And people wonder why we're skeptical about DOJ prosecuting trump et al. Ask James Clyburn:

[SoonerPride]

Rep. Jim Clyburn on CNN: "People are concerned that the Department of Justice may have too many carryovers from the last administration and [is] not moving in order to do what's needed to protect this democracy."

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=dp63tPh2bM_aXcmIGAHZkg

[onecaliberal]

1. Truth

[BlackSkimmer]

2. There it is.

K and r.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

3. I'm not sure what that means.

Certainly the DOJ could have trusted teams on the case, right?

I'm not certain how one protects democracy by not moving forward?

I have nothing but the highest respect for James Clyburn, but I'm not understanding the reasoning here.

[SoonerPride]

5. The DOJ's mission statement is not to "protect democracy."

I wish it were.

But it's not.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

6. Not really an answer to my question.

The DOJ's job is to prosecute crimes.

If crimes have been committed, how does the existence of "holdovers" have any bearing on whether TFG is prosecuted (or not)?

[W_HAMILTON]

8. Because it is up to their discretion whether to prosecute or not.

And if you think a Trump supporter will gladly prosecute other Trump supporting criminals, well, need anyone remind you of how these assholes treated Hillary and her emails back in the day? While at the same time withholding information on the existence of an investigation into Trump and his Russian ties?

Garland should have cleaned house, and if he was not up for the task, Biden should have found someone else who was.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

9. Merrick Garland makes such decisions, not Trump holdovers.

The "reminders" about how HRC may have been treated are simply not germane to the discussion at hand.

I asked about James Clyburn's reasoning here, which I'm failing to understand.

I feel like the Republic was spared from a terrible fate by the actions of Rep. Clyburn--and he has my undying gratitude for that--but if this Tweet is accurate (probably not a good assumption to make) I'd like to understand where he's coming from.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. Merrick Garland relies on the prosecutors working the individual cases.

it's not like Garland knows the ins and outs of every single case. It would be impossible. And if you trust Trump lackies to uphold the law fairly, you must have missed the past half-decade of them showing that they absolutely will not do so.

And how the same departments that we are now relying on to prosecute Trump-supporting criminals, how poorly they treated Hillary is very much germane to this discussion since you seem naive enough to think that what Clyburn and others like myself have told you is very much something to worry about. If they would be openly and flagrantly biased against Hillary and pull that shit they did in 2016, why in god's green Earth do you think they suddenly found their morals now when it comes to prosecuting Trump supporters? The same guy they shit on Hillary for to help win the election in 2016 to begin with?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

15. If you can't answer the question I asked, please don't respond.

I don't need the insults or the "education."

Trumpists don't run the DOJ. Merrick Garland is in charge.

I'm interested in James Clyburn's reasoning here (assuming the Tweet accurately reflects his position).

Good grief.

[W_HAMILTON]

22. You've had the question answered for you multiple times now.

If you refuse to accept the answer, just say that rather than playing naive in post after post.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

24. I'm not naive at all.

You just keep going with the baseless insults.

The DOJ is not dominated by Trumpists. Merrick Garland is in charge.

[Magoo48]

43. I recognize your frustration.

Garland decides. If he assigns someone to a task and they refuse to do that task responsibly, then he fires them and assigns the task to someone who will do it responsibly. Is this not the case? If not, then Garland is the problem and he needs to be fired and replaced with someone who will do the will of the majority.

[SoonerPride]

16. Why wouldn't the tweet be accurate? It was a quote taken from his appearance on CNN.

Are you saying Mr. Clyburn didn't actually say it?

That's, ummmmmm, an interesting take.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

17. Ummmmm, not really.

I asked what Rep. Clyburns reasoning is here.

No one seems to want to try to flesh it out and I don't understand it myself.

I guess bickering and trying to divine ill-intent is earlier than reasoned discussions?

[SoonerPride]

18. Clyburn's reasoning is that the DOJ has too many right wingers in it

and they are actively quashing pursuit of charges or slow walking the process so as to run out the clock.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

19. And does that hold up against the reports that most of the Trump era attorneys at DOJ are gone

and that Merrick Garland is the current AG?

[SoonerPride]

20. Yes. It sure does.

Rep. Clyburn is much closer to the situation than you or I and if he voicing this concern it is justified.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

21. Which isn't an answer to a question.

The DOJ is not in the hands of Trumpists.

So I'm baffled by the argument, even when it is being made by a person I deeply admire.

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. None of the Trump era holdovers have authority over the J6 investigations/prosecutions

If you can name one, feel free to post it.

None of the top DOJ leadership are Trump era holdovers (Wray at FBI doesn’t count), and it was widely reported that investigators/prosecutors with special skills and expertise have been brought in from outside the DOJ for the J6 team. The US attorney for DC, Matthew Graves, is not a Trump lackey either, and he has primary authority over most of the investigations, IIRC.

[JanMichael]

28. Police don't have to protect people. DOJ doesn't have to defend democracy.

Why bother with civilization? At least firefighters put out fires and doctors have the Hippocratic oath. Paramedics will try to get your heart pumping and librarians will help you find a book I suppose.

[inthewind21]

4. Look at history

Name me one time the DOJ held high officials accountable. Nixon was pardoned. They cut a sweet deal with Epstein. W walked on war crimes. Iran contra snagged a few underlings but no one at the top. The S&L scandals. And the list goes on. "holdovers" are the least of the problems with DOJ.

[Evolve Dammit]

29. Excellent reality check. un-redacted Mueller report???

[Grasswire2]

67. +2 nt

[leftstreet]

66. +1

[Solly Mack]

7. This isn't a case of hunkering down and trying to survive hard times.

Thinking you can simply weather authoritarian oppression until the good times come back around in however many years it takes for that to happen is some truly delusional thinking.

This isn't a case of two parties having differing views on how to achieve a shared goal for America.

There are no shared goals for America with people who would impose theocratic/authoritarian laws.

They tried to overthrow the government. They committed sedition. They engaged in insurrection. They attempted a coup - one that is still ongoing, as republican controlled states work to further those aims.

They are working overtime to suppress the vote and control election outcomes.

They are attacking black and brown people, women, and LGBT people both by eroding their rights and through actual physical assaults and murder.

They are creating laws based on their twisted religious beliefs.

They are denying and erasing history to boost the doctrine of white supremacy.

Free-market and don't regulate anything but the uterus Republicans are so determined to impose authoritarian rule they are even attacking corporations for not bowing down to their twisted thinking.

So, sure, go ahead, don't indict, don't prosecute, don't imprison - but also don't tell me how outraged/shocked/surprised/concerned you are by what happens next.

(And I'm not saying they won't - I'm saying the price for not doing so is deadly.)

[Evolve Dammit]

33. Yes indeed

[EndlessWire]

10. I'm anxious like all the rest.

I have high doubts about a trial of the ex POTUS. We have a precedent of pardon.

But, I'm starting to think that he could get indicted. That's assuming that some Grand Jury agrees and is nonpartisan. I would like them to allow him to float away on some yacht parked down in that particular marina, just waiting for him. Just never let him ever dock at one of our ports again.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to see a perp walk. But, that should include all those guys who participated in the Georgia phone call, and some others. I don't think that we would have a problem trying them all for sedition.

I am encouraged because Garland took the time to announce that he is watching the J6 hearings. He seldom speaks, but did say that. The J6 hearings are not adversarial and can't be used for that, but they can be used by Garland. The testimonials are all under oath.

[Joinfortmill]

36. Yup.

[Justice matters.]

51. Grand Juries return indictments on a simple-majority-rule basis.

That means half of the Grand Jurees plus one.

I doubt DC GJs would be partisan. They go through strict selection stages.

[milestogo]

11. Barr didn't do shit when he was AG.

[jalan48]

13. So for a prosecution this big and this important Garland can't figure out if someone under him

is undermining an investigation of Trump? This is THE investigation of the century.

[Ohio Joe]

14. ahhh... Our very own 'deep state' conspiracy...

How nice

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/biden-s-justice-department-ask-nearly-all-trump-era-u-n1257100

The two that were allowed to stay, were limited to avoid giving repugs the opportunity to cry 'cover up'. A smart move.

[pwb]

27. Oh yah we are at each other because

some people say? We caught it from the pukes. There is no vaccine. Reading and listening is the only cure.

[dalton99a]

23. They should have cleaned house and removed the Trump trash after inauguration

[fightforfreedom]

25. Clyburns statement means nothing.

He says people are concerned, what people? He doesn't say he is concerned. He said, MAY have too many carryovers. He said, not doing what is needed to protect democracy. What does he mean by what is needed? It may be his way of putting pressure on the DOJ.

If he has serious concerns about the DOJ he should be more specific. Don't ya think.

[SoonerPride]

26. Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself.

I will take Rep Clyburn's judgment over yours, to be honest.

But please do go on.

[fightforfreedom]

31. Clyburn presented no evidence in that statement.

You are the one making something out of nothing. If he has evidence the investigation is being blocked by Trump holdovers, he should present his evidence to The American people. When people say things like, some people and may have, that sounds more like an opinion, not a statement of fact.

[SoonerPride]

37. Even if Rep. Cluburn presented evidence you would dismiss it anyway.

[fightforfreedom]

42. Brilliant post.

[Orrex]

74. It's interesting that Clyburn's lack of evidence is seen as fatal to his claims

While the DOJ cheerleaders among us assert as proof of progress the lack of any evidence that DOJ is doing anything at all.

To recap:

Clyburn presents no evidence, so we must disregard his statement.

and

There is no evidence that DOJ is acting against Trump, so we must not suggest that DOJ is not acting against Trump.



Got it.

[Joinfortmill]

32. I think it means what it says. Doesn't appear too complicated. However...

I think Garland is on it.

[Joinfortmill]

30. Garland inherited a snake pit. Looking at you Bill 'nothing to see here/ Barr.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

38. Does anyone here have solid information about how many Trump hold-over attorneys

work for the DOJ in Washington?

[SoonerPride]

44. They don't have to have been appointed by trump/Barr to be a right winger

Unless Garland literally fired everyone at DOJ and started over with a clean slate then the entire DOJ is an amalgamation of prior staff hiring.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

48. So literally no answer to the question asked.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

55. No. Snarky comments and false insinuations of ulterior motives

instead of good faith explanations about what Rep. Clyburn's reasoning might be around this comment.

So sorry if I'm attempting to understand where a man I respect is coming from on this issue.

Is that too much to ask for?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

59. "The approach?"

I have a sincere question that I don't understand with respect to James Clyburn's reasoning here.

Since I have very great respect for the man I hope to gain further insight into his thinking.

If that's unreasonable, shoot me.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

61. I thought this was a discussion forum

comprised of friendly liberal Democrats.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

63. Apparently not.

[fightforfreedom]

46. No, but according to the OP they are going to block the investigation into Trump.

The committee might as well cancel the rest of the hearings and Garland should down all the investigations into Jan 6th. What's the point if Trump hold overs are going to block everything.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

64. I highly commend you and others for engaging the doom and gloom crowd here,

I've given up engaging them. it's, IMO, useless and I've got far better things to do.

[Orrex]

45. This would all go away if we had any indication that DOJ is doing anything about Trump

The fact that Trump isn't lawyering up with a media campaign specifically attacking the DOJ is a pretty solid indication that he's not worried about any imminent DOJ action against him, so...

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to be concerned that DOJ is doing little or nothing, regardless of what the scolding cheerleaders among us have to say on the matter.

[fightforfreedom]

49. I know, Trump and his inner circle should have been indicted the moment Garland took office.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

52. Prosecutors who follow the rule of law build cases before they go indicting people.

[fightforfreedom]

54. I know, I was being sarcastic.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

56. Sorry that I misinterpreted your post.

[fightforfreedom]

58. No problem.

[Lonestarblue]

71. Interpreting someone else's comments without the full information is always fraught with the

possibility of misinterpretation. Like you, I don’t know what exactly Rep. Clyburn was hinting at, but I have made several comments here about the perceived slowness of the investigation. I have believed from the beginning that Garland should have appointed a Special Prosecutor to immediately investigate January 6 and the attempts by anyone to instigate the efforts to prevent Biden from taking office. That he didn’t and that we are sitting here a year and a half later does not inspire confidence that anything is being done other than prosecuting the people who were on video violently assaulting those trying to protect the Capitol and the building itself. Indeed, the suspicion is that Garland did not want to investigate the higher ups because of potential political fallout and only started to do so because of the revelations of the January 6 Committee. If so, that means many more months of investigation and testimony before anything will happen, at which point we could be running into a presidential election with Donald Trump as a candidate.

We now know that there is a grand jury because Peter Navarro was summoned to appear at the end of May, but he is the only one known to have been subpoenaed so far. One person who was not even the closest one to Trump. We do not know whether people much closer to Trump have also been summoned, such as Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pence, Ginni Thomas, White House aides, anyone who was regularly in the White House to January 6. That sort of information tends to leak because people talk, and it is Navarro who released his summons to the news media. Navarro refused to appear so his trial is not scheduled until several months from now. And there’s DOJ’s refusal to hold Mark Meadows in contempt for refusing to cooperate with the January 6 Committee, thus stymying part of its investigation.

There are so many questions to which we have no answers, such as who provided the inside information about which windows were vulnerable. We know some investigations are going on, and
I’m sure Rep. Clyburn knows far more about what is happening than I do, but I interpret his remarks to mean that the DOJ is moving at a snail’s pace and he wants to see some public progress. He’s questioning whether the DOJ has the right people on the job. Again, a Special Prosecutor would have been able to choose people outside the DOJ and thus outside the Trump orbit to do this investigation. That he didn’t lends credence to the suspicion that people inside the DOJ are slow walking the investigation because certainly all the Trump/Barr hires were not fired. Most of the US Attorneys were asked to resign, but most of the US Attorneys would have nothing to do with this investigation. I have long believed that members of the FBI are primarily Republican—again, just speculation on my part based on past actions like those of the NY FBI that fed negative information to Rudy about Clinton’s emails—but that is not evidence that they are hampering the investigation.

The apparent lack of progress by the DOJ causes a great deal of concern for many people, and I suspect Rep. Clyburn may simply be voicing his concern publicly because he too is frustrated and hopes to light a fire under Garland. Garland is certainly not a politician, but he is a top official in the Biden administration and the lack of any obvious progress in holding anyone other than the foot soldiers accountable for the very serious crime of insurrection can lead many people, myself included, to wonder whether Garland has the guts to investigate and possibly indict a former president. Garland’s lack of any indictments of the planners of January 6 has allowed Republicans the bullhorn for 18 months with no pushback other than various Democrats denying that the election was stolen. That, too, must gall Rep. Clyburn because he knows the likelihood of losses in the midterms and wants to see some progress before then. And then we have a presidential election where Trump could be the Republican candidate. Too many people fear that he will get a pass simply because it’s too difficult to prosecute a former president.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

72. Thank you for the substantive reply.

I too wonder if--given the nature of the investigation--whether naming a Special Prosecutor in the case wouldn't have been wise. Garland would be criticised either way, but I'd have leaned that way.

If, as you suggest (and what I have believed with admittedly little evidence to back it) most of the US Attorneys who were named by Trump are now gone, it still leaves me curious about Rep. Clyburn's comments here suggesting a slow-walking of the case.

If Clyburn is feeling frustrated by the lack of progress and how that might affect the midterms, he's not alone. I could not respect Jim Clyburn more. That's why I wanted to understand where he's coming from here.

Balanced against these frustrations, Garland has a big job to do and it is one he needs to get right. Prosecuting a former president will be hard. I'm convinced it is also something that needs to happen for the good of the Republic. A nation of laws, and all that.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Thank you again for your informative post.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

65. Ha!!!

I see what you did there.

Good one.

[Orrex]

69. Yeah, except that it's entirely nonsensical.

Well, not entirely. The subject line was pretty solid. After that? Not so much.

[Orrex]

68. Perhaps you can show me any place on the entire internet where I've made that assertion?

[Colbert]

70. More Concerned With Jury Composition

Clyburn seems concerned about carryovers from the previous administration holding the prosecution up. Really, that's the concern? If I were the prosecutor I'd be more concerned about getting a conviction, otherwise why bother? All is takes is one juror holding out to keep a conviction from happening. If you have a truly representative jury, 47% of the jurors will be Trump supporters (who are idealistically rabid). And you might be thinking, "Well, DC is really anti-Trump (he only got 5.4% of the vote in 2020)" - but that's the same rationale any competent defense lawyer would use for a change of venue. Do you really need, or want, a show trial ending in a hung jury?

[Colbert]

77. The Big Difference

Realistically and pragmatically, there's a very big difference. The average juror doesn't recognize these names of the five that have been through jury trials:
Thomas Webster
Guy Reffitt
Thomas Robertson
Dustin Thompson
Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli
... all of whom were convicted on "lesser charges" (I hate putting it that way, but they're far short of sedition or insurrection) based on indisputable video/photo evidence of violent acts committed on the Capitol grounds, backed by eye witness testimony. They're nobodies without thousands, much less millions, of dollars to defend themselves in court.

Whereas, Donald Trump is someone who's name only the most clueless individuals would fail to recognize. He wasn't on the Capitol grounds on January 6th. He's beloved by his supporters, and if there's a single Trump supporter on the jury, it would take incontrovertible evidence that Trump directly ordered an overthrow of the government (and I have serious doubts that a Trump supporter would convict even under those circumstances). Plus Trump has almost a quarter billion dollars of fundraising to spend on his defense (more will come pouring in if he's charged).

I'm well aware that the latest polling shows that 3 in 5 Americans think he should be charged. The question is, "How are you planning to keep the other 2 in 5 off the jury?" ... and failing to convict only makes his influence stronger.

That's not to say he couldn't be tried on some lesser charge - like fundraising in bad faith ... but I don't see him ever being convicted of sedition/insurrection by a jury.

[meadowlander]

73. It's not an either or. Prosecuting bad actors shows where the system weaknesses are

and removes them, at least temporarily from the equation.

What's needed to protect this democracy is the prosecute the people who attacked it.

[pecosbob]

76. IMO DOJ has never been interested in imprisoning rich white politically-connected people

Gotta call 'em like I see 'em. Their record shows it.