Manhattan DA sends scathing response to GOP’s request for testimony

[Rawley]

So now you're suggesting that if the grand jury indicted Trump, based on the evidence they hear and see, it is improper because presidential candidates are immune from prosecution.

Nope

 

[Callen]

The narrow margin works to the freedom caucus advantage in this case. McCarthy needs their vote to pass things. He has to negotiate with them.

While I agree McCarthy must negotiate ie cowtow, to the freedom caucus or it's a no go but it's not the Freedom caucus that would vote against this. It's the GOP from NY State. They are not going to vote against providing funding to their State nor is McCarthy going to try to.

 

[BlueTex]

you keep missing it.

LOL... Me and anyone else who knows that tolling is... Why don't you offer Trump your brilliant insight into New York law?

 

[Callen]

Did you think that was important at all?... from say 2016 to 2020? Weaponization of the DOJ and undue corrupt political influence from the WH was in it's hey days then. So if Jordan and Comer find themselves running short of investigative material they should go back to that time period and they will have more than plenty of it.

Not in this case. In NY the target can testify and call witnesses. Trump was made the offer and refused but his legal team sent his previous lawyer. That is why the delay

 

[Emlee]

The J6 committee said Trump should be charged for incitement.

The counter-narrative that the DOJ doesn't agree is irrelevant?

Perhaps exploring why might have been useful.


What matters is what they say.
Has the DOJ said that Emlee did not incite a riot on Jan 6? I doubt it.

There is no counter narrative that the DOJ disagrees because they didn’t say that. That’s your spin.

The January 6 committee also made recommendations to the DOJ, it’s also spin that the DOJ has closed the book on Trump’s actions, or those working with him, because nothing has happened yet.

Again, no need to keep going round and round about it, but you’re certainly free to keep repeating your spin to your hearts content. It still won’t change though that it’s all just spin.

Moving on now…

 

[Callen]

You can't jump to that conclusion. They are still hearing witnesses.

Fox has led them to this conclusion.

 

[soap box]

You answered your own question. Democrats conducted an 'investigation' - interfering with the criminal investigation being conducted by the DOJ.

You should check before posting. The committee was ahead of the DOJ for most of last year. DoJ became much more involved after Cassidy Hutchinson testified. The committee shared everything they had with DOJ. All of their materials, transcripts and documents are in the public domain and being released to the public through the GPO. In what way is releasing the information to the public and sharing their findings with DOJ interference?

 

[Rawley]

Not in this case. In NY the target can testify and call witnesses. Trump was made the offer and refused but his legal team sent his previous lawyer. That is why the delay

Nope. Target has no right to call witnesses.

 

[dcsports]

You should check before posting. The committee was ahead of the DOJ for most of last year. DoJ became much more involved after Cassidy Hutchinson testified. The committee shared everything they had with DOJ. All of their materials, transcripts and documents are in the public domain and being released to the public through the GPO. In what way is releasing the information to the public and sharing their findings with DOJ interference?

Gaslighting noted. You should pause before posting. The DOJ was conducting active investigation and prosecutions immediately after the riot. That didn't stop the congressional partisan group from asking for information from the DOJ and other agencies related to it.

 

[soap box]

Gaslighting noted. You should pause before posting. The DOJ was conducting active investigation and prosecutions immediately after the riot. That didn't stop the congressional partisan group from asking for information from the DOJ and other agencies related to it.

Wrong. DOJ was investigating the rioters but not the White House, until the committee led the way. Check it for yourself. I followed the whole thing all last year. And I know you have the events out of order.

 

[Emlee]

Wrong. DOJ was investigating the rioters but not the White House, until the committee led the way. Check it for yourself. I followed the whole thing all last year. And I know you have the events out of order.

Correct. The Jan 6 committee and the hearings had nothing to do with individual criminal cases.

All of those republicans who testified under oath weren’t testifying about individual criminal cases.

 

[Athanasius68]

Not in this case. In NY the target can testify and call witnesses. Trump was made the offer and refused but his legal team sent his previous lawyer. That is why the delay

The defendant has no right to call a witness in NY state
The defendant can testify, and talk uninterrupted for as long as he wants (provided its on topic), to have his attorney present (but the lawyer cannot ask any questions or interrupt the proceedings), and the defendant has to answer all questions asked by the prosecutor.
And then answer all questions from the jurors.

The Grand Jury can direct the prosecutor to call witnesses.
I am wondering if that is what happened with this lawyer who apparently pretty much blew up Bragg's case.

 

[Athanasius68]

There is no counter narrative that the DOJ disagrees because they didn’t say that. That’s your spin.

Its spin based upon what the DOJ has been saying and doing over the past couple years.
BTW-- a couple weeks they basically admitted they had no incitement case against Trump.

The January 6 committee also made recommendations to the DOJ,

For which the DOJ can ignore.

it’s also spin that the DOJ has closed the book on Trump’s actions, or those working with him, because nothing has happened yet.

Never said the books were closed.

Again, no need to keep going round and round about it, but you’re certainly free to keep repeating your spin to your hearts content. It still won’t change though that it’s all just spin.

Moving on now…

 

[soap box]

Its spin based upon what the DOJ has been saying and doing over the past couple years.
BTW-- a couple weeks they basically admitted they had no incitement case against Trump.

Did Jack smith say that, or did you?

You'll have to link to that. They don't comment on ongoing investigations so Im counting this as imagination and hopefullness, but not true.

For which the DOJ can ignore.

Is Jack smith ignoring something?

Never said the books were closed.

 

[Allan]

Remember, it's big government until the Republicans do it. Then it's OK.

States rights!

 

[upsideguy]

Of course there is a counter-narrative. To find it, one needs to leave the Capitol Building and walk over to the Department of Justice.
There you will find prosecutors denying that Trump incited anyone to riot on Jan 6; you will find prosecutors telling lurid tales of conspiracies of which Trump does not factor in at all; you find will nobody yelling about "insurrection."

Its a counter-narrative that the J6 committee missed because they were all anti-Trump guys committed to nailing him.

OK, you get a "A" for effort, but a "C-" for performance. You are the only one on this board that did not run away from my challenge to show a no counter-narrative. Unfortunately, what you think is a counter-narrative is not.

You provided no link to what you are talking about, because you know I rip it to shreds, but let me speculate based upon other things people have posted on this subject.

First, you are putting words in the mouths of the J6 committee report. I doubt you have read it, so you would really have no idea what is in it. It makes it a rather tough task for you to tell us what they got wrong when you don't even know what they said. Start with the idea that the J6 committee report deals found multiple planks to Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election. That actual riot was just one of them. The J6 committee made four criminal referrals to the DoJ. The one that they made about the actual riot is not about Trump initiating the riot, its about his doing nothing about the riot once it started. The j6 committees report actually has some holes on Trump actually instigating the start of the riot. There is a ton of strong inference and proof in narrative, but anything that would rise to crime. Here is the report. Read pages 499-538 to see specifically what they said about Trump's role in instigating the riot and 637 to 670 to see what they know about the actual riot.

What the J6 committee (and most of us) still do not fully understand the "war room"; Bannon's, Gulliani's, Stone's and Flynn's role in this. They appeared to be the go betweens from the White House and the ProudBoys/Oath Keepers. The j6 committee did not establish a hard link here, because none of these people would testify or just took the 5th. Persumably, the D0J is on this with their bottom up investigation.

Of course, you did not provide links to what you are talking about with "....

"you will find prosecutors telling lurid tales of conspiracies of which Trump does not factor in at all; you find will nobody yelling about "insurrection."

I have seen people try to make an argument out of this: https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-finds-no-evidence-trump-153636457.html

But, that was in August of 2021. It amounted to nothing more than a status report at that time. For example, the article says "...Investigators have found that groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys did plan ahead of time to break into the Capitol, but they didn't engage in much planning beyond that step...." Obviously they have learned a great many things since then as "not much planning beyond that step" as morphed into convictions for seditious conspiracy, a very hard thing to prove, yet the DoJ did.

If you are trying to argue that the DoJ would not let the various defenses that "Donnie made me do it" fly at trial. Well, that is far more a commentary on the approach to the prosecution than anything one should take as a global read. Of course, if they are prosecuting the foot soldiers (in this case not real soldiers as they were there on their own volition), they are not going to fall for a tactic that blames someone else.

Again, "A" for effort, but you have not found counter-narrative. If you want to make better posts on this subject, get up to speed with the content that you are attempting to criticize. Again, a large part of the J6 committee report deals with the fake elector scheme (no counter narrative there) and Trump's from Nov 6 up to an on Jan 6 in attempting to twist Pence's arm to set aside results and in summoning the mob to the Capitol, then sitting on his hands when things got out of hand.

 

[dcsports]

Wrong. DOJ was investigating the rioters but not the White House, until the committee led the way. Check it for yourself. I followed the whole thing all last year. And I know you have the events out of order.

Now you are just getting silly. The DOJ was investigating the rioters AND any potential coordination (and still apparently are). The partisan committee didn't 'lead' anything but a PR effort. As a reminder, congress isnt' there to conduct criminal investigateions.

Worth circling back to the issue - congress can either ask for information related to a criminal investigation or not. Claiming it's OK when one party is leading the effort, and not the other, is hypocritical.

 

[Athanasius68]

Did Jack smith say that, or did you?

What the DOJ is saying is that its maybe possible that the plaintiffs in the civil suit could theoretically argue that trump speech on jan 6 incited the riot and therefore would be outside the normal immunity such a presdiential speech would have.

Translation: The DOJ has nothing.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/doj-brief-suing-trump-jan-6/0c84b00e6a05c446/full.pdf

Is Jack smith ignoring something?

Don't know. I said the DOJ can ignore the J6 committee if it wishes.

 

[soap box]

Now you are just getting silly. The DOJ was investigating the rioters AND any potential coordination (and still apparently are). The partisan committee didn't 'lead' anything but a PR effort. As a reminder, congress isnt' there to conduct criminal investigateions.

Worth circling back to the issue - congress can either ask for information related to a criminal investigation or not. Claiming it's OK when one party is leading the effort, and not the other, is hypocritical.

I noticed you didn't provide a link to verify your claim that the select committee interfered with the DOJ investigation.

If you followed the hearings and if you read their report you would see how your claim is fictional.

You might have also noticed, about September I recall, there was the coordination between Thompson and DOJ officials about which information to reserve for future witnesses. That's working together, not interference.

Provide the link for your claim. Have fun looking for it.

 

[Athanasius68]

First, you are putting words in the mouths of the J6 committee report. I doubt you have read it, so you would really have no idea what is in it. It makes it a rather tough task for you to tell us what they got wrong when you don't even know what they said.

I never said the J6 commitee was factually wrong.

Start with the idea that the J6 committee report deals found multiple planks to Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election. That actual riot was just one of them.

And the DOJ doesn't agree. They never charged Trump OR ANYONE with insurrection.

The J6 committee made four criminal referrals to the DoJ. The one that they made about the actual riot is not about Trump initiating the riot, its about his doing nothing about the riot once it started.

They said he should be charged for inciting the riot.
As far as not doing anything to stop the riot, that would not be a crime, but rather a cause for impeachment. For which Congress chose not to focus upon when they in fact did impeach him after the riot.
Counter-narrative.

The j6 committees report actually has some holes on Trump actually instigating the start of the riot.

That might explain why the DOJ has proceeded as it has...
Counter-narrative.

There is a ton of strong inference and proof in narrative, but anything that would rise to crime. Here is the report. Read pages 499-538 to see specifically what they said about Trump's role in instigating the riot and 637 to 670 to see what they know about the actual riot.

And yet, the DOJ doesn't prosecute. And argues there was no incitement.
counter-narrative

What the J6 committee (and most of us) still do not fully understand the "war room"; Bannon's, Gulliani's, Stone's and Flynn's role in this. They appeared to be the go betweens from the White House and the ProudBoys/Oath Keepers. The j6 committee did not establish a hard link here, because none of these people would testify or just took the 5th. Persumably, the D0J is on this with their bottom up investigation.

Well, the DOJ has already been charging these guys.
Trump and this 'war room" doesn't factor into any of it.
Counter-narrative

Of course, you did not provide links to what yo

The link was already there. It quoted the prosecutors saying Trump is not responsible.
Counter-narrative

But, that was in August of 2021. It amounted to nothing more than a status report at that time. For example, the article says "...Investigators have found that groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys did plan ahead of time to break into the Capitol, but they didn't engage in much planning beyond that step...." Obviously they have learned a great many things since then as "not much planning beyond that step" as morphed into convictions for seditious conspiracy, a very hard thing to prove, yet the DoJ did.

Since the DOJ is arguing that the Proud Boys etc planned to storm the Capitol before Trump speech, that would sort of mean Trump did not incite anyone to storm the Capitol.
Which fits with what the DOJ has been saying in court when the J6 defendants have tried to claim that they were incited by Trump.
Counter-narrative.

If you are trying to argue that the DoJ would not let the various defenses that "Donnie made me do it" fly at trial. Well, that is far more a commentary on the approach to the prosecution than anything one should take as a global read.

Incitement means somebody else caused the defendants to do what they did.
The DOJ is saying "NO" you did what you did because of you and not because of anyone else.
Counter-narrative.

Of course, if they are prosecuting the foot soldiers (in this case not real soldiers as they were there on their own volition), they are not going to fall for a tactic that blames someone else.

As above-- incitement means someone else did something to cause the person to do what was done.
Counter-narrative

 

[Emlee]

Counter narrative lol.

 

[upsideguy]

The J6 committee said Trump should be charged for incitement.

The counter-narrative that the DOJ doesn't agree is irrelevant?

Perhaps exploring why might have been useful.

What matters is what they say.
Has the DOJ said that Emlee did not incite a riot on Jan 6? I doubt it.

Yes, but not for the reasons you think. The J6 committee is arguing that Trump doing nothing for 187 minutes, except to throw gasoline on the fire, was the incitement. Here is the J6 committee finding and recommendation on this from the J6 committee report, beginning on page 109.

IV. “Incite,” “Assist” or “Aid and Comfort” an Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383)
Section 2383 of Title 18 of the United States Code applies to anyone who “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection
against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.”

The Committee recognizes that section 2383 does not require evidence of an “agreement” between President Trump and the vio-
lent rioters to establish a violation of that provision; instead, the President need only have incited, assisted, or aided and comforted those engaged in
violence or other lawless activity in an effort to prevent the peaceful transition of the Presidency under our Constitution. A Federal court has already
concluded that President Trump’s statements during his Ellipse speech were “plausibly words of incitement not protected by the First Amend-
ment.” 633 Moreover, President Trump was impeached for “Incitement of Insurrection,” and a majority of the Senate voted to convict, with many
more suggesting they might have voted to convict had President Trump still been in office at the time.

As explained throughout this Report and in this Committee’s hearings, President Trump was directly responsible for summoning what became a
violent mob to Washington, DC, urging them to march to the Capitol, and then further provoking the already violent and lawless crowd with his 2:24
p.m. tweet about the Vice President. Even though President Trump had repeatedly been told that Vice President Pence had no legal authority to
stop the certification of the election, he asserted in his speech on January 6th that if the Vice President “comes through for us” that he could deliver
victory to Trump: “f Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.” This created a desperate and false expectation in President Trump’s
mob that ended up putting the Vice President and his entourage and many others at the Capitol in physical danger. When President Trump tweeted at
2:24 p.m., he knew violence was underway. His tweet exacerbated that violence.

During the ensuing riot, the President refused to condemn the violence or encourage the crowd to disperse despite repeated pleas from his staff
and family that he do so. The Committee has evidence from multiple sources establishing these facts, including testimony from former White
House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Although Cipollone’s testimony did not disclose a number of direct communications with President Trump in light of
concerns about executive privilege, the Department now appears to have obtained a ruling that Cipollone can testify before a grand jury about these
communications. Based on the information it has obtained, the Committee believes that Cipollone and others can provide direct testimony establishing
that President Trump refused repeatedly, for multiple hours, to make a public statement directing his violent and lawless supporters to leave the
Capitol. President Trump did not want his supporters (who had effectively halted the vote counting) to disperse. Evidence obtained by the Committee
also indicates that President Trump did not want to provide security assistance to the Capitol during that violent period.636 This appalling behavior
by our Commander in Chief occurred despite his affirmative constitutional duty to act to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.637
The Committee believes that sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of President Trump for “assist[ing]” or “ai[ding] and comfort[ing]” those at the Capitol who engaged in a violent attack on the United
States. The Committee has developed significant evidence that President Trump intended to disrupt the peaceful transition of power and believes
that the Department of Justice can likely elicit testimony relevant to an investigation under section 2383.

 

[Athanasius68]

Counter narrative lol.

Since the DOJ doesn't have an incitement case, they are looking at conspiracy, fraud some sort of combination thereof.
But that isn't going to work because ultimately all that boils down to is a Constitutional (legal) dispute.
And we don't want to start criminalizing specious legal theories.

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes, but not for the reasons you think. The J6 committee is arguing that Trump doing nothing for 187 minutes, except to throw gasoline on the fire, was the incitement. Here is the J6 committee finding and recommendation on this from the J6 committee report, beginning on page 109.

The passage quoted assumes the incitement.
It also relies upon the opinion of a judge during a civil hearing, of which Trump was not a party to. So he had no opportunity to rebut the statements or offer evidence in his own behalf.
Those are things that Congress can assert, but which the DOJ actually has to have proof and evidence.

Its been 2 years. Do you really think the DOJ is NOT interested in prosecuting Trump?

 

[dcsports]

I noticed you didn't provide a link to verify your claim that the select committee interfered with the DOJ investigation.

If you followed the hearings and if you read their report you would see how your claim is fictional.

You might have also noticed, about September I recall, there was the coordination between Thompson and DOJ officials about which information to reserve for future witnesses. That's working together, not interference.

Provide the link for your claim. Have fun looking for it.

And more deflection.