DOJ says policy about not taking actions close to elections DOES NOT apply post-indictments

[bigtree]

Garrett Haake @GarrettHaake
My colleague @KenDilanianNBC reports big news from documents scheduling hearing today is that DOJ says policy about not taking actions close to elections DOES NOT apply post-indictments (so, trials). That means federal Trump trials could be ongoing during fall campaign/voting

Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance
Read the policy for yourself-it doesn't apply after a case is indicted, when the judge, not DOJ, is in charge of the schedule. Trump's lawyers got it dead wrong. I explain about midway down here: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/were-going-to-need-more-coffee

Link to tweet

update:

Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 3m
Big: During proceedings in the classified docs case, DOJ lawyer Jay Bratt said the Department's '60-day rule' on taking actions before an election does NOT apply to cases that have already been indicted and are being litigated.

Meaning the '60-day rule' isn't applicable.

[DURHAM D]

1. Does this mean that Garland

has finally decided to do his job?

[bigtree]

5. Garland hasn't stood in the way of any prosecution

...having appointed the SC, on his own volition, who quickened and deepened the already advanced Garland investigations into the Trump WH.

December 11, 2022:

Smith takes over a staff that’s already nearly twice the size of Robert Mueller’s team of lawyers who worked on the Russia probe.  A team of 20 prosecutors investigating January 6 and the effort to overturn the 2020 election are in the process of moving to work under Smith, according to multiple people familiar with the team.

Smith will also take on national security investigators already working the probe into the potential mishandling of federal records taken to Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House.

Together, the twin investigations have already established more evidence than what Mueller started with, including from a year-long financial probe that’s largely flown under the radar.

“Mueller was starting virtually from scratch, whereas Jack Smith is seemingly integrating on the fly into an active, fast-moving investigation,” said Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and senior CNN legal analyst.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html

"including from a year-long financial probe that’s largely flown under the radar."

[TwilightZone]

6. Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

The context is the cases that are already under indictment. As clearly noted, the DOJ is not in charge of the schedule; the individual judges are.

[DURHAM D]

7. My point is that he actually had something to say. PERIOD

[bigtree]

8. I'm not clear on where Dilanian got this

...whether he's stating this from a court filing or DOJ policy.

But I doubt Garland actually said anything in this case. That's what the independence is all about.

[ificandream]

17. If he did, the Repughs would accuse him of collusion with anybody they could find to throw mud at so it would stick.

[TwilightZone]

9. Nothing in the OP said that Garland said anything.

[onecaliberal]

25. I won't be holding my breath.

[Scrivener7]

27. My guess: Cannon will grant the August court date. That will knock Chutkan off the schedule till after

the election. Then as the Cannon trial approaches, there will be urgent reasons to postpone it, and the new date will be after the election.

[onecaliberal]

28. Exactly. Judges can always humor the excrement spewed by dumpco.

None of these arguments are legal. They’re going to appeal everything and appeal and appeal until someone says enough. I’m fucking exhausted.

[Tommy Carcetti]

2. Sword of Damocles

Hanging over Trump.

And if a majority of voters are still happy to vote for a guy with pending criminal charges and indictments at the time of election, then we deserve every thing that subsequently happens to us.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Orange Whining Tour will have to campaign between court dates

Though it's just an excuse for another SCOTUS appeal.

[gab13by13]

4. Oh dear,

A flicker of hope.

Thinking Trump may appeal this to his Supreme Court, maybe his court will issue a stay until it decides?

[wryter2000]

13. A girl can dream

So, if idiot Cannon takes Trump's 8/12 date, he'd be in court for a trial for taking highly classified documents during the hottest heat of the campaign.

I'm not counting on it, but it's hard to imagine anything worse for him.

[Tribetime]

22. I don't trust that case and judge cannon.I'd rather not even try that case

Before election

[wryter2000]

24. The case is open and shut

He has never denied taking classified documents. He has never denied not returning them despite having been subpoenaed to do so. There is ample evidence of his trying to hide documents and lying in saying he'd returned everything. I'm sure Jack Smith can get a conviction, although he might have to get it from a jury instead of this biased judge.

[republianmushroom]

10. With this DOJ, we shall see.

[wryter2000]

12. with Jack Smith

The chances are way better.

[republianmushroom]

16. Yes, but, Jack Smith is not the head of the DOJ, which is to bad.

[wryter2000]

19. It appears

The head of the DOJ has done the right thing in this case.

[wryter2000]

11. rec rec rec rec rec

Can I rec this a few more times?

[lindysalsagal]

14. No one has a superseding right to run for potus or get potus.

If you eff up your life too much to run, that's not damage the state exacted upon you: it's your own damned fault.

[ffr]

15. It didn't apply in 2016 either, when Comey injected DOJ back into politics for like the 4th time

We wouldn't be in this mess had:
1) Comey not caved to RW demands to re-re-re-re-investigate Hillary Clinton about E-mail security again again again
2) the American people were given news that was anything other than horse-race media hype

We'd instead be talking about Hillary Clinton's successor in 2024, instead of ol' poopy-pants ending democracy.

[malaise]

18. That's what one of my BILs ttold me

Great news

[calimary]

21. But who said Republicans should acknowledge that?

They’re playing a game they made up, with “rules” that they either just made us or found in some Crackerjack box.

[malaise]

23. True - but eff them

Justice is coming

[ShazzieB]

20. I literally felt a flood of relief when I read these words!

NBC's Garrett Haake: 'DOJ says policy about not taking actions close to elections DOES NOT apply post-indictments'

Me:

[bigtree]

26. update: It was DOJ attorney Jay Bratt in the doc hearing who made the statement

update:

Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 3m
Big: During proceedings in the classified docs case, DOJ lawyer Jay Bratt said the Department's '60-day rule' on taking actions before an election does NOT apply to cases that have already been indicted and are being litigated.

Meaning the '60-day rule' isn't applicable.

Link to tweet