Why Can't DOJ Indict John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. It could easily be that DoJ doesn't want to upset the tRump case in DC. Plus they

Plus they may be building cases against Congress members and don't want to tip their hand.

Further, it might be a hell of a lot easier to convict the lawyers and the Congress members after conviction of tRump.

If they charged the lawyers, it could muddy the waters of the tRump case, giving him more grounds for delays and obfuscation. There might be issues of law and issues of evidence to litigate. Defence results might be easier to obtain for the lawyers and then on to impacting tRump's case.

I don't know. I don't have the information that DoJ has and Smith has. Neither do you.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/merrick-garland-isn-t-to-blame-for-delays-in-trump-s-election-interference-case/ar-BB1jrCWq (emphasis added)

The department took overt investigative steps against three of the six alleged co-conspirators identified in Trump’s Jan. 6 indictment in 2021, long before Garland appointed Smith to the case. Days after a New York Times report on Jeffrey Clark’s role in Jan. 6, on Jan. 25, 2021, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced an investigation into “whether any former or current DOJ official engaged in an improper attempt to have DOJ seek to alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election.” The IG investigators remained involved when FBI agents seized Clark’s phone June 23, 2022. The department had already, a month earlier, obtained a warrant for one of Clark’s private email accounts and would obtain a second one the following day. The August 2023 indictment of Trump describes Clark as co-conspirator 4.

Those often ignored early moves against Trump’s co-conspirators — and other investigative developments, such as the purported cooperation of Jan. 6 defendant Brandon Straka, investigative steps implicating Roger Stone, and the prosecution of Alex Jones’ sidekick — go unmentioned in reports that claim Garland delayed the investigation. For good reason: Most happened where reporters and pundits weren’t looking.Consider the impact Covid had on all prosecutions, nationwide, in 2021. A year of pandemic measures created a backlog that delayed not just trials, but also court hearings and grand jury investigations. It took 14 months to bring the first Jan. 6 defendant to trial, even though that defendant was identified to the FBI before the attack. The conspiracy indictment of the several rioters who first broke into the Senate chamber — whose GoPro video prosecutors may use to show Trump’s direct influence on rioters at his trial — had to be delayed from April to September 2021 because of Covid challenges.

Plus, investigating Trump was like investigating a very corrupt law firm. According to a filing from Jack Smith, “at least 25 witnesses withheld information, communications, and documents based on assertions of the attorney-client privilege under circumstances where the privilege holder appears to be the defendant or his 2020 presidential campaign.” Some of these witnesses are obvious — and central to the plot to steal the election: Giuliani, John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro were all described as co-conspirators. Several lawyers worked for Giuliani — people such as Christina Bobb and Jenna Ellis. Others worked for the campaign, or participated in state-level conspiracies or lawsuits.

The delays created by Covid, use of encryption, attorney-client and executive privilege claims were unavoidable, even for the most obvious evidence. Take the tweet Trump sent at 2:24 p.m. Jan. 6: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage.” It was right there in public! But to present that in court first required the exploitation of at least two phones, nine months of fights over executive privilege, a 23-day stall from Twitter and two sets of interviews with at least eight different top aides. One delay that was unnecessary was caused by some of the people who most loudly blamed Garland: the Jan. 6 Committee.