General Discussion

...Garland's prosecutors began investigating the Trump WH as early as the Fall of 2021, well before Congress began their own investigations.

And you can tell just how little they contributed to the actual indictment by the dearth of any material from those hearings in evidence or from the witnesses who are key in the election interference charges brought by the Special Counsel.

Go on, name ONE thing from the one-sided congressional hearings which made it into the indictment.

Name one thing in the indictment from the Jan 6 committee investigation which withheld ALL of the product of their investigations from DOJ (despite repeated requests for a year) until MONTHS after they ended their hearings.

There's nothing in there that DOJ hadn't already obtained. ALL of the product of the subpoenas they initiated in 2021 was put through myriad appeals in successive courts, sometimes up to the Supreme Court. ALL of the witnesses in the indictment who were top Trump WH aides, officials, and attorneys saw their challenges defeated by Garland prosecutors stretching well into Smith's term.

You've presented a myopic, incomplete, and frankly false representation of the investigation and prosecution to make the conclusions you posted. You should read the report.

Garland directed his investigators FROM THE BEGINNING to go as high up the chain as the evidence took them. In the Fall of 2021, his Deputy AG directed Tom Windom to investigate the Trump WH:



from December 2022:


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

No stone was left unturned, and this is important because, DOJ isn't just responsible for putting forth their charges and evidence of crimes in court, they are responsible for presenting responses to ALL of the evidence available. That includes what the perps present, as well as reconciling whatever Congress gathered.

All of that is required to be made available to the defense under Discovery obligations before a trial can proceed. It can make or break a case, so this notion that all they needed was one piece of the prosecution or the other is a simplistic and false representation of what would be a successful or even viable prosecution

Read the report.