You've got to be fucking kidding me.

[LudwigPastorius]

The J6 Committee is undecided whether to make criminal referrals to the Justice Department.

The Democratic chairman says making a formal referral to the DOJ is, "not our job".

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/13/politics/thompson-january-6-trump-criminal-referral-justice-department/index.html

(CNN)The chairman of the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol told reporters Monday that the panel will not make any criminal referral of former President Donald Trump or anyone else to the Justice Department -- a claim that met swift pushback from members of the panel.

"No, you know, we're going to tell the facts. If the Department of Justice looks at it, and assume that there's something that needs further review, I'm sure they'll do it," Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson said when asked whether the committee would refer Trump or others to the department.

Pressed again on whether the committee would ever make a formal referral to the Justice Department, the Mississippi Democrat said, "No, that's not our job. Our job is to look at the facts and circumstances around January 6, what caused it and make recommendations after that."

-snip-

Rep. Liz Cheney, who serves as vice chair of the committee, released a statement contradicting the chairman's comments. "The January 6th Select Committee has not issued a conclusion regarding potential criminal referrals. We will announce a decision on that at an appropriate time," the Wyoming Republican tweeted.

I'd hate to be right, in my most cynical moments, thinking that these hearings are more about the mid-term elections than defending the Constitution and bringing the perpetrators of a coup attempt to justice. But, it sure looks like the committee is positioning to make no definitive statement on the prosecution of the ringleaders.

[Wounded Bear]

1. Meh, not their job. They'll publish a report...

It'll go into the Congressional Record and copies will be sent to relevant agencies, incuding DOJ.

It'll be up to Garland and the prosecutors over there.

[gab13by13]

2. The select committee may not make a referral

because doing so may look partisan if Garland decides to indict. It could look like Garland is bowing to the committee's wishes.

Merrick Garland knows where the committee stands without a referral.

[wryter2000]

8. You said it better than I did. n/t

[LudwigPastorius]

23. "The select committee may not make a referral because doing so may look partisan"

But, it is a bipartisan committee.

Also, if Garland is undecided on prosecuting a former president, I want him to bow to the committee's wishes. If a formal referral exerted just enough influence to tip his decision into indicting Trump, it would be a shame if it were never issued by the J6.

[inthewind21]

28. Oh BS

Of all this "It may look like..." Crime is crime. When was the last time you heard "No no we cant go after the Cartel, murderer x, embezzler x it may look like (insert nonsense here) And people wonder how we got to where we are now.

[Takket]

3. DOJ shouldn't need any referrals for garland to do his job

He will have all the evidence.

[FoxNewsSucks]

13. seems like he should already have

More than enough evidence for a multitude of charges

[BlackSkimmer]

31. One would think.

But I’m not holding my breath.

[Chainfire]

17. That is absolute truth.

I don't think that it matters whether the committee makes a referral or not. DOJ will do what DOJ will do. The benefit of the committee hearings is that DOJ can not hide, or hide from the facts in the case. The responsibility will be squarely on their shoulders. The only positive thing for us is that we will find out, by the end of this year, for certain, which path our nation will be taking going forward.

We are living though one of the defining times of history and it is unclear at this point if we will choose to continue as a Democratic Republic or give in to some sort of autocracy. The scary thing is that the decision rest in the hands of Republicans. Democrats alone, even strongly united, can't save us, but a small Republican majority can destroy us. Midterm predictions are terrifying.

Many nations, throughout history, have made the decision that the economy mattered more than freedom or justice. That is what brought the Nazis to power. The results of the decision nearly always results in losing both freedom and prosperity. Perhaps that is where we are heading. We may well become a nation where the Proud Boys are the good guys.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=photo+of+berlin+in+1945&fr=mcafee&type=E211US1490G0&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-QKu4dcJeGQ0%2FUyYHLnnAHlI%2FAAAAAAAAIz0%2FRuXlMX8cmiU%2Fs1600%2FBerlin%2Bin%2B1945%2B7.jpg#id=40&iurl=https%3A%2F%2F&action=click

[Grasswire2]

24. DoJ cannot hide?

They have a cupboard full of secret OLC memos/opinions that are pulled out as desired in order to further the Federalist Society wishes.

Such as the one from 1984, written by Theodore Olsen, that has prevented J6 conspirators from being held to justice, on a "privilege" claim.

[LudwigPastorius]

35. It certainly looks like there is plenty of CYA from the OLC available if Garland wants to...

sit on his hands.

I'm sure the Supreme Court would have Trump's back too, if he asserted privilege.

[Grasswire2]

38. YEP

A veritable slush fund of OLC memos.

And the exciting part is that if one isn't found, someone can write a new one to suit Federalist whims. In secret.

[Lettuce Be]

4. They do not need to make a referral -- this is totally unnecessary

Evidence is being presented. Whether they say, "Hey, we think you aught to do something about this," or not, is irrelevant. People will be indicted and some prosecuted. Has no bearing on whether this committee decides to say yea or nay.

[LudwigPastorius]

9. I understand the a referral is symbolic.

But, don't you think it is important to formally acknowledge in public that, yes, the planners of a coup to take over the duly elected government of the country should be held accountable by the justice system?

[wryter2000]

5. I don't see why they should have to

If the DOJ can't figure it out on their own, what good is a referral going to do? The committee is doing a good job of getting the information out to the public based on testimony from Republicans and without partisan grandstanding. They're making the news media cover the truth. I'm only worried about delays in the hearings. But maybe closer to Fall is good.

[Scrivener7]

12. What good has a referral done in the recent past? Not a lot.

[LudwigPastorius]

22. Well, it got Scavino indicted for contempt.

[Fullduplexxx]

6. Lol

[sinkingfeeling]

7. A referral is just a letter to the DOJ. I don't think it's a big deal if they don't.

[Scrivener7]

10. Garland does not need a referral from the Committee. The Committee is not

there to give Garland referrals. Garland can and should indict regardless of the Committee.

It should not matter to Garland whether they refer or not if he has been conducting an investigation and presumably finding out the same things they have.

That's a big if, mind you.

[BlackSkimmer]

32. A very big if.

Sorry to be a wet blanket” as the accusation goes, but nothing is going to happen.

[Hortensis]

11. Don't forget the elections are about defending the Constitution.

Do any of us imagine our senators and congressmen could defend it just as well by joining us as civilians on DU as they would in office? Even if they did finally benefit rom our insight?

[wryter2000]

14. Amen

Our only hope to save this country is to keep our majorities.

[Hortensis]

19. Amen. Majorities rule.

[inthewind21]

29. Clearly not

Dems have majorities now. Are they ruling? Majority rule has been replaced, it's no SUPER MAJORITIES rule. Self inflicted wound!

[Hortensis]

34. Majorities according to the Constitution rule.

The Constitution says the vote of someone living in WY counts @3x my single vote in GA. And then there's the senate...

No matter how it's counted, though, those who form the majorities BY VOTING decide who gets everyone's power.

Everyone else has always been free to complain if he chooses, though. And not at all ironic that it's always those who resent not being part of the majorities who destroy their democracies and their right to be counted.

[SoonerPride]

20. For the vast majority of the country the election will be about inflation and gas prices.

They won't care about something as ephemeral as "democracy."

I wish they would.

But the economy will be what drives 90% of the electorate, not the Constitution, abortion, or anything else.

[wryter2000]

27. Sadly true

I hope things will be on the mend by November. If not, we're screwed.

[Mike_in_LA]

15. Garland has publicly stated that he and the prosecutors are watching

Not sure the OP news is a big deal. They can make a prosecuting decision based on the public hearings, I presume. then they can subpoena whatever they need. If my perspective is correct - or near-correct - then I wouldn't wring my hands over this.

[Journeyman]

16. Maybe it's a good cop/bad cop story. Good cop Democrat says no referral, bad cop Republican . . .

says hell yes we're going to look into that.

All concerns and outrage from the right is effectively stifled as it's one of their own pushing hardest for accountability.

[Septua]

18. Garland and prosecutors are keeping up...

..with the Committee hearings. As previously noted, the Committee should NOT make a formal referral. If they do and Garland decides to indict Trump or whomever, the Republicans will say the DOJ is playing politics, catering to the Democrats, whatever. If he doesn't indict, the Republicans will say the Committee was what they have said all along, an illegitimate, partisan witch hunt.

Garland doesn't need anyone to tell him crimes have been committed by Trump and associates.

[Grasswire2]

25. .....and OLC memos written by Federalists to tell him what to do about the crimes. nt

[LizBeth]

26. Garland said, a year and half later, he is watching now. Yay. Year and half later, he is listening?

[BlackSkimmer]

33. Well said LizBeth.

Well said.

[Kid Berwyn]

30. Telling that the REPUBLICAN wants Drumpf held to account, criminally.

Cheney wants her party cleansed of the rot.

OTOH, the Democrat made clear there would be no such objective, to my dismay.

[SKKY]

36. I can almost guarantee there is a lot more back-channel communications...

...going on between the J6 Committee and the Justice Department. Wouldn't it look a bit shady if Garland announced indictments just after the committee concludes its "presentation"? Call me naive, but I see reasons to be somewhat optimistic about how the J6 is strategically conducting this investigation.

[gldstwmn]

37. We will be asked to vote in November so this doesn't happen again.

That's it.