all of his minions get arrested and thrown in prison without recognizing what is actually required to do those things.

We hear from time to time from the AG or some Deputy AG, who assure us that progress is being made. Some of us believe what they are saying. Others don't. It doesn't matter whether or not we believe them. We will find out. We are not going to get that play-by-play account of what is happening. We simply aren't.

So, either we trust the DOJ leadership or we don't. And it doesn't matter, really, in terms of what actually happens. The process continues. We just don't get to look at that process, nor follow it as it proceeds. We're not going to, no matter how much we grouse about how things are done.

[uponit7771]

46. Never and it still didn't take DOJ more than a year to whip up special prosecutor

So, either we trust the DOJ leadership or we don't

I trust the J6 panel ire with the DOJ too but don't hear much about or from the DOJ.

We're seeing democracy attacked on multiple fronts, LESS communication is not the side I'd error on in this day and time.

I don't need to hear what socks Garland is wearing either so granularity isn't a focus.

FDR had fire side chats for a reason, I do understand some of the comfortable don't feel we're there yet but I know people like me don't fair well in authoritarian governments.

[MineralMan]

49. So, the special prosecutor didn't get Nixon prosecuted.

They did prosecute some people, though. There is no special prosecutor for the Trump/Cronies situation. It is being handled differently. Why should it be a special prosecutor instead of what is now in place? Didn't work for Nixon.

I have no idea what color socks Garland wears. I don't think that has ever been mentioned.

If you haven't noticed, President Biden has been on TV almost every day recently. Sort of like fireside chats. But Biden's not FDR, and this isn't the 1930s and 40s. Different times. Different President. There's that thing in Ukraine. There's Covid. There's inflation. He has a lot on his plate. He's trusting Garland to handle the Trump business.

No doubt he is getting regular reports or briefings from the DOJ, and can all Garland any time to ask him, "Merrick - How's everything going?" Garland will take his calls, I'm certain. But, if he does call or when he reads a report or gets a briefing, he doesn't come out and tell us all exactly what he was told. That would interfere with the process that is underway.

You're not satisfied. I'm sorry to hear that. Can't help you with that, I'm afraid.

[uponit7771]

51. Nixon got pardoned didn't he? The SP DID take down a lot of his clown car and if Nixon ...

... wouldn't have been pardoned maybe him too.

I trust the J6 Panel, they weren't happy with the DOJ and it reflected some of the issues DUrs had with them.

If you haven't noticed, President Biden has been on TV almost every day recently.

Biden is doing fine

I'm speaking specifically of the J6 issue by itself, Americans are concerned about democracy here and elsewhere. I don't think Biden could speak on that issue cause of undue pressure like the DOJ could even if its to say hi/by, cat/dog something. Garland has had one speech on the issue I think, relative to the threat MAGA poses against the ideals of democracy I believe we need MORE from the DOJ and it looks like the J6 panel thinks the same.

Also, I have other issues with the DOJ that hurt me to the core one of them being this stupid assed Hunter Biden 100% Q MAGA bullshit case they're STILL investigating.

Marilyn Mosby issue isn't helping either.

[MineralMan]

72. Yes, he got a blanket pardon, even though he had never been charged

officially. They did get some folks around him, of course. However, none of that was anywhere near as complex as the whole Trump disaster. Also, it wasn't as terrible a crime as Trump's.

As for your other issues with the DOJ, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[uponit7771]

73. Hunter Biden Federal Investigation Heats Up

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/hunter-biden-federal-investigation-heats-up/index.html

I thought the DOJ was getting ahead of this head line

This is hurtful, the allegations against HB are mostly Q, MAGA bullshit

[MerryHolidays]

98. "Why should it be a special prosecutor instead of what is now in place? Didn't work for Nixon."

Of course, it worked for Nixon. Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski (and finally Henry Ruth) did brilliant jobs as the three Special Prosecutors in Watergate. It was Gerald Ford who pardoned Nixon, ending any federal criminal prosecution of him of any acts while he was President.

The grand jury named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator, mainly because Jaworski was concerned about the massive difficulties in prosecuting a sitting President.

More to the point and more importantly, Merrick Garland is doing his job. Like all of us, I am awaiting the results. But he is doing his job WITHOUT a special prosecutor/independent counsel. That is an exceedingly tough job, in addition to being the Attorney General.

[hamsterjill]

55. For those who invoke Nixon

My response is to look at how John Dean has responded. He has been a vocal critic of the pace and action of the DOJ.

Garland isn’t doing anything in my opinion. Even a grand jury may not react in time with the mid-terms around the corner. If he is doing anything, it’s not enough.

[uponit7771]

58. +1, I think people are taking as much copium as they can when it comes to the DOJ. We see ...

... democracy being threatened by MAGA and they're still investigating Hunter Biden's laptop.

There's a timing issue involved in all of this too that is being minimized to the nth degree.

We also have the J6C screaming at the DOJ and now we're supposed be happy the DOJ convened GJs two months ago vs 6 months ago at the latest.

But hey Marilyn Mosby paid a tax lean with check so ... you know, that investigation comes first.

Come on DOJ, we can do better

[hamsterjill]

61. Agreed

I also think there are some people on DU who just simply can’t believe that things aren’t going well. In my opinion, we are going to suffer in the mid-terms largely because voters want strength and they want action, and they are not seeing that coming from the Democrats in office right now with regard to Trump trying to overthrow democracy. And make no mistake. That is what he attempted to do.

[uponit7771]

62. +1, looking at EVERY poll Biden's numbers are down among dems and independents and couldn't

... fall far with MAGA.

I 100% think its this issue too and not taking a Ukraine like stand against MAGAs attack on democracy.

I liken it to Spain 1938 where the left there wanted to "come together" with the nationalist after a failed nationalist attempted coup and didn't think the nationalist would betray them again.

WOW did they find out traitors can't be trusted and there was 3 generations of dictatorship government.

Now we have to FAFO

[hamsterjill]

65. There are a lot of us on DU who feel this way

We get bombarded at every turn but to me, it is the reality. I don’t much like dealing in lollipops and unicorns.

Dems need to act. Now!!!!

[fightforfreedom]

45. Some people are upset.

The largest, most complex, most sensitive criminal case in our history has not been completed in a year.

[MineralMan]

50. Yes, exactly.

[uponit7771]

52. You mean like the J6 committee?! They're not happy with DOJ either

[Sneederbunk]

15. As distractions go, this is a good one.

[Torchlight]

23. Who is it distracting, and what are they distracted from?

[llashram]

16. trump and his 'advisor'-daughter

were supposed to be deposed today. What's the deal, Merrick??? I am beginning to believe the TRUMP CRIME FAMILY is going to come out of their coup attempt with just a slap on the wrist. At my age, I have learned patience with the hypocrisy of human beings. In this case, it is going down the drain fast.

[MineralMan]

19. That deposition is not a DOJ thing.

So, it's not Garland's job. It's a NY State AG thing.

[llashram]

20. yeah you are correct

my passion my bad. YET the deposition is supposed to be today. I am right. NYC deposition, but deposition nonetheless.

[MineralMan]

21. The Trumps have appealed the order.

They appeal everything. Odds are they'll still have to depose, but not today, most likely.

[Beastly Boy]

25. Will this satisfy the DU naysayers that the DOJ has been going after the proverbial "big fish" for

at least the past two months?

Or will their definition of "big fish" change again?

[gab13by13]

28. Can't answer that unless you give us some names.

Big Fish are people in Trump's orbit.

[Fiendish Thingy]

44. The report says people in the "VIP group" at the rally have been subpoenaed

That could include sitting members of congress, Ginni Thomas, Eastman, Giuliani, etc.

[MineralMan]

30. I doubt it. They're heavily invested in the DOJ is not doing anything idea.

[uponit7771]

53. No and it shouldn't, people are thinking they DOJ started GJ last year & to find it they started

... to months ago (and don't know about hearings) is gob smacking.

Americans are threatened by MAGA war against democracy along with the J6 Committee, I don't see the level of urgency from the DOJ

But dammit, gotta investigate Hunter Biden for made up Q MAGA bullshit!!

[Beastly Boy]

69. Who are the "people" you are speaking of?

And why are they projecting their misguided thoughts on DOJ?

Do you really think that their ill-informed thoughts or fears or impatience will create a sense of obligation on the part of DOJ or legitimately reflect the true state of their investigation?

So tell me, what is the definition of "big fish" nowadays? If you want to remain dissatisfied with the progress of the DOJ investigation and keep this ridiculous narrative going, this definition needs an update in a hurry!

[uponit7771]

70. Members of the J6C? tia

[Beastly Boy]

76. Members of the J6 Committee are thinking that the DOJ started the Grand Jury last year?

I am afraid you are losing me fast.

[uponit7771]

78. J6C complaints of DOJ in link

Whatever your question is my complaints align with theirs

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/garland-doj-face-new-pressure-pursue-alleged-jan-6-crimes-rcna21953

[Beastly Boy]

88. That's an awfully long article with precious few "complaints"

But I am patient, I read it all. The only one quote by Schiff that can remotely qualify asa complaint from J6C:

“The Department of Justice has a duty to act on this referral and others that we have sent. Without enforcement of congressional subpoenas, there is no oversight, and without oversight, no accountability — for the former president, or any other president, past, present, or future. Without enforcement of its lawful process, Congress ceases to be a co-equal branch of government.”

So am I to understand that you have just one complaint and that it is similar to the one above? Is your complaint all about DOJ enforcing congressional subpoenas?

So what was this whole rant about what wasn't happening a year ago? Remember, J6C did not exist until July 16 of last year.

[Fiendish Thingy]

100. Do you realize the "complaints" from the J6C are from the day *before* these GJ reports? Nt

[hamsterjill]

66. It doesn't satisfy me.

I’ll be satisfied when Trump is in jail and mot before then. If that makes me a “naysayer” in your mind, then I guess I’ll have to live with that.

I believe I am a realist.

[Beastly Boy]

71. So the goal post has moved again.

The definition of "big fish" is now reduced to a single person.

Well, that less than unexpected move will surely keep you dissatisfied!

[hamsterjill]

77. The only big fish that I care about is Trump.

Get him and the house of cards he rules will fall.

So, you would be satisfied with less? To me, Trump is a traitor and unless he is charged, the rule of law is pretty much out the window. But if that’s okay with you…I shouldn’t be concerned? No, thank you. I’ll stay concerned. And most likely (as you indicate) dissatisfied. Problem is - I’m not alone in that.

And that does not bode well for the mid terms.

[Traildogbob]

26. That'll make em skeeered

They role up subpoenas to snort the coke at geriatric orgies. Do we really think they will adhere, when the are no consequences. How long has Meadows been allowed to be free range, or Alex Jones? 2022 will not wait. They are all about to be set free if they take control.

[Fiendish Thingy]

47. You can't ignore a grand jury subpoena without immediate consequences

GJ subpoenas are a different beast from congressional subpoenas- ask Susan Macdougal.

[uponit7771]

54. True, they'll just bullshit their way with suites and appeals hearing of why Trumps toenails ...

... prevent him from talking in front of a judge or something else stupid like that for the next 4 years.

There are objective reasons the J6C and Americans are disappointed with the judicial system when it comes to J6

[Traildogbob]

57. That's great to know

Thank you. Lock em up.this info gives me something look forward to.

[calimary]

31. But if we have a slew of them defying subpoenas and not showing up

then what difference does this make.

All that refusal so far is meant to gum up the works and force the other side to go to court and then burn up MORE time tangled up in the appeals process - which just takes more time. Swift justice is not in the cards for these schmucks. That’s one of Donald’s favorite go-to strategies.

[Fiendish Thingy]

48. For the bajillionth time Grand Jury subpoenas are different than congressional ones

Ask Susan Macdougal.

[BlueWavePsych]

37. some progress ...

[wryter2000]

40. I hope you're right that you can't ignore a grand jury subpoena without swift consequences

There haven't been any consequences yet that I've seen, so can I assume all the people subpoenaed have appeared? I'm not trying to be a contrarian. I would truly like to know.

[uponit7771]

59. They wont "ignore" it just sue for stupid shit that wont get readily nixed by a judge like they

... would if me or you put up those suites.

A GJ means they get questioned ... eventually

[Fiendish Thingy]

84. GJ jury subpoenas are much harder to successfully challenge, especially for testimony

There are arguments that can be made to challenge a subpoena for documents, but the bar is high. Testimony, on the other hand, can be compelled without delay even if the witness takes the fifth.

https://grandjurytarget.com/2020/10/07/what-is-a-grand-jury-subpoena/

[uponit7771]

103. thx

[TeamProg]

56. 'Recreational complainers... have been wrong' ?!?! Well then, I'm proud to be tossed into the

same group of complaining rebel rousers as House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff and former D.C. Prosecutor Glenn Kirschner are !!

Give us a break..

[uponit7771]

67. +1,

[Fiendish Thingy]

82. Schiff and Kirchner's mild expressions of concern can't compare to the DU'ers wanting AG's head

[TeamProg]

85. Mild? Hardly! They seemed quite pissed off about the lack of progress. Esp. Kirschner and HE'S A

FORMER D.C. PROSECUTOR. I guess you haven't watched any of his videos.

How about former prosecutor Elie Honig? You can put him with us complainers, as well.

[Fiendish Thingy]

94. I've watched numerous Kirchner videos

He always seems very measured in his videos, often with many qualifiers to his comments, such as “if” Trump isn’t prosecuted, it will be bad for democracy.

He doesn’t exhibit the kind of foaming at the mouth, uninformed, impatient lust for vengeance (as opposed to Justice) that some folks do.

[Fiendish Thingy]

99. Here's Kirchner's take today on these reports:

I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say he seems quite thrilled at these reports of the convening of Grand Juries to interview witnesses further up the food chain than the Capitol insurrectionists.

Kirchner doesn’t sound like a Recreational Complainer, or any kind of complainer at all!

[SmallFry]

81. Things seem to continue to go in the right direction.

I'm happy with the direction of this administration and most of the people put in place. What a sea change. We have to gain in the next election which is going to require an all hands on deck moment considering that emotion moves people to the polls and the countries emotions are heightened.

[TeamProg]

87. "DOJ slow to resolve Trump-era legal battles "

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/551584-doj-slow-to-resolve-trump-era-legal-battles/

Read it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

95. The Hill? Seriously?

“All the Dems in Disarray News that’s fits on our website” is on their masthead last I looked.

[TeamProg]

89. Jan. 6 Committee Sends Message to AG Merrick Garland: 'Do Your Job'"

"January 6 Committee Sends Message to AG Merrick Garland: 'Do Your Job'
By Ewan Palmer On 3/29/22 at 4:36 AM EDT"


https://www.newsweek.com/january-6-merrick-garland-doj-contempt-trump-1692770

Read it. Watch the video, too.

Recreational complainers..

[Fiendish Thingy]

96. Any more RW "Dems in Disarray" stories you'd like to share?

Have you noted that Jamie Raskin didn’t complain about the speed of DOJ’s investigations?

[Fiendish Thingy]

101. "Complaints" are From the day *before* the Grand Jury's existence was revealed. Nt

[DeeDeeNY]

91. Sounds like Dolt 45 fits the description --

It also reportedly inquired about any figures in the Executive or Legislative Branches who took part in “planning or execution of any rally or any attempt to obstruct, influence, impede or delay” the certification of election results.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

93. Ari Melber had on Caroline Wren who with a straight face said:

The speech leading up to attack, and the attack, weren't related!

I didn't watch, but heard a bit of it.

Link to tweet

?t=YQwtrOFpYVrLFiN4Rd2IYQ&s=19

Seth Abramson has even more to explore:

https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/the-20-women-who-shaped-january-6?s=r

[msfiddlestix]

102. This might have been worthy of rec until I reached bashing of DU editorializing segment

Now I'm viewing this with a different perspective.

[littlemissmartypants]

107. Clever turn of phrase that I can't say I disagree with...

The "recreational complainers" are not in short supply, unfortunately. But I guess they're necessary to make alternative opinions look better. 😉


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16449607


❤

[ecstatic]

108. You can't declare that naysayers are wrong until the cuffs are on tfg

not just those in his orbit. TFG was personally involved in the crime and cover-up so I hope they're working their way up to TFG because anything else would be a total dereliction of duty.

[Fiendish Thingy]

114. The naysayers have claimed, with certainty, that DOJ is doing "nothing" re: the coup

With this reporting, they stand corrected.

[kimbutgar]

112. What's going to happen if Ginni Thomas is indicted?

[Fiendish Thingy]

113. Nationwide celebrations?

Oh, and Clarence may find increasing pressure to resign.