Thread by @DirkSchwenk

DOJ Translator Thread: Should we freak out or not about what the Attorney General says about investigations? Or not!?

First off, the DOJ/FBI doesn't investigate people. If you ask it "are you investigating Trump" the answer is basically always "no." But if you ask it "are you investigating possible crimes" the answer will always be "yes" - because that's what they do.

In private (ie when talking to people and attorneys), the DOJ uses three words: Witness, Subject and Target. Investigators will be looking at the conduct of all three (and probably others, too), but they are not investigating those people - they are investigating possible crime

In common talk - ie not official statements of the DOJ under oath before Congress - we would say the DOJ is investigating someone if they are either a target or a subject. We would probably not say they were investigating someone if they are a witness.

The underlying reality, however, is largely the same. The DOJ wants to know everything that that person knows or did, so that when interviewed, the DOJ knows if they are lying and knows what to ask about. In common use - everyone is being investigated.

So the DOJ does the same thing - investigates - whether a person is a witness, subject or target. A witness becomes a subject if the DOJ has evidence they may have committed a crime. A subject is elevated to a target when the DOJ believes there is sufficient evidence to charge.

A witness can become a subject in a heartbeat too - all they have to do is lie when interviewed, and if that lie is deemed material, then they are suddenly a subject of an obstruction of justice investigation. Classic FA&FO

In private - as between DOJ and the individual - it is DOJ policy to inform someone if they are subject or target if they are called before a Grand Jury. That person may sometimes tell the press about their status, but the DOJ will not.

One more key point before we look at some answers from yesterday. Under the DOJ Justice Manual, absent special circumstances, the DOJ never publicly acknowledges an investigation or that someone is a subject or target unless/until charges are filed.

AG Garland, as I understood him, repeatedly gave the assurances that are called for "when the community needs to be reassured". He said there was an investigation of Jan 6, that it was not limited or hindered, and the right people were doing it.

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1453380692767879178?s=20

And people, by and large, got the message.

https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1453379035753598984?s=20

I view this memo in the same light - the AG confirming that there is an investigation of Trump's efforts to undermine DOJ independence. It doesn't name "targets", but defines a scope of ONE investigation.

https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1453411624312791040?s=20

We know some of the likely subjects of that investigation - Clark for one - based on public reporting. And we know that the IG will find everything that can be found about communications and actions of those involved. So ... is this an investigation of Trump?

In public DOJ speak, the answer is "no" for 2 big reasons. One, Trump isn't DOJ personnel, and the IG's jurisdiction is DOJ. Two, it's not an investigation of any person, it's an investigation of possible misconduct. But Trump is damn sure a witness, as are a lot of his lackeys.

And so the AG confirmed an IG investigation of conduct where Trump was directly involved. The IG will investigate everything that it can about the interactions, communications and conduct. If evidence of a crime is found, that evidence will be referred for further investigation

If it warrants, a Grand Jury will investigate that conduct and US Attorney will make a prosecutorial judgment as to whether it should be prosecuted. justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-…

And so, against a broad policy against confirming any investigations, the AG confirmed yesterday that there is a broad investigation in the Jan6 sedition, and that it is ongoing and unlimited.

And we already know that there is an investigation into the Trump era efforts to use the DOJ to overturn the election. We know a good number of people both in the DOJ and at the White House that participated in that. So in common parlance, yes, there's an investigation of Trump

Based on public reporting, we know there are plenty of other investigations ongoing, but due to the Justice Manual we know that the DOJ will not acknowledge those unless charges are filed and unsealed. And the "comment" will be the unsealing of those charges.

Such "comments" were part of Mueller's special brilliance - he filed charges to explain things that could not be explained in any other fashion. The charges against the Russian IRA is a great example justice.gov/file/1035477/d…

Filing US charges against Russian nationals who are unlikely to ever be brought to justice in the US is somewhat futile EXCEPT THAT it let Mueller lay out the facts of the Russian attack on the US election.

I personally would really welcome a complaint that similarly lays out one of the myriad Trump era attacks on our nation - and I hope and trust that we will get some soon.

And I would really, really, really welcome the unsealing of charges against at least one member of the Trump family as a symbolic statement that absolutely no one is above the law.

And when one of those complaints is unsealed, I will gleefully break it down for you. For now, though,

Dirk out.

And if you dig this kind of thing, please follow the account.