According to reporting from Nicholas Wu and Kyle Cheney of Politico, it’s looking less likely that the House January 6 Committee will be sending a criminal referral for Donald Trump to the Department of Justice. This isn’t because the members don’t unanimously believe Trump has committed prosecutable crimes. The thinking is that it would be unnecessary and possibly counterproductive.
This is a change of mindset, and it’s largely explained by the actions last Monday of federal judge David Carter from California, who wrote that Trump “more likely than not” committed felonies to try to overturn the 2020 election. Attorney General Merrick Garland has acknowledged that he’s aware of Carter’s opinion, and it certainly added pressure to do something. Almost immediately, there were news reports indicating that the DOJ is on Trump’s trail.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the Justice Department is looking beyond those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, violence on Capitol Hill, or who directly supported the insurrectionists, and into the funding of the Trump-headlined rally that took place before the assault on the Capitol. That was followed quickly by the news that a grand jury has issued subpoenas seeking information about the false electoral slates that were part of the Trump campaign scheme to overturn the 2020 election.
This alleviated the concern that the Justice Department is dropping the ball or dragging its feet, making it feel less urgent for the January 6 committee to nudge DOJ into action. And while the committee is technically bipartisan, including Republicans Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, it doesn’t have buy-in from Republican leadership. In fact, the Republicans are intent on marginalizing the committee by defining its work as partisan. Sending a criminal referral would have no legal weight and could make any subsequent action by the DOJ look like a reaction to pressure rather than the result of its own deliberations.
For these reasons, even some of the most aggressive members of the committee, like Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin and Zoe Lofgren, and sounding reluctant to send a criminal referral. They believe Merrick Garland has all the information he needs and pressuring him isn’t going to add value.
Perhaps this demonstrates a well-founded confidence that Trump will be charged. Perhaps it’s a logical recognition that the committee’s influence is limited and a double-edged sword. But it’s also a decision not to take a position on the most important political matter facing the nation. I can hear the Republicans now arguing that the committee did a year-long investigation and made no criminal referral, with the implication that they found nothing prosecutable.
In this matter, I’m in favor of people taking a stand. If the committee thinks Trump committed crimes, they should detail them and send a referral. It’s important for the historical record, and it won’t make much difference to the DOJ or to how the Republicans react to either the committee’s final report or any possible arrest and trial for the disgraced ex-president.
Jesus ass-fucking Christ.
What is the fucking point then?
Thanks for the post. I have no strong views on whether the Select Committee should make a criminal referral of Trump to DOJ. Marcy Wheeler at emptywheel.net makes a fairly persuasive case that DOJ is—and has been for many months now—building the legal infrastructure (its “theory of the case”) to make it possible, perhaps even likely, not only to indict Trump & company but also to secure convictions. (Note: there’s still a long way to go, and any number of things could go wrong.)
I do have strong views on the urgency of the Select Committee holding public hearings. Lots of public hearings. Weeks of hearings. Maybe even months of hearings. Hearings with lots of witnesses testifying under oath. Hearings with Capitol police testifying about what happened. Hearings with low-level insurrectionists telling their stories. Hearings with high-level insurrectionists either testifying or taking the 5th. Hearings with constitutional experts. Hearings with experts on right-wing extremists & militias. Hearings with accountants and bookkeepers following the money. Hearings with politicians (including members of Congress) who spoke with Trump on or around Jan. 6.
Defeating someone like Trump isn’t simply a legal matter. It’s also, and importantly, a political matter. We citizens need our politicians to do their political jobs publicly so that we can see their work being done, and discuss and evaluate it with our fellow citizens. That’s what happened during Watergate, and it took away Nixon’s power months before he resigned.
DOJ has another 38 months (at least) to do their work. The House Select Committee has just a few months. They can release a report in January 2023. It will be useless if they don’t hold a bunch of public hearings, and soon.
I thought the public hearings are supposed to be starting soon. They said spring… so that’s basically “now”, right?
Feels like they think it is somebody else’s job like Garland? They figure they already put a lot of sweat and blood in this thing right and now they gotta go home and you know campaign or some such shit.
Are they going to write a comprehensive report on what the fuck they have been doing and then leave no conclusion as to guilt or innocence? Fucking wonderful. I think they have already run out of time.