Garland appointing special counsel

[Citysnaps]

The committee ultimately decides who is called, what questions are asked, what is made public, what is not made public, who appears on TV, etc.

Just so we're on the same page for purposes of discussion...Outside of some things that may be restricted or classified, are you saying that when the investigation is wrapped up, not all questions by the Jan6th Committee, and corresponding testimony from witnesses, will be revealed in a final report or transcript?

 

[AG_PhamD]

As the majority of Committee hearings were not televised, I suspect there was a lot of testimony the public was not aware of.

EDIT: The good news is I imagine every word from every Committee member and every witness was recorded in an official transcript. I'm just spitballing here, but I'm guessing transcripts have been, or will be, released to the public.

I would imagine every witness interviews are is the very least audio or video recorded, but they probably did have a stenographer too. If you want to use testimony as evidence you have to have some form of proof. Are we just supposed to take the recollection of whoever was interviewing them? And they are supposed to remember hundreds of people’s exact statements. I think not.

I would think most of the records will someday be released- some things are probably too sensitive (ie security measures used at the capitol, etc). But they are not presently, especially while this investigation is still going on.

As I mentioned before, earlier this year the DOJ was denied these transcripts. If they’re not giving them to the DOJ (I imagine this probably will happen eventually if not already), then they obviously won’t be public.
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/16/jan-6-committee-doj-witness-transcripts

I suppose there’s even a possibility they have extremely damning testimony on Trump that they don’t want him to know right now since they can’t prosecute him anyways.

 

[AG_PhamD]

Just so we're on the same page for purposes of discussion...Are you saying that when the investigation is wrapped up, not all questions by the Jan6th Committee, and corresponding testimony from witnesses, will be revealed in a final report or transcript?

I was talking about the ongoing investigation and televised committee hearings. They’ve interviewed 1000 people, many behind closed doors, we only get to see a fraction. The hearing of course were designed to be seen, most hearings aren’t aired on prime time with special producers hired.

I have no idea what will be included in the final report. I imagine they will not provide line by line transcripts of interviews in the final report. Such information however may be available, at least eventually. I’m not sure if they’re obligated to release all of it with the final report. Some of it is surely classified or redacted for security reasons. I would think they would not want it release all the raw content while the DOJ does their investigation.

Did the Mueller report include transcripts of every interview? Did the 9/11 report? Is it available outside of the report? I believe the answer to all of those is no but I very well could be wrong. Hell, it took how many years for them to un-redact the part about the Saudis involvement?

 

[SuperMatt]

Let me give you an example. Trump’s aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, testified about Trump grabbing control of the Secret Service agent’s steering wheel. She was quickly thrown on TV in an “emergency hearing”. Considering this account was told to her or overhead, a reasonable investigator would follow up with whomever told this story to Hutchinson and certainly the agents involved. Allegedly, the agents denied this account… but I don’t believe we ever heard their testimony publicly. Nor whoever told this story to Hutchinson in the first place.

It seems to me you didn’t really do much research on this. The entire point of releasing her testimony was to get Secret Service agents such as Bobby Engel and Tony Ornato to come forward and give their version of events. It is just now (Nov 17) that they got Engel back in to address her claims. As for Ornato, it seems like he’ll run out the clock. He retired after her testimony and it turns out text messages from that day from the Secret Service were all deleted. The committee has also brought in other Secret Service agents since her testimony as well. Her statements are something for them to corroborate or refute. The results are presumably forthcoming.

When nobody in the Secret Service will speak up and all their text messages are deleted… well, you release something like Hutchinson’s 2nd-hand testimony to stir that pot and get some of them to come forward with 1st-hand accounts.

Your example does the opposite of proving your point.

Let me put it this way, would you expect an unbiased investigation performed by a group of people who already previously voted impeach Trump for and for the very same incident? Any reasonable person would consider this biased.

Would you say that, following a jury trial with a conviction, everybody in that jury is biased against the defendant? If so, why do they use the same jury to determine sentencing? According to your above analysis, they are now biased and would give an unfairly harsh sentence! And no, any reasonable person would NOT consider that biased.

Convicting somebody of a crime does not mean you are biased against them.

Ideally, an independent commission would be investigating this right now. Unfortunately, that was impossible due to Republican objections. So no matter how fair the committee is, it opens a door for people to say it’s biased. That was beyond obvious from day 1, so it’s amusing to see average people banging the drum of ”they’re biased!” in spite of that.

One could say there’s an inherent bias from ANY member of Congress since they were all present and their lives in danger on Jan 6. But since Republicans wouldn’t allow an independent commission, this is the best and least biased alternative. So far, their actions are not indicative of any partisan bias, with most witnesses called being Republicans, and most of them are (or were) Trump supporters.

My guess is most people didn’t watch the proceedings, and those who are assuming bias aren’t actually examining the results for themselves.

 

[Roller]

Seriously, did you even read my post? Or the one before that. I’m not sure why you’re under the impression that I think is an innocent actor. Just because I think the commission is biased doesn’t mean their conclusions are necessarily wrong.

It’s the exact same reason Jim Jordan shouldn’t be running the committee that having a group of Democrats is not going to give an unbiased assessment. Which is exactly why this is going to a special prosecutor.

Let me put it this way, would you expect an unbiased investigation performed by a group of people who already previously voted impeach Trump for and for the very same incident? Any reasonable person would consider this biased.

It’s like if you had a Republican-only committee running the Benghazi hearings.

Considering how little attention was paid to the other component of this awful stain on US history, like why the security of the Capital failed so horrifically, I would argue this falls short of a 9/11-style commission, which was actually bipartisan in nature

And why would they if they don’t think they have to when they’re under the threat of being indicted, charged, and put on trial in an actual court.

(Obviously there’s some debate as to who has the right to defy the subpoenas. It didn’t work out so well for Navarro, but several others were not pursued by the DOJ)

I really don’t understand why this is such a controversial opinion.

Yes, I read your posts. (Your questioning whether I had done so is comical, but let's leave that.)

I was calling attention to your characterizing the Select Committee's hearings as a biased horse and pony show. As I noted, there was ample opportunity for Republicans to collaborate on a truly independent commission, but they refused because they wanted to claim the committee was a partisan effort. This despite pronouncements about Trump's personal responsibility by McConnell, McCarthy, and others in January 2021.

The committee's work wasn't meant to serve the same purpose as investigations by the DOJ, though there is unavoidable subject matter overlap between the two. However, both are necessary, IMO. The hearings were intended to inform the American people about what led up to and what took place on January 6, 2021, just as the Senate Watergate proceedings did in 1973. I don't know if you're old enough to have watched the latter as they happened, but I was. Testimony brought what John Dean called a "cancer on the presidency" into sharp focus and led to Nixon's resignation, but that was apart from subsequent criminal indictments and convictions. I believe most Americans were horrified by the insurrection, just as they no longer want to hear that the 2020 election was stolen.

As for your contention that little attention has been paid to the failure of Capitol security, the committee's hearings and other reporting have provided ample evidence that the Trump administration took steps to prevent an appropriate response by law enforcement and the National Guard. Trump got exactly what he wanted by exhorting the mob and not denouncing their actions until many hours later.

 

[Citysnaps]

Right now I'm watching Rep. Zoe Lofgren being interviewed on Face the Nation. She said the Committee is wrapping up their report. And that it, and all evidence, will be released to the public. Full stop.

 

[AG_PhamD]

It seems to me you didn’t really do much research on this. The entire point of releasing her testimony was to get Secret Service agents such as Bobby Engel and Tony Ornato to come forward and give their version of events. It is just now (Nov 17) that they got Engel back in to address her claims. As for Ornato, it seems like he’ll run out the clock. He retired after her testimony and it turns out text messages from that day from the Secret Service were all deleted. The committee has also brought in other Secret Service agents since her testimony as well. Her statements are something for them to corroborate or refute. The results are presumably forthcoming.

When nobody in the Secret Service will speak up and all their text messages are deleted… well, you release something like Hutchinson’s 2nd-hand testimony to stir that pot and get some of them to come forward with 1st-hand accounts.

Your example does the opposite of proving your point.


Would you say that, following a jury trial with a conviction, everybody in that jury is biased against the defendant? If so, why do they use the same jury to determine sentencing? According to your above analysis, they are now biased and would give an unfairly harsh sentence! And no, any reasonable person would NOT consider that biased.

Convicting somebody of a crime does not mean you are biased against them.

Ideally, an independent commission would be investigating this right now. Unfortunately, that was impossible due to Republican objections. So no matter how fair the committee is, it opens a door for people to say it’s biased. That was beyond obvious from day 1, so it’s amusing to see average people banging the drum of ”they’re biased!” in spite of that.

One could say there’s an inherent bias from ANY member of Congress since they were all present and their lives in danger on Jan 6. But since Republicans wouldn’t allow an independent commission, this is the best and least biased alternative. So far, their actions are not indicative of any partisan bias, with most witnesses called being Republicans, and most of them are (or were) Trump supporters.

My guess is most people didn’t watch the proceedings, and those who are assuming bias aren’t actually examining the results for themselves.

What was the conclusion of Engel’s interview? Engel and Ornato had previously testified before Hutchinson. Were either personally subpoenaed or did they speak voluntarily. Why release Hutchinson’s account without corroborating it. In a real court this would probably be considered hearsay.

Would a court allow a a juror be allowed to serve on a case that with a defendant that they’ve already been a juror for in another case? I doubt it. Typically jurors already who know the defendant personally are excluded. As are jurors who are perceived to be prejudiced. If you take a people who had previously voted to impeach Trump based on information around 1/6, I think that would count as being prejudiced. If you go into an investigation assuming guilt/a certain narrative, then you’re biased. I will reiterate since there is some confusion, it is possible to be both biased and correct.

And I think many mistake my comments here to say that if you had a bunch of republicans on the committee things would be impartial. Clearly anyone who voted NOT to impeach Trump into the same category as having a conflict of interest. Certainly people like Jim Jordan who are already implicated in election results denial are not impartial actors.

All of these actors in Congress, perhaps more than anyone in the country, have a vested interest in eventually having Trump charged or not charged in court. Again, an obvious COI.

The only thing I said that the committee is biased because of the inherent nature of what it is, there’s no way of getting around that. And it really shouldn’t be this controversial.

Obviously finding an impartial jury to indict and try Trump will be a difficult task. A lot of people are have strong preconceived opinions of Trump (positive or negative) and have already determined his guilt. But there are people in the country who really don’t follow or care about politics. But all of that is for the court and lawyers to figure out.

As for the proposed independent investigation, I agree that’s what should have happened. I don’t know the full details of what was proposed and why republicans objected. I would assume more than anything it has to do with preventing a legitimate appearing committee from making the Republican Party look bad. It’s an unfortunate motive but that’s the problem with politics. Rarely it’s about what’s best for the country and instead what’s best for the party or the individual politician. That’s why I’m not a fan of our current political climate.

Jan. 6 committee staffers told preliminary plan for final report would focus largely on Trump, not on law enforcement failures, sources say

The House resolution that created the committee said its mission included examining “the preparedness and response” of Capitol Police and other law enforcement agencies.

www.nbcnews.com

I hope the final report will include an analysis of law enforcement and security failures on 1/6. And that’s not to minimize Trumps behavior and actions which are clearly very important. But for the interest of the future safety of our government, we need to understand the full extent of what happened from Trump to his associates to other Republican members to right wing militias to the police down to the locks on the doors.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

If you take a people who had previously voted to impeach Trump based on information around 1/6, I think that would count as being prejudiced.

This is quite a high standard. Every Democrat in the House voted to impeach Trump over Jan. 6 so then should no Democrat have served on the committee?

 

[SuperMatt]

This is quite a high standard. Every Democrat in the House voted to impeach Trump over Jan. 6 so then should no Democrat have served on the committee?

The message seems to be that everybody is biased in some way, so everything is illegitimate. What an absurd point of view. We should get rid of our entire justice system then. Every congressional investigation is a witch hunt. Every impeachment is a witch hunt.

 

[AG_PhamD]

Right now I'm watching Rep. Zoe Lofgren being interviewed on Face the Nation. She said the Committee is wrapping up their report. And that it, and all evidence, will be released to the public. Full stop.

That’s excellent. I would hope that is the case and that should be the case. I would only say considering the FBI refuses to answer a lot of questions around what they knew out of interest or protecting sources and methods, which is a legitimate concern, we may never know the full extent of the situation… or at least for many years.

To be clear, I’m not a whack job conspiracy theorist that thinks the FBI instigated 1/6 with embedded agents in right wing militia groups in order to take down trump. But I think it’s a legitimate question to ask what the FBI knew and when and how they handled it. It’s not like they don’t have a history of covertly getting involved with people or groups and either inciting crimes (to varying degrees) or in the interest of prosecution allowing criminal conspiracies to go way too far before shutting them down.

I have no reason to believe the FBI incited any of the crimes related to 1/6 and I think fairly assume those involved with 1/6 would have done what they did regardless of FBI involvement. I merely think it’s worth asking if more could have been done to prevent at least some of what happened in the first place

For example, had one of the militia groups been arrested prior to 1/6 in a highly publicized fashion, would that have potentially prevented some of the other events from occurring.

 

[Citysnaps]

For example, had one of the militia groups been arrested prior to 1/6 in a highly publicized fashion, would that have potentially prevented some of the other events from occurring.

Perhaps. But only if the FBI had corroborated air-tight solid information that specific crimes were about to be committed at the Capitol; ideally from communications intercepts or undercover agents in the group knowing that something seriously illegal was about to go down.

And that's just speculation on my part not being a lawyer with a background in criminal law. I can, however, compute the area of any square given the length of just one side.

 

[Alli]

On the topic of the new SC, Barbara McQuaid put it best in this Twitter thread.

 

[AG_PhamD]

This is quite a high standard. Every Democrat in the House voted to impeach Trump over Jan. 6 so then should no Democrat have served on the committee?

The same applies if you had a group of house members who didn’t impeach Trump.

If you had a 50/50 split, I can only imagine that would be a mess. At some level one party would have to have ultimate authority on things.

Again, I go back to my point, because of the nature of such a committee (being composed of political actors), it is inherently biased. No matter which way you cut it, having an impartial actors isn’t really feasible in a case where either side drastically different opinions and much to gain and lose. Unfortunately for a situation like this it’s seen very much as a zero sum game. It would be a different story if both sides were on the same page for the most part, like 9/11.

In a case like this I don’t see how Congress can really have an impartial investigation. That’s why I think an apolitical agency is better suited for the task composed of people who don’t have a personal stake in the matter. That’s where the DOJ and special prosecutor come in. Then again I don’t think this committee investigation was primarily about investigation to begin with, it was largely intended to convey a message as is the case with much of politics.

 

[Citysnaps]

On the topic of the new SC, Barbara McQuaid put it best in this Twitter thread.

Excellent points. McQuade is the real deal being a law professor and an ex US Attorney. I've listened to her quite a bit in various interviews (Preet Bharara, etc.)

 

[AG_PhamD]

Perhaps. But only if the FBI had corroborated air-tight solid information that specific crimes were about to be committed at the Capitol; ideally from communications intercepts or undercover agents in the group knowing that something seriously illegal was about to go down.

And that's just speculation on my part not being a lawyer with a background in criminal law. I can, however, compute the area of any square given the length of just one side.

I agree.

It’s things like this that make me question what information they had and what could have been done:

Alleged Oath Keepers leader in Capitol riot held top-secret security clearance for decades, lawyer says

The defense said Thomas Caldwell, who has denied being part of the Oath Keepers, has held a top-secret security clearance since 1979.

www.cbsnews.com

Exclusive: Proud Boys leader was ‘prolific’ informer for law enforcement

Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys extremist group, has a past as an informer for federal and local law enforcement, repeatedly working undercover for investigators after he was arrested in 2012, according to a former prosecutor and a transcript of a 2014 federal...

www.reuters.com

FBI may have had up to 8 informants in Proud Boys around the time of the January 6 riot, The New York Times reported

Defense lawyers for five Proud Boys members asked the court to dismiss the case based on information recently produced by the government.

www.businessinsider.com

Obviously it’s not clear if these guys were actually informants and if they were, whether or not they were being compliant. Or if any of this information is accurate.

I have to imagine though that the FBI had informants and/or undercover agents in at least some of these groups. If they didn’t have reliable surveillance from agents on the ground that’s also rather concerning. We’ve been told these far right/white supremacist groups are among the top, if not the top of our domestic security concerns. A group like the Proud Boys should have been on their radar at the very least since the Unite the Right rally in 2017.

(And for those who did not read my previous post, this topic of discussion has nothing to do with minimizing Trumps role or absolving him. It’s about addressing every avenue that lead to 1/6. This is one of them.)

 

[Herdfan]

This is quite a high standard. Every Democrat in the House voted to impeach Trump over Jan. 6 so then should no Democrat have served on the committee?

No, but Pelosi should have let McCarthy appoint the GOP members as had been tradition. Instead she appointed Republicans who she knew were hostile to Trump.

 

[AG_PhamD]

On the topic of the new SC, Barbara McQuaid put it best in this Twitter thread.

I think it seems like absolutely the correct decision. Minimizing perceived prejudice is viral, not to mention all the other listed benefits.

Of course Trump and his supporters will say Smith is a left wing shill. But apparently he is well respected, including by Jonathan Turley, one of the attorneys/law professors who testified as an expert witness on behalf of Trump against impeachment #1.

 

[Citysnaps]

I agree.

It’s things like this that make me question what information they had and what could have been done:

Alleged Oath Keepers leader in Capitol riot held top-secret security clearance for decades, lawyer says

The defense said Thomas Caldwell, who has denied being part of the Oath Keepers, has held a top-secret security clearance since 1979.

www.cbsnews.com

Exclusive: Proud Boys leader was ‘prolific’ informer for law enforcement

Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys extremist group, has a past as an informer for federal and local law enforcement, repeatedly working undercover for investigators after he was arrested in 2012, according to a former prosecutor and a transcript of a 2014 federal...

www.reuters.com

FBI may have had up to 8 informants in Proud Boys around the time of the January 6 riot, The New York Times reported

Defense lawyers for five Proud Boys members asked the court to dismiss the case based on information recently produced by the government.

www.businessinsider.com

Obviously it’s not clear if these guys were actually informants and if they were, whether or not they were being compliant. Or if any of this information is accurate.

I have to imagine though that the FBI had informants and/or undercover agents in at least some of these groups. If they didn’t have reliable surveillance from agents on the ground that’s also rather concerning. We’ve been told these far right/white supremacist groups are among the top, if not the top of our domestic security concerns. A group like the Proud Boys should have been on their radar at the very least since the Unite the Right rally in 2017.

(And for those who did not read my previous post, this topic of discussion has nothing to do with minimizing Trumps role or absolving him. It’s about addressing every avenue that lead to 1/6. This is one of them.)

"Obviously it’s not clear if these guys were actually informants and if they were, whether or not they were being compliant. Or if any of this information is accurate."

At this moment there are a lot of unknowns and with zero information I'm not jumping to any conclusions, assuming undercover sources or communications intercepts would likely be tightly guarded and not revealed.

 

[AG_PhamD]

No, but Pelosi should have let McCarthy appoint the GOP members as had been tradition. Instead she appointed Republicans who she knew were hostile to Trump.

I’m not sure that really solves the problem either, though in some ways it has better optics. To prevent the investigation from being a disaster, one party would probably have to have ultimate authority on things.

I suppose each side could have done their own investigation, presented their case, etc, but someone would probably still have to be appointed to moderate things. But I’m not also sure how you would turn that into a final report with meaningful conclusions.

That’s why I think the DOJ/special prosecutor and an real trial are a much more appropriate format for this.

 

[Citysnaps]

No, but Pelosi should have let McCarthy appoint the GOP members as had been tradition. Instead she appointed Republicans who she knew were hostile to Trump.

My view is she appointed Republicans who were patriots and recognized the seriousness of the insurrection and trashing of the Capitol/rule of law/Constitution/democracy, rather than it being about citizens merely exercising "legitimate political discourse" as many Republican claim. Having Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, MTG, etc on the Committee would have turned the investigation into an obfuscating grandstanding shit-show.

I tip my hat to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for their service on the Committee and caring about what happened to the country on Jan6th.