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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(93,319 posts)
30. read the Smith report
Wed Aug 20, 2025, 12:19 PM
Aug 2025

...very little of what Congress uncovered and presented was used in either prosecution.

Congress actually focused on the links between protestors and the Trump WH, the 'foot soldiers that all the critics deride Garland for zeroing in on first, and if you bother to look at the actual investigation you will see that the Garland DOJ immediately set about investigating just that, BEFORE Congress held one hearing.

There wasn't ONE top Trump lawyer or aide investigated by Congress, who's testimony GARLAND's prosecutors forced by fighting through successive courts to have their attorney or other privileges removed, and who's testimony is KEY in the actual indictments.

Not one Trump WH official, just sassy Hutchinson whose testimony legal novices believed was going to be as consequential as all of the internet and teevee fantasy prosecutors told them it would be.

___Several months after the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, FBI investigators began pursuing a tantalizing tip suggesting that Donald Trump had possibly met with members of the Proud Boys, the far-right group that took part in some of the most brutal violence that day, people briefed on the investigation told CNN.
call to action icon

For months, the FBI and a team of prosecutors looked for potential links between Trump’s inner circle and the Proud Boys, whose leader was ultimately found guilty of seditious conspiracy and is serving 22 years in prison, the longest sentence of any January 6 defendant.

Investigators spent much of that summer poring over call records of Proud Boys members and conducting scores of interviews. They homed in on a period in late 2020, when an informant alleged an interaction between Trump or his inner circle and the Proud Boys occurred.

Prosecutors inside the Justice Department also dug through reams of opaque financial records, searching for any direct links between Trump and the organizations that brought “Stop the Steal” rallygoers to Washington for his speech ahead of the Capitol attack. From there, they examined the so-called war room setup at the Willard hotel in Washington, where Steve Bannon and other Trump supporters strategized how to thwart the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

In the end, no direct criminal links to Trump emerged. The suspected Proud Boys meeting, the Willard hotel room and the rally fundraising were all dead ends.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-judge-weigh-path-forward-100455749.html


...weird how this 'dead end' that Congress and Nicolle Wallace and others got people all frothy about, claiming the congressional committe was god's gift to prosecuting Trump, is the same thing Garland was spending his time investigating, along with the rest of the more substantive evidence that followed which became available by successfully fighting the court challenges.

Weird to be touting congressional hearings in which ALL of the evidence they gathered and ALL of the depositions and other communications they obtained were WITHHELD by them from DOJ until the FALL of 2023.

DOJ: Failure to grant dept access to Jan 6 cmte. witness transcripts complicates investigations

“The Select Committee’s failure to grant the Department access to these transcripts complicates the Department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” DOJ wrote in a letter Wednesday, signed by Assistant Attorneys General Kenneth Polite, Jr. and Matthew Olsen, as well as U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves.

The DOJ officials said it was “critical” that the panel provide prosecutors “copies of the transcripts of all its witness interviews.”

Prosecutors agreed Thursday to delay a scheduled August trial of the leadership of the Proud Boys, a pro-Trump militia group, citing the “prejudice” caused by the select committee’s public hearings, which are ongoing for much of this month. The leaders are facing seditious conspiracy charges for their activities on Jan. 6. The proposed trial delay to December — backed by some defendants — would require the approval of the federal judge handling the case.

In addition to the transcript dispute, prosecutors are facing increasing complaints from defense attorneys that the Jan. 6 panel releasing selected details of their investigation — including in currently ongoing public hearings — is unfair to their clients. They are demanding access to all the records and have expressed concerns that they might all be abruptly made public right in the middle of a Proud Boys trial.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/16/tensions-escalate-as-doj-renews-request-for-jan-6-panel-transcripts-00040267

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Ben Wittes at Lawfare bigtree Aug 2025 #1
I have stated my opinion numerous times gab13by13 Aug 2025 #2
Right? Cosmocat Aug 2025 #15
A simple question: Chasstev365 Aug 2025 #3
you didn't figure in any republican judge or justice bigtree Aug 2025 #6
The long stretch of inactivity, and the long stretch that followed of minimal activity, Scrivener7 Aug 2025 #4
The case is: he failed, and he projected a meek quality that made him a natural scapegoat, who deserved it. Blues Heron Aug 2025 #5
we failed to back him up with our votes bigtree Aug 2025 #8
The last sentence makes sense to me. yardwork Aug 2025 #7
I guess no one is defending edhopper Aug 2025 #9
This boils down to "Garland was slow, but the Supreme Court might have blocked him anyway, and Republican voters muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #10
where, specifically are you claiming Garland was 'slow'? bigtree Aug 2025 #11
From the article: muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #12
'optimal speed' bigtree Aug 2025 #14
Fall 2021 - there's a delay of over 6 months. And a "slow-moving" strategy was the wrong one muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #17
jesus, do you know anything about prosecutions? bigtree Aug 2025 #18
Trump should have been the priority, not the rioters muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #19
Garland treated BOTH as a priority bigtree Aug 2025 #20
Apart from the failure to bring Trump to court before the 2024 election muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #21
Trump's indictment was actually IN COURT when we voted bigtree Aug 2025 #23
"In court" - meaning charges were listed, not that Trump was in court, with evidence being laid before a jury muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #28
there was a judge assigned, holding hearings in a courtroom who was approving all of the evidence bigtree Aug 2025 #29
A nice crock of baloney. lees1975 Aug 2025 #13
they moved as fast as the courts allowed bigtree Aug 2025 #16
Congress laid out the evidence in an investigation that was as complete as anything the DOJ had done lees1975 Aug 2025 #27
read the Smith report bigtree Aug 2025 #30
Imagine having "Defending Merrick Garland" be your political priority in 2025 thebigidea Aug 2025 #22
I'm more comfortable defending people who prosecuted Trump than attacking them bigtree Aug 2025 #24
He should have appointed Jack Smith immediately, rather than 2 years later. Bluepinky Aug 2025 #25
show us specifically where that would have made a difference bigtree Aug 2025 #32
He gave them a hat (to buy) MaineBlueBear Aug 2025 #26
I have zero problem with people defending Marrick Garland. gab13by13 Aug 2025 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»'The Situation: In Defens...»Reply #30