Just wondering this morning if the Special prosecutor could/ would

But I don't see why he would want to do it in the first place.

I hope the public gets to see the full report from the Com.

The J6 committee is bound by its mission to release the report. And their time expires in a couple of weeks. Even if Smith sues the committee and his lawsuit does not get thrown out, he doesn't have the time to see it through the court system at this point.

… report will really be a huge nothing burger. For those less informed, maybe a little shocking here and there.

Of course - the problem is that the report is only likely to be read by people who have kept up anyway. We here tend to greatly underestimate how many around us are paying attention.

I went to a Christmas party last weekend. 11 of us got into a conversation about politics, and the conversation turned to Q. 5 had never heard of it. 3 others had only heard that it existed and really knew nothing about it. And all of us were left of center to varying degrees.

THAT shocked me.

But no, he would still have no power to do so. The house is a constitutional body separate and distinct from the executive branch.

He could ask, but it is unlikely he would be headed.

being bound by its rules and regulations and exercising the exact same powers granted by law to DOJ that the rest of the department has been, don't you?
How has he embarrassed DOJ so far, and why would he want to "further" embarrass himself along with DOJ?

I merely posed it as a rational that the doj may not want certain information made public by the house committee.

And if smith chooses not to indict on any articular counts, he may find it politically embarrassing that the house released convincing evidence.

But I maintain he has neither the power nor the mandate to make such a demand.

They should be very embarrassed though that the house was so far out in front of them on investigations. There were several reports that house hearings disclosed evidece they hadn't bothered to look for.

"the doj may not want certain information made public by the house committee". The meaning of the former denotes past incompetence or misconduct in DOJ doing its job, and is incompatible with the meaning of the latter, which denotes a speculation on possible future political embarrassment to DOJ and Smith that may or may not result from some action on the part of the J6 committee.

Accusing DOJ of gross inaction is entirely gratuitous and capricious, and stating that Smith "further embarrass" DOJ strongly suggests that DOJ has been previously embarrassed by Smith, someone else, or DOJ's own conduct, all of which is far from being accurate. Especially when followed by the admission that these accusations are irrelevant to the situation at hand anyway.

If it weren't for the house making much of this information public, the doj would have done nothing wrt to trump and his elite's.

Sure, they went after the individuals who assaulted the house physically, but not the political leaders.

It is a significant difference of opinion. I still maintain gross inaction was being conducted. Though later they moved somewhat when information became public. It was still a game of catch up for them though. Shameful at it's least.

DOJ of gross inaction. It kind of clashes with your later statement that DOJ, in the course of their ongoing investigation, moved somewhat when information became public. I have difficulty discerning action and gross inaction in your narrative. Is DOJ's continued investigation action or inaction? Is gross inaction, after about 800 indictments and multiple convictions of people of a exceedingly difficult to prosecute charge of seditious conspiracy, as well as appointing a special counsel for the exclusive purpose of investigating Trump himself, still accurately describes DOJ today?

How did you arrive, in forming your opinion, to the conclusion that without the House making information public, DOJ would have done nothing, and how does it square with your next statement that, despite the House making information public, they didn't go after Trump and his elites? Does appointing a special counsel not constitute going after Trump? And how is a game of catch up different from gross inaction, if at all?

I am just having difficulty understanding what you base your opinions on.

just a question of timing. Before the j6 team started releasing their findings, the doj was sitting on its thumbs. Gross inaction is an accurate description of that time.

they were caught flat footed because they had done none of the investigating they should have. The evidence was lying out in plain site. The j6 committee found it with far less power to investigate.

After they were embarrassed by that, they started to slowly investigate. It never really approached the level of intensity you would expect from such crimes.

Now they have pitched it all to a sc. Hopefully that will focus the investigations, because they certainly weren't going very fast or fr before.

So we disagree. You don't have convincing evidence, but you are trying to twist what I have said. Hopefully that is now clear. It all depends on a point in time.

And it is all accurate.

"Sitting on its thumbs", "caught flat footed" "embarrassed", are all catchy memes, but they don't signify anything of substance. What makes you convinced that the events happened the way you described them? Any evidence? Certainly not. Correlation has never equated to causation. Without evidence, there is no accuracy in your claim of gross inaction. Evidence alone never amounted to a successful prosecution. No definition for "they should have". No indication of J6 committee finding, rather than making public, any evidence before DOJ did, or how much evidence and what kind we are talking about. And how can you possibly expect DOJ going very fast on an investigation of unprecedented magnitude and scope?

All speculations. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but please don't call them accurate.

Sure, I don't have convincing evidence either, but I don't claim I do. And I don't make sweeping conclusions based on no evidence.

TY!