Please disable your adblock and script blockers to view this page

The Justice Dept. alleged Jan. 6 was a seditious conspiracy. Now will it investigate Trump?

The Justice Department’s
the Justice Department
Harvard Law School
A Washington Post investigationAlmost
Oath Keepers
the Oval Office
the Oath Keepers
U.S. House
Department of Justice
Trump votes?“The
White House
the Department of Justice
The Washington Post
New York Times
Electoral College

Donald Trump
Merrick Garland
Laurence Tribe
James Trusty
Michael R. Sherwin
Stewart Rhodes
Jonathan Moseley
Harry Litman
Rob Jenkins
Rudy Giuliani
Roger Stone
Mike Pence
Randall Eliason
Bernard Kerik
John Eastman
Donald Ayer
out.”Devlin Barrett
Spencer S. Hsu



Capitol Hill


New York City

No matching tags

Positivity     37.00%   
   Negativity   63.00%
The New York Times
Write a review: The Washington Post

But FBI agents have not, for example, sought to interview or gather materials from some of Trump’s most loyal lieutenants about their strategy sessions at the Willard hotel on how to overturn the results of the 2020 election, according to participants in those meetings or their representatives.The department has not reached out to the Georgia secretary of state’s office about Trump urging its leader to “find” enough votes to reverse his defeat, a person familiar with the office said, even as a local district attorney investigates that matter.The Trump campaign has not received requests for documents or interviews from the FBI or Justice Department related to Jan. 6 or the effort to overturn the election results, and federal prosecutors have not sought to interview those with knowledge of Trump’s consideration of a plan to install an attorney general more amenable to his unfounded claims of massive voter fraud, according to people familiar with the matter. A spokesman for Garland pointed to the recent speech, in which the attorney general said the department would “follow the facts” and “must speak through our work.” A spokesman for Trump did not respond to requests for comment.Capitol insurrection: The enduring images of Jan. 6Most analysts — even those who want more aggressive action — acknowledge that building a viable criminal case against the former president would be challenging.Investigators might consider exploring whether the president criminally incited the crowd that ultimately marched to and stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 when he said at the rally preceding the riot: “And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”But such speech could be considered protected by the First Amendment, and Trump is hardly the first politician to call on his supporters to fight.While Trump told the crowd to march to the Capitol and vowed to join them — even though he had no plans to do so — there is no evidence that he knew they planned to storm the building.Investigators might also consider whether Trump’s pressure on Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” votes for him — combined with other legal and legislative maneuvering to prevent his loss from being finalized — was part of a criminal conspiracy to impede government functioning. But if Trump genuinely believed the election was stolen from him, it would be hard to construe his contesting the outcome as a crime.“We better be real careful that we don’t start taking political and emotional comments by public figures and try to turn them into the stuff of criminal prosecutions,” former federal prosecutor James Trusty said.Before, during and after the Capitol breach: A Washington Post investigationAlmost from the investigation’s outset, Justice Department officials have debated how to proceed in the sprawling and politically sensitive case.At first, according to people familiar with the matter, a few prosecutors in the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office wanted to use subpoenas and search warrants to go after records of some rally organizers or speakers.But the FBI, Justice Department officials and Michael R.

As said here by Matt Zapotosky, Josh Dawsey, Tom Hamburger, Rachel Weiner