Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(86,045 posts)
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 01:33 PM Mar 1

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

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




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.
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DOJ says policy about not taking actions close to elections DOES NOT apply post-indictments (Original Post) bigtree Mar 1 OP
Does this mean that Garland DURHAM D Mar 1 #1
Garland hasn't stood in the way of any prosecution bigtree Mar 1 #5
Not sure what that's supposed to mean. TwilightZone Mar 1 #6
My point is that he actually had something to say. PERIOD DURHAM D Mar 1 #7
I'm not clear on where Dilanian got this bigtree Mar 1 #8
If he did, the Repughs would accuse him of collusion with anybody they could find to throw mud at so it would stick. ificandream Mar 1 #17
Nothing in the OP said that Garland said anything. TwilightZone Mar 1 #9
I won't be holding my breath. onecaliberal Mar 1 #25
My guess: Cannon will grant the August court date. That will knock Chutkan off the schedule till after Scrivener7 Mar 1 #27
Exactly. Judges can always humor the excrement spewed by dumpco. onecaliberal Mar 1 #28
Sword of Damocles Tommy Carcetti Mar 1 #2
Orange Whining Tour will have to campaign between court dates bucolic_frolic Mar 1 #3
Oh dear, gab13by13 Mar 1 #4
A girl can dream wryter2000 Mar 1 #13
I don't trust that case and judge cannon.I'd rather not even try that case Tribetime Mar 1 #22
The case is open and shut wryter2000 Mar 1 #24
With this DOJ, we shall see. republianmushroom Mar 1 #10
with Jack Smith wryter2000 Mar 1 #12
Yes, but, Jack Smith is not the head of the DOJ, which is to bad. republianmushroom Mar 1 #16
It appears wryter2000 Mar 1 #19
rec rec rec rec rec wryter2000 Mar 1 #11
No one has a superseding right to run for potus or get potus. lindysalsagal Mar 1 #14
It didn't apply in 2016 either, when Comey injected DOJ back into politics for like the 4th time ffr Mar 1 #15
That's what one of my BILs ttold me malaise Mar 1 #18
But who said Republicans should acknowledge that? calimary Mar 1 #21
True - but eff them malaise Mar 1 #23
I literally felt a flood of relief when I read these words! ShazzieB Mar 1 #20
update: It was DOJ attorney Jay Bratt in the doc hearing who made the statement bigtree Mar 1 #26

bigtree

(86,045 posts)
5. Garland hasn't stood in the way of any prosecution
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 01:47 PM
Mar 1

...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

(25,553 posts)
6. Not sure what that's supposed to mean.
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 01:49 PM
Mar 1

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.

bigtree

(86,045 posts)
8. I'm not clear on where Dilanian got this
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 02:03 PM
Mar 1

...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

(9,454 posts)
17. If he did, the Repughs would accuse him of collusion with anybody they could find to throw mud at so it would stick.
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 03:12 PM
Mar 1

Scrivener7

(51,114 posts)
27. My guess: Cannon will grant the August court date. That will knock Chutkan off the schedule till after
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 06:05 PM
Mar 1

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

(33,053 posts)
28. Exactly. Judges can always humor the excrement spewed by dumpco.
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 06:40 PM
Mar 1

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

(43,237 posts)
2. Sword of Damocles
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 01:42 PM
Mar 1

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

(43,641 posts)
3. Orange Whining Tour will have to campaign between court dates
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 01:45 PM
Mar 1

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

gab13by13

(21,599 posts)
4. Oh dear,
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 01:46 PM
Mar 1

A flicker of hope.

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

wryter2000

(46,174 posts)
13. A girl can dream
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 02:39 PM
Mar 1

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.

wryter2000

(46,174 posts)
24. The case is open and shut
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 04:28 PM
Mar 1

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.

lindysalsagal

(20,834 posts)
14. No one has a superseding right to run for potus or get potus.
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 02:41 PM
Mar 1

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

(22,688 posts)
15. It didn't apply in 2016 either, when Comey injected DOJ back into politics for like the 4th time
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 02:54 PM
Mar 1

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.

calimary

(81,666 posts)
21. But who said Republicans should acknowledge that?
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 03:57 PM
Mar 1

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

ShazzieB

(16,733 posts)
20. I literally felt a flood of relief when I read these words!
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 03:55 PM
Mar 1

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

Me:

bigtree

(86,045 posts)
26. update: It was DOJ attorney Jay Bratt in the doc hearing who made the statement
Fri Mar 1, 2024, 05:26 PM
Mar 1

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.




Kick in to the DU tip jar?

This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.

As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.

Tell me more...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»DOJ says policy about not...