Thread by @BarbMcQuade

1 Judge’s decision that Trump “likely” committed crimes on Jan 6 has renewed the outcry that AG Garland is shirking his duty at DOJ. Here is a thread with my take.
nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna2…

2 While the judge’s conclusion is truly extraordinary, the facts he relies on have been in the public domain for a long time. For what it’s worth, I reached the same conclusion in February here. justsecurity.org/80308/united-s…

3 That means DOJ is aware of all of these facts as well. Maybe more. The idea that people at DOJ are not doing their job is based on the absence of leaks. To me, that just means they’re doing their job well.

4 Critics argue that if there were a grand jury investigation underway, we would have seen witnesses challenging subpoenas in court and making self-serving public statements, since witnesses are not bound by grand jury secrecy rules.

5 Perhaps. But DOJ has methods for gathering evidence covertly that the Jan 6 Committee lacks, such as the power to use search warrants to obtain records rather than relying in subpoenas.

6 To obtain records, J6 Committee must use subpoenas, and hostile witnesses may move to quash them or assert privileges to resist them. Several have done so — Bannon, Meadows, Eastman, Scavino, Navarro.

7 DOJ, on the other hand, can obtain the records with a search warrant to the service provider, bank or other third party, and can do so under seal to prevent disclosure of the investigation, even to the user or account holder.

8 DOJ can also quietly interview cooperative witnesses, like former DOJ officials Rosen and Donoghue, and former Pence aides Short and Jacob. And DOJ is also likely piggybacking on the J6 investigation to get sworn witness statements.

9 Before a probe can be completed, DOJ will certainly want to use grand jury subpoenas for testimony from hostile witnesses, and, if they resist, those disputes will likely become public. But not yet. You want question those witnesses after you have armed yourself with the facts.

10 Some critics are frustrated that no one has been charged yet. But proving that a crime was “likely” and proving it was committed beyond a reasonable doubt are worlds apart. I would expect an investigation like this one to be measured in years, not months.

11 Some critics point to the looming midterm elections in Nov. as a deadline. A GOP win of the House could cause the J6 Committee to disband. True, but DOJ is not operating under that deadline. Even if the Committee disbands, DOJ’s work will continue.

12 DOJ’s actual deadline is the five-year statute of limitations, Jan 6, 2026. But because the 2024 presidential election could cause a change in the party controlling DOJ, I imagine DOJ would want to indict and try the defendants before then.

13 I take Garland at his word when he says he is investigating anyone “at any level,” whether they were at the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6 or not, who participated in this “assault on democracy.” That must include Trump and his inner circle.

14 Garland also said it is important to comply with DOJ policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation, even during extraordinary times — especially during extraordinary times.

15 And so, despite the urgency of the need for accountability to preserve our democracy, I have to believe that DOJ is on the job. The rule of law demands it.