Another Showdown in DOJ

On MSNBC yesterday afternoon, there were two, substantive comments that overlapped in significantly more detail (and expertise) some thoughts I suggested here last week when looking at silence from the Department of Justice and concerns that that meant it wasn't investigating of the Trump circle.

In short, I suggested that I was absolutely certain the DOJ was investigating and that Attorney General Merrick Garland had a long record of keep any details from leaking.  And that when looking at the president and those in the White House it was likely that Garland knows he needs evidence so rock-solid that it’s not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt to convince a jury to convict such people.

One of the people on the panel was former FBI counter-espionage agent Peter Strzok who was asked about the House Select Committee and also how that compared to the lack of information we’re hearing from the DOJ, and if that had any meaning to him.  He said the Select Committees work was far faster than any he’d seen in all his years of working on FBI cases in conjunction with a House committee investigation.  And then that led into his thoughts about the DOJ.  And from his insider’s perspective, he thought there was information much more significant than others might see.  He said –

“I do think both the Department of Justice and FBI are looking at the broad scope of what happened on January 6.  They’ve been very focused on the lower levels of the protestors, the 700 plus folks who have been charged have been largely at the lower level.  I do absolutely think that in many cases they are looking now we know, for instance, that there’s some indication that DOJ got records of Steve Bannon’s attorney, we know that DOJ has sought and obtained Rudy Giuliani’s records.  Of course, Giuliani was the counselor to the president, and we know the DOJ is looking at people like Sidney Powell who served in some capacity in a senior level as an attorney.  So, this activity at a higher level is going on at DOJ.  I do worry that just by the nature of criminal investigations as we hit this point of the higher levels, DOJ is necessarily going to be a little bit slower and maybe a step or two behind what Congress is doing.”

He was followed moments later by former Federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade who was asked about her thoughts on the long delay there has been in the DOJ following up on the House Select Committee recommending charges against former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows for refusing to testify as a witness.  And her comments were not only fascinating, but they dealt with where she thought the Department of Justice might possibly be headed.  What she said was –

“One of the reasons the DOJ has refrained from charging Mark Meadows with contempt is because they’re thinking of him not as a witness but as a defendant.  It could very well be that they’re looking at him as a bigger fish.  If they charge him with contempt, it may preclude them from charging him with other things.  And so, at the moment, there’s a possibility of other charges, bigger charges on the table.  I could imagine a scenario where Trump and some of his inner-circle are charged with a crime of conspiracy to defraud the United States, that makes it a crime to obstruct the functioning of government, and so the functioning of the workings of the Electoral College and Congress and certifying of the president.  Mark Meadows was in the inner-circle in all of those meetings.  He was the in meetings with Pence where President Trump was trying to pressure Pence to do, to overturn the election by abusing his power as vice president, Mark Meadows was involved in the decisions and conversations with Brad Raffensberger, the Secretary of State of Georgia, and so it very well may be that they’re looking to charge him with a more serious crime and thinking of him not as a witness but as a defendant.  It’s speculation, but it’s what we’re left with. I know some have expressed frustration with Merrick Garland for moving so slowly and saying so little, but I still take a lot of stock in the statements he made about efforts to pursue bad actors at any level, regardless of whether they were there on January 6 or not.”

Certainly, both of these comments are total speculation on what the Department of Justice is doing (although Peter Strzok does point out some important specifics facts that we know about on the record, though where they will lead is another matter).  And it's uncertain, assuming they are investigating, how much focus the DOJ might put on January 6 only, as opposed too all the conspiratorial efforts to undermine democracy in the months before (and after) the insurrection.  But given the points Strzok and McQuade make which are generally not limited to January 6 only, as well as Garland's own comments about following evidence wherever it leads, they offer hope, and support the suggestions I made the other day and have made here for a few months.

I don’t know.  Though as I always say – I live in reality but I have a vacation home in the Land of Hope.