DOJ Targets Trump

Washington Post: Justice Dept. investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe

“Prosecutors who are questioning witnesses before a grand jury — including two top aides to Vice President Mike Pence — have asked in recent days about conversations with Trump, his lawyers, and others in his inner circle who sought to substitute Trump allies for certified electors from some states Joe Biden won. “


Author: craigcrawford

Trail Mix Host

35 thoughts on “DOJ Targets Trump”

  1. More Post: “The prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings Trump led in December 2020 and January 2021; his pressure campaign on Pence to overturn the election; and what instructions Trump gave his lawyers and advisers about fake electors and sending electors back to the states, the people said. Some of the questions focused directly on the extent of Trump’s involvement in the fake-elector effort led by his outside lawyers, including John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani.”

  2. You just know that tRUMPsky is going to figure out a way to screw over Eastman and Rudy and anyone else in the vicinity. He’s avoided accountability his entire life. 

  3. More Post: “Justice Department investigators in April received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump administration, including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to two people familiar with the matter. That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject.”

  4. Ace Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig, who broke this story, went a bit further tonight on TV with what she’s learned after publishing her amazing scoop, that it appears Trump not just a subject but a target. In prosecutor speak that means an indictment more likely than not. 

  5. NY Times’ narrower take on it

    Justice Dept. Asking Witnesses About Trump in Its Jan. 6 Investigation (

    The questions about Mr. Trump focused on, among other topics, the plan he was pushing to derail congressional certification of Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory on Jan. 6, 2021, the person familiar with the testimony said.
    The two Pence aides who testified to the grand jury — Marc Short, who was his chief of staff, and Greg Jacob, who was his counsel — were present at an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 4, 2021, when Mr. Trump sought to pressure Mr. Pence into embracing the plan to cite the competing slates of electors as justification to block or delay the Electoral College certification.
    Asking questions about Mr. Trump in connection with the electors plot or the attack on the Capitol does not mean the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into him, a decision that would have immense political and legal ramifications.
    The department’s investigation into a central element of the push to keep Mr. Trump in office — the plan to name slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump in battleground states won by Mr. Biden — now appears to be accelerating as prosecutors with the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington ask witnesses about Mr. Trump and members of his inner circle, including the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, the person familiar with the testimony said.
    Prosecutors have also issued grand jury subpoenas to figures connected to the so-called fake electors scheme. Those who have received the subpoenas have largely been state lawmakers or Republican officials, many of whom put their names on documents attesting to the fact that they were electors for Mr. Trump from states that were won by Mr. Biden.
    The subpoenas, some of which have been obtained by The New York Times, show that prosecutors are interested in collecting information on a group of pro-Trump lawyers who helped to devise and carry out the plan, including Mr. Eastman and Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer.

  6. my hunch is that rudy (with blessings if not heavy encouragement from his bff) will fall on the sword – maybe even literally on one strategically placed by said bff.

    he’ll “take one for the gipper Grifter”

  7. The yokels already have their “dipshit 2024” signs out in the yard, here, patd

  8. Make me President, and i will make some liberals sad, yes, but i’ll make many more conservatives much sadder
    i am taxing those fucking churches

  9. I spent a tad more than a few days (weeks, months) dealing with a grand jury as an investigator/witness.  There is a saying, as I am sure Craig understands, that given the opportunity a grand jury will “indict a ham sandwich.”
    For those not aware, the US Attorney goes in the room, presents the charges in an indictment proposal, then calls witnesses to testify about the charges in the indictment proposal.  No one is present to represent the suspects as they, nor their attorneys, are in the room and may not be aware of the indictment proposal.  

    The only people in the room are the jurors, US Attorney (usually an assistant), and a court reporter.  The only cross examinations available are individual jurors.  They get to question witnesses.  In my 30 years experience as a witness, it was a rare occasion that any juror questioned my testimony.  As the saying goes, it was like being among a herd of sheep.
    Basically, the government (US Attorney and or witness) get to say anything they want so long as it is the truth and the witness believes their testimony is factual and true; this may not be so when it comes to the “factual” part.  During the course of every investigation the factual parts change as citizen witnesses and informants change their statements.  This is not always lying but a mixup in recall; all this business will come out during cross examination when the indictees go to trial and that’s when the “rubber meets the road.”

    If I so choose, I even got to express my beliefs or opinions just as long as I believed them to be true.  Think about this; a Grand Jury is a one-sided dog and pony show, not unlike taking a knife to a gun battle.

    I am writing this because most people do not understand that a grand jury indictment is nothing but an avenue to a courtroom trial, sort of a formality that has little to do with evidence.

    The conviction rate of federal indictees is close to 100%; this because the US Attorney will not present a case with little hope of conviction and very few indictees choose to go to trial being aware of the conviction rate.

    This Grand Jury is a political case and even though jurors have sworn to be unbiased…..HA.

  10. Yep, most churches have been politicized.  Politics from the pulpit means no separation of church and state.  Well, the new SCOTUS is chipping away at that, too.
    If there were a rumor that they were going to be able to flip Mark Meadows, would Orange Adolf flee the country? 

  11. BiD, not to russia because he’d be no longer a “useful idiot” for putin.  not that vlad doesn’t believe he’s still an idiot, just not a useful one. 

    can’t even imagine he’d be viable in a bargainable kidnap swap for those who do such things. he’s about to lose all his money and property via RICO. 

    his better choice is to spend the rest of his life in one of those plush federal country club prisons where convicted white collar corporate execs are sent. that is, after any gov’t secrets he may still remember are mind-wiped away.

  12. stephen addresses at 2:48 minutes in his last night’s monologue the NYT story about the smoking gun memo admitting “fake electors” ploy.  beware, however, you have to first suffer thru jokes about ice cream

    Stephen recommends Ben & Jerry’s Americone Dream to anyone who is upset about the loss of the Choco Taco, and he looks at a bombshell report from the New York Times about the former president’s scheme to send fake electors to Congress after the 2020 election.

  13. All true Pilar, appreciate the primer. But also true federal prosecutors have a very high success rate at getting convictions, i’ve heard as high as 90 percent

  14. I’m betting that trump leaves the country before he’s indicted.  It’s just a matter of which country (without extradition to US) will take him.
    From what I’m reading… the majority of voters in this country don’t want either Trump or Biden to be candidates in 2024.  Finally…  we seem to have had our fill of old white men.

  15. It’s important to distinguish federal grand juries from those that operate at the local level.  I know federal prosecutors – USA and AUSAs- have been a witness in a federal grand jury that got shut down in the wake of Oklahoma City, and there is a vast difference between Federal Grand juries and the local ones that get the ham sandwich reputation. A federal grand jury (at least those that I’m aware of) are seated to investigate and determine whether a crime has been committed and whether sufficient evidence exists to issue a criminal indictment on a particular matter, and if so what charges seem appropriate based upon the evidence uncovered in the investigation.  Local (County level) grand juries have a similar purpose, but can bring dozens of indictments on whatever prospective defendants the DA or County level prosecutor wants to charge based upon whatever evidence the prosecutor presents to them. The standard for getting an indictment out of a local grand jury is incredibly less than a federal grand jury. 
    The federal grand jury I testified in was investigating tax fraud and the use of the mail to defraud clients (think “The Firm” here).  I had already been interviewed by the FBI and provided what information I had before I was ever called as a witness before the grand jury.  It was anything but a “rubber stamp” process.  When the McVeigh OKC bombing took place the agents who were performing the investigation were dispatched to provide their service in the OKC investigation and the grand jury was shut down to divert its resources to what was seen by DOJ as a much more important case.  I later worked with the USA who was in charge of that grand jury and he was very disappointed that he was unable to bring the charges he was contemplating.

  16. Interesting Pogo. I’ve had no experience with grand juries, state or federal, know nothing, can prove it.

    A bit of history, Watergate grand jury wanted to go further than prosecutors asked for and strenuously argued for indicting Nixon. They ended up compromising on the unindicted co-conspirator trick. 

  17. here’s an interesting question posed recently by ullman, an advisor and author at atlantic council

    If Donald Trump were convicted, would Joe Biden pardon him? –

    June 22 (UPI) — President Gerald Ford‘s pardon of Richard Nixon after the Watergate fiasco no doubt helped Jimmy Carter win the 1976 election. But Ford was right then and right now. A former president in the docket would have been devastating to the nation.
    Today, that possibility would be catastrophic. But make no mistake: Donald Trump could face prosecution over Jan. 6. The charge could be far more serious than inciting a riot, which would be very difficult to prove in a court.
    Trump’s legal problem stems not from Democratic allegations but from his and former Vice President Mike Pence’s lawyers; two judges; former Attorney General Bill Barr; and other witnesses who will testify in the remaining House select committee’s televised hearings. And Trump’s possible legal problems are not his alone. President Joe Biden could be swept in them as Gerald Ford was 48 years ago as to whether to prosecute or to pardon a former president.
    The evidence is very strong. But the ramifications are staggering. The divisions in the nation are such that a large faction of Americans would fiercely protest a trial of a former president over an election they thought was won. Other forms of Jan. 6 levels of violence almost certainly would break out, probably country wide. A national state of emergency could be declared with horrendous consequences.
    Hence, Biden could face impossible decisions, making Ford’s pardon of Nixon seem trivial. First, how would Biden deal with the Justice Department if it embarked on a criminal investigation of Trump’s conduct surrounding the events of Jan. 6? Second, how would Biden deal with an indictment were one forthcoming? And last, if a trial were to be held, would the White House be capable of preventing the proceedings from disintegrating into a national nightmare?
    All this is speculative. However, as the leak of a Supreme Court draft memo on Roe vs. Wade has set the stage for a potential political explosion, trying a former president would elevate such a spectacle to thermonuclear proportions. What can be done?
    Few people have realized how potentially dangerous the findings of this select committee could prove. Would Biden preempt them by offering Trump a pardon or the equivalent of a “plea bargain” by not prosecuting should the former president agree never to run for office? And could that be binding?
    Is a nation wracked with COVID-19; massive inflation and soaring gas prices; a war in Ukraine that could escalate; and other ticking time bombs capable of withstanding perhaps the greatest political crisis since the Civil War? For certain, no one knows.

  18. BiD,  back last year there was talk about him leaving the country if indicted.  here’s what was said at the time by Newsweek editor in chief:

    Trump will flee the country if he gets indicted: Morning Joe guest – Raw Story – Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

    Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Rogers said he didn’t see any way Trump would want to face a court trial and the threat of imprisonment. He would prefer to leave and cause more chaos by rallying his fans to defend him while he hides out overseas. Speaking with host Scarborough, Rogers reminded the “Morning Joe” panel, “One thing he said a number of months ago was ‘imagine if I lose, I might have to leave the country.'”
    “I actually think if he is indicted here for the criminal acts I’m talking about — and obviously they need to be pursued with due process and fairness — but if he is, I think there is a chance he would flee the country. Go to a country that we have no extradition treaty with, with a friendly president, maybe like Brazil,” he continued.”I think this whole notion of going after him as a person, as the head of a personality cult can really do an awful lot, not only to change this perception of people still believing in him and therefore him being able to impose litmus tests on how congressmen act when it comes to policy and political issues, and turn him into some level of a political irrelevant which I think is absolutely doable if we go hard and fast going after him on these other criminal activities,” he added.

  19. No pardon for tRUMPsky.   The lengths he went to destroy democracy to try to illegally retain power…let it be a lesson to other wannabe dictators.   Lock him up.

  20. So, there is a risk in indicting Trump, what do you do if you don’t get a conviction After all it only takes one juror. 

  21. Dress everybody in 1778 clothing and think of what would happen to an insurrectionist and someone who gave secrets to the enemy at that time.  This is a better way to make decisions than in the 2022’s.

  22. Do we trust Manchin?

    “While many details have not been disclosed, the measure would invest $369 billion into energy and climate change programs, with the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 40% by 2030, according to a one-page fact sheet. For the first time, Medicare would be empowered to negotiate the prices of certain medications, and it would cap out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 for those enrolled in Medicare drug plans. It would also extend expiring enhanced subsidies for Affordable Care Act coverage for three years.”

    “The news also came several hours after the Senate passed a separate bill to invest $52 billion in US manufacturing of semiconductors, sending it to the House to consider as soon as this week.”

    “…Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had previously vowed to try to halt passage of the semiconductor bill if Democrats continued to pursue their party-line bill on climate and drug prices.”

    Is he gonna pull the rug out from under us, again?

    Is this for real? Is he doing this because he knows Moscow Mitch will torpedo it, anyway?

    *That will look bad for McConnell, going against US manufacturing, especially of chips.


    Russians among us.

    “A Hawaii couple is accused of stealing the identities of dead Texas babies to obtain fake passports, DOD identity and social security cards, according to federal prosecutors.”

    “A federal court filing says Primrose even wiggled his way into the Coast Guard, where he held a secret clearance as a defense contractor and as an avionics electrical technician.”

    “Federal agents also seized photographs from the couple’s home in Hawaii “wearing what have been identified as KGB uniforms.”

Comments are closed.