Thread by @Teri_Kanefield

There are a few assumptions in here.

Assumptions:

(1) The DOJ is waiting for a referral
(2) The DOJ is not working in coordination with the select committee
(3) The DOJ is doing nothing

I mean, other than that . . . 🤷‍♀️

1/

https://twitter.com/eliehonig/status/1479814607439081475

While the select committee has said it will make referrals where it deems them appropriate, I haven't heard anything about the DOJ "waiting" for a referral.

The select committee has said that it is working in coordination with other agencies to avoid duplication of effort.

2/

We know that the Georgia DA is coordinating with the select committee. Why not the DOJ also?

We also know that the DOJ lawyers represented the National Archives in Trump's executive privilege lawsuit.

3/

It was clear that the DOJ lawyer representing the National Archives against Trump was familiar with the evidence at issue, which I took as a sign that they're coordinating.

4/

I appreciate people who worked for the DOJ speculating, but when there is a new person in charge, wouldn't that suggest things might be different?

If I worked for a company or agency 10 years ago (or whatever) I wouldn't know what's going on at top levels now.

5/

As far as the DOJ doing "nothing," maybe I read Merrick Garland's speech differently from other people: I took him literally: I take him at his word.

Because I have no reason to believe that Merrick Garland is lying, or even fudging the truth.

6/

He referred to the attack as an "unprecedented attack on our democracy."

He said that the investigation has "become one of the largest, most complex, and most resource-intensive investigations in our history."

Doesn't that suggest that he's taking it seriously?

7/

Read this part ⤵️ I see the words "all" and "at any level" whether they were at the Capitol on January 6 or not.

Do people think Merrick Garland is lying?
Why would he do that?
Is this a head fake?
Is he deceiving us?

8/

"In circumstances like those of January 6th, a full accounting does not suddenly materialize. To ensure that all those criminally responsible are held accountable, we must collect the evidence."

This makes sense to me.

9/

Here he explains why he can't say any more.
Because saying more jeopardizes the investigation.

Remember what Comey did in 2016?

Merrick Garland doesn't want to be like that.

He talks a lot about rule of law and why procedures must be followed.

10/

This is where he loses a lot of people.

He says we follow the same procedures when democracy is under attack that we follow any other time . . .

. . . because if you abandon rule of law, what replaces it?

There are not many alternatives.

11/

Ha!

To be clear, I don't know what is happening inside the DOJ. I don't know who will be charged.

I also don't know the future.

I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of speculation going on.

12/

https://twitter.com/ErnestTroost/status/1480036502386057216

Here's what happens: Someone who is smart and knowledgable engages in speculation, and other people take that speculation as fact.

Someone just told me that Garland's investigation "may" be narrower in scope than we might "hope."

Maybe. On the other hand, he said ⤵️

13/

⤵️ (me=shaking my head sadly)

If the DOJ commits to a result before finishing the investigation, that would be . . . . what?

What is the word for an investigation that is predetermined?

So we don't want an ethical DOJ?

Do people hear what they're actually wishing for?

14/

The argument seems to be: "The crimes were really really bad and in fact, struck at democracy itself, therefore, we need to set aside norms and procedures to deal with it."

Merrick Garland argues the opposite in his speech . . .

https://twitter.com/StephanieJ_DC/status/1480053900724117511

15/

He says adhering to norms is essential when defending democracy.

You strengthen rule of law with more rule of law, not less.

For defenders of democracy to abandon rule of law, norms, and procedures ensures that rule of law will die

Right?

16/

I need to make clear that I am promising nothing.

I don't know what is happening inside the DOJ.
I don't know who, ultimately, will be charged.

I AM saying nobody else knows either and that I have no reason to think Merrick Garland is lying.

https://twitter.com/JohnHopsthewood/status/1480198945490014211

That's my argument: Once both sides abandon rule of law, it's over.

If the head of the DOJ right now said, "We're abandoning norms and just getting these guys in jail no matter what it takes" it's all over

Do we want to be a rule of law nation, or not?

https://twitter.com/StephanieJ_DC/status/1480060707706224642

I turned this thread into a blog post (and added some thoughts about Sean Hannity's dilemma). It's here:
terikanefield.com/merrick-garlan…
terikanefield.com/merrick-garlan…