The J6 Committee should be sharing all information the DOJ needs. Full stop.

[867-5309.]

I've been critical and cynical toward Garland and the DOJ in regard to prosecuting TFG and his inner circle. I guess I still am.

That said, the J6 committee has no reason to impede them by withholding evidence they have requested.

As said by the DOJ in a letter -

“The Select Committee’s failure to grant the Department access to these transcripts complicates the Department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol”

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/16/tensions-escalate-as-doj-renews-request-for-jan-6-panel-transcripts-00040267

[MontanaMama]

1. I wonder why the DOJ hasn't interviewed all these witnesses themselves.

It’s not like any of this was a secret. They’ve had a year and a half to do so. I believe the J6 committee will turn over their work product but they’ll do it when they see fit. There’s something off with the timing of this imho. DOJ seems awfully grabby all of a sudden.

[SheltieLover]

2. No kidding!

[Ohio Joe]

3. Not true...

Looks like they just found out one of their witnesses against Tarrio also testified with the committee:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/06/16/why-january-6-committee-transcripts-are-urgent-proud-boy-jeremy-bertino/

They have to be certain before the trial of what was said. Surprises during a trial can be disastrous.

[867-5309.]

5. It seems like we're compromising prosecutions because of a pissing match

What reason does the J6 committee have to hesitate? The DOJ isn't taking information away from them. It wouldn't weaken the J6 committee. They can both use it.

[MontanaMama]

11. I don't know but the folks on the J6

aren’t slouches. That said, is it possible that the DOJ could take the J6 transcripts and shut down the hearings for some reason claiming privilege? I’m just spitballing, I don’t know…but there’s a reason the J6 is taking a pause with this.

[onenote]

12. Why do you think they haven't?

They never said they needed the interview transcripts because they haven't interviewed these people. In fact, they suggested just the opposite, specifically stating that "it is critical that the Department be able to evaluate the credibility of witnesses who have provided statements to multiple governmental entities in assessing the strength of any potential criminal prosecutions and to ensure that all relevant evidence is considered during the criminal investigations. We cannot be sure that all relevant evidence has been considered without access to the transcripts that are uniquely within the Select Committee's possession."

DOJ also has a legitimate need for access to these interviews because they are trying to convict very litigious defendants who could blow up the DOJ's case if the committee transcripts are released AFTER the trials begin. DOJ first asked for the transcripts in May, when the trial date was set for August. Because the committee refused, DOJ had no choice but to agree to a delay in the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial from August until December because the Committee doesn't plan to release transcripts until September, which will come in the middle of that trial and create a mess since the Defendants wouldn't have been able to prepare for the information that gets disclosed. Remember this is a conspiracy trial and each defendant has a need for and a right to see what the other alleged co-conspirators said to the Government. The judge in the trial has been serious about DOJ's obligations under the law to ensure that the defendants are provided access to potentially exculpatory information and it would be crazy for DOJ to ignore those concerns.

Here's the docket for the Proud Boys case. I suggest you take a look -- it will lay to rest any concerns you might have that the DOJ has been engaging in a very robust and extensive investigation -- one that has led to the initial indictment of one defendant on four relatively innocuous charges to the issuance of superseding indictments that now include six defendants and nine charges including seditious conspiracy. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59704100/united-states-v-nordean/?page=3

[DURHAM D]

4. This sounds like some serious bs from justice.

The DOJ is still full of Republican operatives so blah, blah, blah.

[OAITW r.2.0]

7. Hope Joe and Merick are having chats. Seriously.

He is Joe's AG and he should be paying attention to the bigger picture.

[DURHAM D]

10. They can not be chatting. nt

[OnDoutside]

14. He's Joe's pick for AG, not Joe's AG. As it should be.

Unlike the toadies like Barr that Trump picked.

[tishaLA]

17. Thank you.

It's like when people talk about "Biden's DOJ." The only person in recent history who treated the DOJ like it was his was whatshisname, the one term twice impeached failure. The DOJ is "America's DOJ" in normal times, not the property of someone who somehow managed to cobble together enough electoral votes to take office.

[OnDoutside]

18. Yes, and the previous 4 years had normalised that perception

unfortunately. However we have also seen both the DOJ and FBI have a lot of people who have political bias but were able to check it largely at the door, but times have changed.

[Frasier Balzov]

8. Isn't there a separation-of-powers problem?

Evidence uncovered by the Committee might be subject to exclusion if attempted to be used in court.

"Fruit of the poison tree" taints downstream evidence and renders it unusable.

I'll bet that is the best explanation for reluctance to share.

[bottomofthehill]

13. They will get it when the House is done.

They can continue to investigate for a few more months. And then they will have all the paper they want

[OnDoutside]

15. 100% agree.

[Wounded Bear]

16. DOJ has to share it with the defense teams...

would make me reluctant to share with them myself.

[UTUSN]

19. K&R