The subpoenas to aides of Vice President Mike Pence raise as many questions as they answer.
Former Pence chief of staff Marc Short and his counsel, Greg Jacob, appeared before a D.C. federal grand jury under subpoena recently. News of those appearances surfaced yesterday, prompting speculation about what they might have said, and where the grand jury is headed.
Subpoenas aren’t issued unless a case is open. Typically, they will be sealed to the point that even the parties names aren’t on PACER, just the date the case was opened. But if someone were to get the case number, which would be on the subpoenas, they can at least see when the case was opened, which would be interesting and possibly-but not necessarily-actually illuminating.
But whatever the case is, it started as an investigation into people who were wearing business attire, not camos and MAGA gear, on Jan6, whether as a spin-off of an investigation into the mopes or as an entirely new investigation into the Mopes.
Finally, they don’t usually start dragging witnesses in to testify under subpoena at the start of a case. Usually, they start with everything they can get without a warrant-public records and archives would be a rich vein here-interviews of cooperating witnesses and data people turned over under “we could get a search warrant, but do we really have to?” pressure on people who aren’t targets. You need all of that stuff in order to know what witnesses will have to be subpoenaed and what to ask them.
The idea that this is just some sudden new tack, or new investigation or the like that has taken hold in the media is almost certainly wrong. DoJ guidelines specify that maximum confidentiality is to be maintained in all investigations for as long as possible, both in fairness to targets if the suspicions don’t pan out and to avoid juror tainting charges. That’s what I’ve meant when I’ve been saying “DoJ doing nothing and DoJ conducting an investigation will look exactly the same from the outside for a very long time.”
Thank you.
What I want to know is what the charge of this grand jury is. “appeared before a D.C. federal grand jury” - can’t get much more vague than that.
“Two reports in the New York Times suggested that the hearings’ findings caught federal prosecutors investigating January 6 by surprise, with Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony in particular reportedly shocking some members of the group.”
Well, that would seem to imply that the clowns at the DOJ have simply not been doing their job. WTF.
Which also contributes to making it chicken/egg trying to suss out whether any correlation to revelations from J6 Committee started something new, or if their making things public forced DOJ to move up the timeline on things already in motion.
I just wish that some people would have listened to you.
This is important for all of those speculating about DoJ action or inaction. While reporters were awaiting the Bannon verdict, nearly every reporter covering DoJ missed seeing Marc Short exiting.
Best so far!! And that’s saying a lot.
Case names and docket numbers aren’t on grand jury subpoenas.
As someone (like most) unfamiliar with the arcane apocrypha of DOJ machinery I could only take my cue from those w/ widely acknowledged and extensive experience in it and, in the case of J6, a number of them like Adam Schiff made it pretty clear they were not seeing sufficient evidence DOJ was engaged at a level appropriate to what they viewed as the severity and breadth of the case.
Not a matter of dealing in false dichotomy by asserting DOJ appeared to be doing nothing as opposed to ‘something’ but more a matter of believing that the ‘something’ did not appear sufficiently assertive in the teeth of a major political party actively opposing it.
ETA: Just to be clear, whatever I thought about the pace and breadth of DOJ investigation WRT J6, the fact that high-level White House aides are testifying before grand jury is strong evidence, really the first evidence I am aware of, that DOJ is actively looking in that direction; excellent news.
“DoJ doing nothing and DoJ conducting an investigation will look exactly the same from the outside for a very long time.”
Is Adam Schiff somehow privy to inside information?
Unless they used different doors. Bannon usually conducted his sideshow appearances over on the 4th (?) Street entrance. There’s another entrance, waaay on the other side of the building, close to the Canadian embassy. So, perhaps a smart move by DOJ, having him testify while the media is distracted by the shiny object that was the Steve Bannon trial.
Guy literally walked right past all the reporters camped out to hear bannon speak… He’s the one in the mask and suit.
Garland will be on NBC News tomorrow night, which is highly unusual. I wonder what will be discussed.
Hunter Biden.
And breaking revelations about Benghazi.
The media were so focused on the Bannon side show that they missed this. They had blinders on for what was perceived to be better click bait and the scoop walked right in front of them.
ETA: Only widely reported yesterday after an entire weekend goes by
Git 'em kitty, git 'em!!
Is the DOJ examining any elements of the election subversion scheme beyond the false electors and the actions of Jeffrey Clark at DOJ? It’s critical to know.
That’s the eternal question.
I kind of figured as much . . .
