Thu Jun 23, 2022, 08:41 AM

Feds seek delay in Proud Boys conspiracy case as it collides with parallel January 6 inquiry

Source: The Guardian

The US justice department’s criminal investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack collided with the parallel congressional investigation, causing federal prosecutors to seek a delay in proceedings in the seditious conspiracy case against the far-right Proud Boys group.

The two January 6 inquiries had largely managed to steer clear of each other even as both the justice department and a House select committee pursued the same ground. But it all came to head on Wednesday.

At a hearing in federal court in Washington, federal prosecutors and defendants in justice department’s seditious conspiracy case asked a federal judge to delay the August trial date of former Proud Boys national chairman Henry Tarrio, AKA Enrique Tarrio and other top members of the far-right group.

“It is reasonably foreseeable that information relevant to the defendants’ guilt (or innocence) could soon be released,” assistant US attorney Erik Kenerson wrote on Tuesday. “Inability to prepare their respective cases … is potentially prejudicial – to all parties.”

5 replies, 732 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

5 replies	Author	Time	Post
Feds seek delay in Proud Boys conspiracy case as it collides with parallel January 6 inquiry (Original post)	brooklynite	Jun 23	OP
I flat out do not understand this.	gab13by13	Jun 23	#1
House committee and DoJ prosecutors usually...	Mawspam2	Jun 23	#2
I do not agree,	gab13by13	Jun 23	#3
It is very rare I find disagreement with your analysis, this is one I disagree with premise wrt ...	msfiddlestix	Jun 23	#4
It's not a question of DOJ's liability.	Beastly Boy	Jun 23	#5

Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 09:21 AM

gab13by13 (10,634 posts)

1. I flat out do not understand this.

It seems to be about discovery. Does the select committee have an obligation to turn over "possible new evidence" to DOJ? If it does then DOJ merely needs to subpoena said possible new evidence.

If DOJ has no means to obtain the possible new evidence, legally, then how can it be liable for not providing to the defense all of the evidence it has in its possession?

The part about some time down the road the select committee may make public, information that could hurt or help the prosecution, I have one thing to ask, So What?

I was told that DOJ doesn't indict unless it has its ducks all lined up in a row. If this is true, and DOJ has released to the defense all of the evidence it has, what is the damn problem? As Barack Obama put it, "Please proceed."

Reply to this post

Response to gab13by13 (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 09:40 AM

Mawspam2 (361 posts)

2. House committee and DoJ prosecutors usually...

...keep each other informed on what they are doing so as not to screw up the others investigations, however there are a lot of Trump lackies still burrowed deep in Justice.

DoJ issued a blanket request for ALL transcripts from the committee. The committee simply doesn't trust that DoJ wouldn't leak them to coordinate answers among targets before the full truth is learned.

The committee has done an excellent job in being leak free. DoJ?

Reply to this post

Response to Mawspam2 (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 09:46 AM

gab13by13 (10,634 posts)

3. I do not agree,

show me where the select committee and DOJ coordinated or shared anything?

I don't believe that the select committee does not trust DOJ, Merrick Garland is an honorable man. If there are known Trump lackeys in DOJ, give them assignments in Nome, Alaska.

Reply to this post

Response to gab13by13 (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 11:22 AM

msfiddlestix (4,638 posts)

4. It is very rare I find disagreement with your analysis, this is one I disagree with premise wrt ...

TRump lackeys in the DOJ. I'm fairly confident that The failed sociopath, aka TFG, has his supporters well entrenched in DOJ and FBI.

If Durham is still there, then what more proof is required?

I'm just speculating of course, but I kind of suspect that firings based on "political persuasion" cannot legitimately be the basis for firings. I had hoped Garland could just suck up these dirty bastards with an industrial sized vacuum cleaner as soon as he was confirmed. But you know, fantasy/wishful thinking can't be applied, no matter how much I wish it.

I think these insurrectionist sympathysizers are well entrenched in Justice Dept/FBI and intelligence agencies. Military, certainly SCOTUS etc etc etc. We wouldn't be facing what we are on this scale if it wasn't the case.

ETA I think they'll do anything feasibly possible (and still keep their jobs) to derail and sabotage proceedings, investigations trials. etc.
,

Reply to this post

Response to gab13by13 (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 12:47 PM

Beastly Boy (4,574 posts)

5. It's not a question of DOJ's liability.

The J6 committee is still getting new information, presumably related to the DOJ case. DOJ is required to share information in their possession with the defense prior to presenting their case. If DOJ gets the information and shares it with the defense at the time that doesn't allow the defense to adequately prepare themselves for trial (the trial has already been scheduled, as far as I understand), the defense has a good reason to deem the new evidence inadmissible and/or request a mistrial. If mistrial is granted, it will take a hell of a lot more time to begin a new trial than reschedule this one. DOJ faces a similar time restraint in preparing the new evidence for trial.

Nobody is liable, that's just procedural stuff. Everybody, including the judge, wants to avoid the possibility of this happening.

Reply to this post

Latest Breaking News (Forum)