It's critical to recognize that the J6C can investigate whatever and whomever related to the Big Lie, without regard to known/suspected criminality. The DOJ is far more restricted in what it can investigate.
The J6C, however, can refer suspected criminal acts to the DOJ and provide evidentiary backup. The DOJ does not have to worry about the evidence being tainted by lack of reasonable suspicion/warrant/probable cause because J6C isn't subject to those restrictions when it subpoenas
And I specify the Big Lie, not just January 6, because we know that J6C is looking at events in GA that occured well before J6. And I'm sure they are beyond GA as well.
There are going to be a flood of charges.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dirk Schwenk (Esq) 🎵

Dirk Schwenk (Esq) 🎵 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DirkSchwenk

13 Dec
One of the things I learned in law school is that you can't trust ANYONE to read original documents (cases, statutes, regulations) etc., and give a reasonable account of what they say. You have to read stuff. And so ... let's read the House's referral of Mark Meadows for contempt
The Number One Question I'd like some insight into is what (if anything) the Jan6 Committee is willing to reveal about the connections between political operatives and violent mobsters
The report is here if you want to check it out for yourself. docs.house.gov/meetings/IJ/IJ…
So far NOTHING that has leaked out of the committee (or those with knowledge) directly addresses the connection between violent extremists and rioters and Trumpists and Trump aligned political animals. That story is coming soon to a TV near you.
Read 33 tweets
3 Dec
This will be a thread to put into context why this commitment to future public hearings IS SO VERY IMPORTANT @MuellerSheWrote First a bit of background, though.
I went to the University of Maryland law school in part because it had one of the best clinical (ie hands-on actual representation) programs in the nation. I knew I wanted some experience to go with the book learnin' because I suk at being lectured to and I was an educator myself
(A moment to say thanks to two of my professors Mark Feldman and Stan Herr, who died way, way, way too young and of whom I am reminded when I now think back to my experience in law school. They did so much for me and I miss them).
Read 14 tweets
18 Nov
I AM SO DAMN EXCITED TO THREAD ABOUT MEANINGFUL PROSECUTIONS SO I AM READING THIS AND I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT IT
First off, the Defendants are two Iranian Nationals. Which is somewhat disappointing, since we all want to get to the goldurn Enemies Domestic we all know are out there, but there's at least a hint her about them.
There's a few more hints about Enemies Domestic here, too. First, the Iranians fed their disinfo to the Usual Suspects:
Read 10 tweets
28 Oct
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
Read 25 tweets
25 Oct
With great respect to thoughtful people that are calling for the appointment of a special counsel, here are some reasons NOT appointing one is a good idea. A thread.
Before I get to that, however, much of the discussion comes down to this: do you trust Merrick Garland and main justice to seriously address the seditionists?
If the answer is "no" I don't trust MG and the DOJ - and you are right - then a special counsel is a better idea than leaving the investigation in MG's hands. If the answer is "yes", I trust MG, then a SC counsel creates unecessary risk.
Read 23 tweets
24 Sep
I don't even know where to begin with this article. The Mormon LDS church is offering $250,000,000 if it can be included in liability protection alongside the Boy Scouts of America over child sex abuse.

apnews.com/article/busine…
I know there are millions of Americans that find great solace in their religions, but there are times when it seems like the mega institutions are basically child rape and grift machines.
And - perhaps this is wrong - as institutions they seem more directed at boys. Even if not the primary target, millions of boys in America have been targeted and abused.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(