Why January 6 Committee Transcripts Are Urgent: Proud Boy Jeremy Bertino

On June 6, DOJ charged the Proud Boy Leaders with sedition. As I noted at the time, the single solitary new overt act described in the indictment involved Jeremy Bertino, Person-1, seeming to have advance knowledge of a plan to occupy the Capitol.

107. At 7:39 pm, PERSON-1 sent two text messages to TARRIO that read, “Brother. ‘You know we made this happen,” and “I’m so proud of my country today.” TARRIO responded, “I know” At 7:44 pm. the conversation continued, with PERSON-1 texting, “1776 motherfuckers.” TARRIO responded, “The Winter Palace.” PERSON-1 texted, “Dude. Did we just influence history?” TARRIO responded, “Let’s first see how this plays out.” PERSON-1 stated, “They HAVE to certify today! Or it’s invalid.” These messages were exchanged before the Senate returned to its chamber at approximately 8:00 p.m. to resume certifying the Electoral College vote.

Just days earlier, as part of a discovery dispute, prosecutors had provided this (dated) discovery index. For several reasons, it’s likely that at least some these entries pertain to Bertino, because the CE ones are from the Charlotte office, close to where he lives, because he’s one of the three uncharged co-conspirators of central importance to the Proud Boys efforts, and because we know FBI did searches on him.

In a hearing during the day on June 9, the Proud Boys’ attorneys accused DOJ of improperly coordinating with the January 6 Committee and improperly mixing politics and criminal justice by charging sedition just before the hearings start. In the hearing there was an extensive and repeated discussion of the deposition transcripts from the committee investigation. AUSA Jason McCullough described that there had been significant engagement on depositions, but that the January 6 Committee wouldn’t share them. As far as he knew, the Committee said they would release them in September, which would be in the middle of the trial. Joe Biggs’ attorney insisted that DOJ had the transcripts, and that they had to get them to defendants.

Judge Tim Kelly ordered prosecutors that, if they come into possession of the transcripts, they turn them over within 24 hours.

Hours later, during the first (technically, second) January 6 Committee hearing, the Committee included a clip from Bertino describing how membership in the Proud Boys had tripled in response to Trump’s “Stand Back and Stand By” comment.

His cooperation with the Committee was not public knowledge. I have no idea whether it was a surprise to DOJ, but if it was, it presented the possibility that, in the guise of cooperating, Bertino had just endangered the Proud Boy sedition prosecution (which wouldn’t be the first time that “cooperative” Proud Boys proved, instead, to be fabricators). At the very least, it meant his deposition raised the stakes on his transcript considerably, because DOJ chose not to charge him in that sedition conspiracy.

Today, in response to a bid by Dominic Pezzola and Joe Biggs to continue the trial until December, DOJ acceded if all defendants agree (Ethan Nordean won’t do so unless he is released from jail). With it they included a letter they sent yesterday to the Committee — following up on one they sent in April — talking about the urgency with which they need deposition transcripts.

We note that the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (“Select Committee”) in its June 9, 2022 and June 13, 2022, hearings extensively quoted from our filings in active litigation and played portions of interviews the Select Committee conducted of individuals who have been charged by the Department in connection with the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

It is now readily apparent that the interviews the Select Committee conducted are not just potentially relevant to our overall criminal investigations, but are likely relevant to specific prosecutions that have already commenced. Given this overlap, it is critical that the Select Committee provide us with copies of the transcripts of all its witness interviews. As you are aware, grand jury investigations are not public and thus the Select Committee does not and will not know the identity of all the witnesses who have information relevant to the Department’s ongoing criminal investigations. Moreover, 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.

The discovery deadline for the Proud Boy case is tomorrow. If DOJ put Bertino before a grand jury and he said something that conflicts with what he told the Committee, it could doom his reliability as a witness, and with it the Proud Boys case, and with it, potentially, the conspiracy case against Trump.

The fact that Matt Olsen, National Security Division head, is on this letter suggests the concern pertains to the militias (and, indeed, the charged militia witnesses who appeared were Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes). Similarly, Nick Quested’s testimony may be inconsistent with other information DOJ has obtained.

Some pundits who’ve never done any original reporting on the topic claimed upon seeing this letter that it’s proof DOJ has been “twiddling its thumbs” while the Jan6 Committee has been doing all the work.

They’re saying that, though, when DOJ fairly explicitly said that grand juries have interviewed witnesses that Jan6 — and so, by association, lazy pundits — may not be aware of.

These are the kinds of surprises that can kill entire cases, after a year and a half of painstaking investigation.

86 replies
  1. Rugger9 says:

    I see no good reason for the J6SC to withhold documents which have already made their appearance in the hearings. Perhaps one might make the case that the still-secret items are best used for gotchas for witnesses, however, IF DoJ can keep the secrets the committee should release them.

    TBF, let’s not forget this is the same DoJ which has elements that supported Durham’s snipe hunts, so unless one can be sure there are no leaks from DoJ the J6SC wants to keep their cards close.

    • Al Ostello says:

      I believe that the media reports on this are part of the plan the J6 committee had, perhaps yet another strand to pull in more viewers. I would not be surprised to see articles in a couple days stating that J6 has released all transcripts to DOJ. Just part of the drum beat. Hopefully indictments will be delivered soon after the hearings and not 8 months as with Watergate.

      Watergate (meticulous investigations) timeline:
      Jun 1972: Watergate break in
      July 1973: Public hearings

      Mar 1974: Dozens of Indictments
      Jan 1975: Dozens of convictions

    • Al Ostello says:

      Durham’s snipe hunts are playing out like a big fat belly flop dud…why not let him keep failing in court to prove once and for all it’s just another con? :D

      • Phil A says:

        Because he is destroying people’s lives in the process?

        Or isn’t that a good enough reason for the DOJ to put an end to a witch hunt?

        • bmaz says:

          You know it is, due to the way Barr structured the special prosecutor position, not that easy to fire him. You know that, right?

  2. Jamie C says:

    This feels like a weak explanation for DOJ’s urgency: a conspiracy prosecution resting on the consistency of testimony of one white supremacist (a group not known for being super forthcoming with LE)? I very much like Marcy and I very much like Brian, but both theories seem very very thin. Feels like two people out of their skis a bit.

    DOJ has long been a leaky ship and so far J6 has avoided leaks, so I can understand their reluctance to share with the greatest investigative body in the world according to those who’ve worked there. Maybe that’s my absolute lack of faith in DOJ’s effectiveness as a functioning bureaucracy, given Comey, Wray, Lynch, Barr, Mueller, and on and on, etc. etc.

    Regardless, this isn’t flattering for J6 or DOJ.

    • bmaz says:

      It does NOT rest on the testimony of only one person, and as to urgency, DOJ has been asking for this for a long time. You have DOJ leaks as to 1/6 vis a vis the Committee exactly backwards. Don’t waltz in and try to gaslight people here.

      • Jamie C. says:

        Gaslight? I don’t understand.

        It feels like a contentious relationship that needs a better understanding than “Shut up, DOJ is right!”

        • bmaz says:

          As the Committee has not one lick of criminal jurisdiction, none, DOJ is right. It really is that simple.

        • Jamie C says:

          I’m sure we can go all night, but J6 issued the subpoenas for their witnesses, the witnesses complied and were interviewed. I don’t understand why that is now considered the work product of DOJ. Criminal jurisdiction is a lazy explanation. DOJ has many avenues it can and should pursue to get the info it needs.

        • Michael1 says:

          If it was JUST the DOJ that needed it, you might have a point. But as a matter of elementary fairness. the defendants need access to information they can use to impeach potential witnesses. They’re on trial for felonies that could send them to jail for years.

        • Phil A says:

          If exculpatory material comes out later the defendants can have the court review it.

          As it is, if the defendants think the J6 Cmte. has exculpatory information they can request the court provide a subpoena. If the DOJ thinks the J6 Cmte. has more evidence of guilt they can request a judge provide a subpoena.

          Demanding the J6 Cmte. provide every piece of evidence they have accumulated is more like a fishing expedition. The J6 Cmte. is right to not trust the DOJ.

        • bmaz says:

          And you are back with yet another load of bunk. It is NOT just about Brady material, it is about the prosecution’s ability to present to grand juries and trial juries. The the Committee is doing is asinine and craven. I guess you do not really want accountability after all. Why are you here, just to troll people with garbage? It sure seems that way.

    • emptywheel says:


      One of us has done the work to know what’s going on.

      Brian has repeatedly mouthed off without bothering to do the work.

      To equate that we’re both over our skis when just one of us has done the work to understand what’s going on is frankly, obnoxious.

      And I’m not sure how Mueller prosecuting Trump’s campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, coffee boy, national security advisor, personal lawyer, and rat-fucker, amounts to a lack of accountability.

      Perhaps you should take some ski lessons yourself before you shit all over my comment threads?

      • Jamie C. says:

        Lol. Thanks Marcy. As I said, I think you’re great.

        Apologies for being obnoxious, but I simply don’t buy that a dispute between DOJ and J6 is as one sided as you (and the AUSA) claim.

        • emptywheel says:

          I didn’t say it was one-sided. This post explains DOJ’s urgency. It does not explain Jan6’s interest in keeping details from people who have not testified so far, like Ginni Thomas.

          But there’s literally no basis to claim DOJ is leaky and Jan6 is not. The opposite is the case. If DOJ were leaky my TL wouldn’t be full of people wailing that they can’t see what is clearly public.

        • Jamie C says:

          I meant as an institution DOJ is historically more leaky, not w/ regards to GJs of course because that’s illegal. But of course you’re right about that.

        • bmaz says:

          No, DOJ is not “historically more leaky” than Congress, especially this 1/6 Committee. That is absurd. Nice attempt to backtrack though.

      • Diogenes says:

        ‘… I’m not sure how Mueller prosecuting Trump’s campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, coffee boy, national security advisor, personal lawyer, and rat-fucker, amounts to a lack of accountability.’

        Why didn’t Mueller look at Trump’s finances, Marcy?

        • bmaz says:

          That was not in his scope as to investigating any possible Russia conspiracy. Listen, if you are just going to wander in to dump on people here, that is not going to work.

        • Diogenes says:

          Again with the attempt to shut me down by saying I am just wandering in here dumping on people! — when that simply seems to mean I am asking questions that some people don’t like.

          But I have enormous respect for Marcy, which is why I addressed the question to her. (I have less respect for you Bmaz, but you know that already.)

          To recap: Jamie C had expressed doubt that Mueller had managed to hold Trump accountable, and Marcy had responded with an answer from which I quoted, namely that folks from the campaign manager on down were held accountable.

          My apparently out-of-bounds question re finances is another way of saying that Trump was NOT in fact held accountable, so in fact that Jamie C is correct in this instance.

          And yes Bmaz, I know why finances were scoped out. At least I know the surface explanation: it wasn’t within the scope of the investigation as ordered by Rosenstein. That’s the explanation I’ve seen in the news; it’s not much of a fucking explanation to me.

        • bmaz says:

          I do not give a damn whether you like me or not. But you rolled in, dumped on Marcy, then me, then came back to belligerently ask Marcy a question you now claim to have known the answer about all along. Again, that is not going to work. We collect up enough bullshit without yours. And, if it is not a “fucking explanation to you”, fine, go find what you are looking for elsewhere. But any more shitting on people here and you are done.

        • Diogenes says:

          I’m not dumping on Marcy, I’m disagreeing with her: Trump wasn’t held accountable by Mueller. And if Trump wasn’t held accountable by Mueller, then that suggests that Jamie C’s fears re Garland and the current state of affairs are perhaps well-founded.

          And re finances being scoped out — to me that remains the biggest mystery of all. . .because surely if they’d gone after that from a criminal perspective (and not just a counterintelligence perspective) Trump would have been toast. So did it really come down to Rosenstein? I remember Weissman writing that he was aghast at the failure to follow the money and go for the jugular . . so if it’s a question for him it’s definitely a question for me. Ban me if you must, but for Empty Wheel I have much respect!



          [Upon further research it appears there are more than one community member commenting under the username “Diogenes.” Please salt your user name or use a more unique one to differentiate yourself. Thanks. /~Rayne]

        • Yet Another Cynic Philosopher says:

          Rayne — thanks for the note. If I was uncharitable — but only if I was! — I would think that feels at least a *little* punitive, given I have posted on this site under that name since 2020.

          And if I was paranoid — but only if I was ! — I might even wonder if this is in effect a way to ban me, as all you have to do now is just refuse to approve this new monicker of mine. But you wouldn’t do that, would you?

          [If this is your new username please stick with it here forward. As for complaining about the site’s operations including moderation, this had best be the end of it or you will be binned. Get back to the post’s topic. /~Rayne]

        • Rayne says:

          First, it’d behoove you to understand that “just asking questions” a.k.a. JAQing off is a form of trollery as is “sealioning.” If you genuinely want an answer here, recognize these forms and avoid appearing like you’re JAQing off or sealioning by having the grace to research elsewhere first.

          Second, we get a LOT of JAQing off and sealioning. Have the grace to understand that we get tetchy about it.

          Third, there are questions which are not up to us to answer. Frankly, we don’t owe anyone anything except to concentrate on what it is we do as our personal mission. Some questions should be put not to bloggers but to your elected members of Congress.

        • Yet Another Cynic Philosopher says:

          alas, and I’m not joking though wish I was: my elected representative is Barry Loudermilk, who seems unlikely to be too concerned about any of this.

        • Rayne says:

          You should make it clear to Loudermilk what your sentiments are. Just because he’s a lying jerk doesn’t mean he has no obligation to hear from his constituents who are paying his wages.

          Sure is interesting how Loudermilk’s district abuts MTG’s and they’re both miserable wretches willing to subvert US government.

        • Yet Another Cynic Philosopher says:

          I’ll be honest with you Rayne, I don’t speak up down here because I fear for my life. Not because of where it’s at right now — though this place is scary — but because of where it’s so clearly going. What can I say? Judge me or not, I have a four year old kid and I intend to get out of this country soon —

          And as to Loudermilk — not just a traitor, not just an insurrectionist, but someone who cased the fucking joint the day before! He should be swinging from a lamppost, and I mean that not as incitement to violence but as a call to Justice to save us — Talk about interesting times …



        • Rayne says:

          Then you send the message by free fax (masking your phone/using a throwaway number with local area code) or snail mail (without return address/use a local government building address as return address) and you tell Loudermilk he’s not fulfilling his sworn oath (elaborate) and you’re not comfortable sharing your name/address/phone because he hasn’t made it clear that dissent is protected as it should be under the Constitution. Identify Loudermilk’s chief of staff and copy them on the message.

          And don’t forget your senators. I hope you’re doing something to support Sen. Warnock.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          My understanding, based on reading the entire Mueller report and Weissmann’s subsequent account as well as tracking public reporting at the time, is that Rosenstein served many masters. Some were obvious, some less so. The main takeaway? Rosenstein craved the reputation of the *sung* unsung hero–that is, Comey with the extra height and show-offy tendencies removed.

    • Theodora30 says:

      Actually Trump’s DOJ may have leaked like a sieve but Garland has been very effective at putting a stop to leaks. That is why there is a serious debate among top legal experts about what DOJ is actually doing. Some argue DOJ is slow to act because they are meticulously gathering all the evidence they can muster before indicting; others are convinced Garland is weak and DOJ is just avoiding going after Trump and his top co-conspirators. If DOJ had been leaking as you state that debate wouldn’t have been happening.

  3. N.E. Brigand says:

    How does deconfliction between the Department of Justice and a Congressional committee who are investigating the same matter normally work? Is there a way for DOJ to more explicitly tell the Jan. 6th Committee in private what Marcy writes above? Or are they prohibited from doing so? Shouldn’t the Committee understand this particular concern even without being told? And if not, are they now capable of reading between the lines?

    • wetzel says:

      Good questions. From that same line of reasoning, I was thinking yesterday this is all performative, where the DOJ and the committee were going to have a spat, where DOJ complains how little they have been cooperating to show everyone they have not been cooperating. Marcy’s post this morning, of course, made me afraid of the farce of Oliver North’s immunity returning as a tragedy.

      Now that it turns out Bertino has also given sworn testimony to the committee, you could see how the prosecutors may be having a bad day. There is no double jeopardy, though. It’s not like a mistake at trial. The facts are what occurred. The evidence shows this conspiracy’s architecture from a dozen different points of entry, top to bottom, and multiple avenues of culpability to enter and unravel its networks. It would actually be incredible, wouldn’t it? The United States government will fail to prosecute the greatest crime against the American republic in history because this guy said something on Tuesday different than what he said on Friday. It just seems implausible that this guy is the hill the country dies on.

      • Legonaut says:

        Sorry, but I’m remembering the Bundy (et al.) prosecutions over Malheur. Never underestimate the capacity for fuckups.

        “The facts are what occurred,” indeed.

    • Rugger9 says:

      Perhaps I’m being more obtuse than usual here, but I do not know why DoJ doesn’t ask for an extension because the J6SC hasn’t given them the requested files. DoJ can document the requests were made, that the committee has refused the requests and as part of a separate branch of government DoJ has limited authority to compel a House committee to do anything tied to its own investigations. I would not be surprised to find out that there is plenty of court precedent on this topic. Durham was able to get extensions for his cases on flimsier grounds than these.

      What would also help IMHO is if the J6SC provides a date certain for release of the files to DoJ so the judge(s) know this will not be an open-ended delay.

      • Dr Noisewater says:

        I think it honestly is just Tim Kelly, he’s shown annoyance at the slightest inconvenience/delays, or difficulties of voluminous evidence production. Unless I’m mixing Kelly and McFadden up

  4. Mark says:

    Isn’t the letter just DOJ trying to comply with Brady (duty to produce exculpatory evidence), or at least demonstrate its efforts to comply before the cut-off? Would love to hear a prosecutor weigh in on this.

    On the other side of this, the J6C knows that if they provide copies, DOJ is obligated to produce them to defendants, who may leak them, thus compromising the J6C’s public presentation and perhaps ongoing investigation. So the J6C allows onsite review only, allowing DOJ to evaluate testimony for possible impeachment problems, whilst avoiding any leaks.

    If this theory is correct, the matter seems well-handled and not a cause for concern.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please use a more differentiated username when you comment next as we have several community members named “Mark” or “Marc.” Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • bmaz says:

      No, it is not just Brady, as DOJ does not have the material. It is about the investigation of many, and is a legitimate request, and has been for a while.

      • Mark says:

        Right, DOJ lacks the material but knows it exists. Now, I assume, DOJ has to demonstrate some level of diligence in trying to obtain the material—here’s where prosecutor knowledge would be helpful. Hence, the sternly-worded letter and the original request too.

        And J6C is playing it in a way that preserves its own position while not necessarily hindering the prosecutions.

        All just a theory. But seems to fit the facts.

        • bmaz says:

          Just my take, but I think they are doing nothing to cravenly try to protect the news value of their “hearings”.

        • emptywheel says:

          WHAT FACTS? Did you read the post?!?!?

          The facts are DOJ has a discovery deadline for EVERYTHING tomorrow in the most important case before them. They’ve been asking for two months, and they are trying to assess what to do with someone who might have been included in the sedition indictment if they could be sure what he said to Jan6. You seem to blithely think DOJ should just suck up their discovery obligations and wing it at trial.

        • MarkJ says:

          Marcy, all these witnesses have credibility problems and I can’t imagine vetting potentially inconsistent statements is what’s driving this push. More likely, DOJ is just trying to show diligence and make a record establishing they cannot produce these transcripts before the cut-off. Why else would there be this “rift”? — surely leadership on both sides would avoid doing this publicly unless it served some larger purpose. And surely leadership has thought this through at a high level of sophistication and we are missing some critical facts. Or maybe I’m being naive!

          P.S. I think I was wrong in thinking J6C was allowing onsite review of materials. Which makes sense because I can see how that would lead to other thorny Brady issues.

        • bmaz says:

          Eh, how in the world do “you” know what witnesses have credibility issues and which do not? Are you in a better position to determine that than DOJ? Especially as to witnesses you could not name if your life depended on it? Even as to those that might, such is not unusual in criminal cases, and DOJ has a right and need to know what else is out there and in play. DOJ thinks they need it, and the courts so far think so too by ordering DOJ to disclose anything they receive within 24 hours of receipt.

        • MarkJ says:

          No special insight, just observing a generally unsavory cast of characters with lots of impeachment material to work with. This leads me to think the benefits of withholding transcripts from DOJ outweighs the benefits of evaluating prior inconsistent statements and costs of having to disclose the material to defendants.

          Let me defend my theory another way: would Adam Schiff, a former AUSA, go along with any J6C plan likely to jeopardize high level prosecutions? No way. There must be more going on behind the scenes.

        • bmaz says:

          Well, it does not. And now Thompson has issued another asinine response to DOJ basically saying “we will get to it when we get to it”. What an ass. And Schiff is not calling the shots, Thompson, Cheney and Pelosi are. They are being straight up jerks. Obviously, the 1/6 Committee is not really concerned about accountability and justice. Just another feckless shitshow.

        • Phil A says:

          There are people who think that if the DOJ believes in accountability and justice that Trump would already be in jail.

          You seem to be on the other side of that coin.

        • bmaz says:

          There are people, and especially here, that understand the investigative and prosecutorial procedure and process. You appear to either not read the main posts by Marcy here, that have relentlessly explained this, nor the slew of comments further explaining it. Instead, you just roll in to troll us with you bleating garbage. It is laughable that you are all panty wadded about DOJ but less than an hour earlier, said the Committee was absolutely right to frustrate the same. You are a troll. Begone.

    • N.E. Brigand says:

      As Marcy writes above, the bigger concern is that if Bertino or others said things to the Jan. 6th Committee that conflict with their grand jury testimony in the Proud Boys cases, that could render them useless as witnesses, and given what she points out about Bertino’s role being important to the seditious conspiracy charge, that potentially could scupper that aspect of the case, which not only is bad for this prosecution but might be an important prong of the potential prosecution of Donald Trump himself.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Thank you, Brigand, for paraphrasing that so clearly. You made me realize that what bothers me most about the publicly revealed steps DOJ has taken recently is how much their conspiracy prosecutions seem to rest on Bertino and his self- and group-damning utterances. While I agree with you and Dr. Wheeler that it would suck if the J6 committee’s recalcitrance regarding transcripts undermined DOJ’s careful efforts, I have been hoping they have more to hang these critical charges on than what we’ve seen.

        • bmaz says:

          If I were DOJ, I would issue a grand jury subpoena for all their stupid interview transcripts immediately. There are some real separation of powers issues there, but it would at least expose them for the craven asses the Committee are being.

  5. Diogenes says:

    And here’s Marcy still firing away with her ad hominem attacks at anyone who dares to suggest that DOJ isn’t totally on the ball. Sure, that’s it. Put it down to Brian Beutler being lazy.

    • bmaz says:

      Uh, yeah, nobody needs Kenzidor or Gorelick to get a grip on the situation. Where exactly is DOJ? Nobody knows, nor are they supposed to. Don’t pull that junk here.

      • Diogenes says:

        Ah, Bmaz, this website’s resident bully / heavy. Is it not true that Gorelick is a mentor to Garland?

        the rest of you, please check out Kendzior.

        • bmaz says:

          Get out of here. You only parachute in to throw things, that has been your consistent MO for years. If you feel “bullied” maybe you should not have tried to pull the shit you just did, you are a self fulfilling complainant.

        • Diogenes says:

          For years? What? I agreed with basically everything Marcy said up until about a month after 2021, at which point I will confess to a growing disquiet.

          And I don’t feel bullied man, I’ve just watched the way you act on this site. (To the point of reading my drafts! Woah.)

          Re your charge of ‘parachuting’ — I read everything, I rarely comment, and I will freely confess to becoming more reclusive and pessimistic across this last year and a half (but see my monicker :)

          anyway, just tell me: is Gorelick a mentor to Garland?

    • emptywheel says:

      Brian Beutler made a false claim. Provably false. Worse, the claim was that DOJ was twiddling their thumbs, which if he didn’t have his own stuck up his ass, he would know is false.

      It is not ad hom to observe that Brian continues to do that. It is not ad hom to note that someone makes wild claims but has exhibited literally not an ounce of having done the work to make the claims he does.

  6. Badger Robert says:

    The committee has attorneys. They should be able to propose a way to get the information to the defendants. The defendants want an issue on appeal and the committee has to act to minimize the issue.

    • skua says:

      This view seems to miss the DoJ’s need to have confidence that Bertino’s testimony to them, perhaps critical testimony against people close to Trump, will not be judged as unreliable in court due to that testimony conflicting with Bertino’s separate testimony to the Jan6 Committee.

  7. Ddub says:

    So the theories the J6C is doing this are down to:
    Pissing contest
    A genuine disagreement over Separation of Powers or precedence
    September is eons of investigative time away. This is a troubling development when time is of the essence the next 2 years.

  8. WilliamOckham says:

    A few of the commenters appear to have recently arrived from an alternate universe. I can find no other explanation for the notion that the Jan 6 committee hasn’t been leaking. Their strategic approach to leaking has been one of their most effective tools to date. Someone on that committee obviously learned how to leak from Dick Cheney.

    Another thing that Dick Cheney understood was that information is power. If someone on the committee is overapplying that lesson with regard to sharing information with the DOJ, that’s very unfortunate and needs to be addressed by the rest of the committee.

    • skua says:

      Cynical speculation:
      There is always a plan. One that protects the GOP’s big donors and has the GOP serving. Conservative Democrats protecting America against the socialists all alone just won’t work.
      Slough DJT, deflate the thugs, resocialise the Qers, sober up the FoxNew crowd, materialise a Cheney-style GOP, regain control?
      High level prosecutions just don’t feature?
      A few R. Reps and Senators don’t seek re-election and 2016-2021 never happened?
      /cyn spec

      (Or the plan fails and openly authoritarian kleptocracy returns.)

  9. WilliamOckham says:

    Thompson’s comments (as reported by the NYT):

    “We are not going to stop what we are doing to share the information that we’ve gotten so far with the Department of Justice,” he said. “We have to do our work.”

    I have a very strong prior here. Anybody who says sharing electronic files (which is what we’re talking about here) requires them to stop what they are doing is lying. Here’s how easy this could have been. The DOJ has access to a secure public cloud infrastructure. They can make a directory structure available to the committee and a J6 committee staffer can copy the files to it.

    Does that really sound like “daunting logistical challenges”?

      • bmaz says:

        If so, then what is it? It is not a too difficult or investigation consuming thing. It is not that DOJ leaks too much. I am not seeing anything valid enough to stand in the way of actual prosecutions

        • Rayne says:

          I don’t know. It’s not like I hold back my opinion, buddy, you know that. It feels like we’re missing a piece of the puzzle because I can’t believe a committee whose members include 4 persons with JDs, a seasoned prosecutor, a former Nixon impeachment team member, and one member with natsec experience on it (not to mention all the staffers working for them) would hold back anything essential to a prosecution without good reason.

        • Eureka says:

          Whatever happened with Jocelyn Ballantyne’s (Flynn-case scotcher) involvement with the Proud Boy’s Leadership case? Marcy didn’t mention her in her round-up of PB cases prosecutors a few months back.

          Though as I said the other day, J6C has places they don’t want to go(, too), so am not leaning on an interpretation where J6C is attempting to be ‘protective’ of justice. And I assume if an atty with a similar ‘resume’ to JB were lurking in significant J6 cases (and such was known) that Marcy might have pointed this out.

        • Eureka says:

          (And I can’t let go of all of the reservations Marcy’s reported wrt handling of the PB prosec. — also, perhaps, completely unrelated here. Besides the fact — as in this post — that lack of access to J6C materials could provide yet another [possibly the ultimate] botch avenue, of course.)

    • bmaz says:

      No. Even if copied it onto a hard drive and had it picked up (which is how I usually get get disclosure on big cases), it still takes pretty much nothing. Thompson and the Committee are lying.

  10. Doctor My Eyes says:

    I’ve been thinking about Bmaz’s strong feelings about the J6 committee, and even adjusting for the grumpy old man factor there seems too be a there there. It has occurred to me that perhaps the members of the committee, politicos as they are, positively do NOT want prosecutions of high government officials. I personally can’t understand such an attitude, but history has proven a strong distaste among the elite for seeing their peers face justice. Perhaps they fear what a failure to convict would mean. Perhaps they really think the evidence is not strong enough to convict. Perhaps it’s just institutional habit, jealously, and blindness. Perhaps the most likely reading is that they likeJ6 as a litmus test political issue, much as Republicans have milked the abortion issue lo these many decades. Still, it is hard to imagine that the GOP anti-Trumpers would not want to see Trump gone forever. If Bmaz is even only a little right that the J6 is not on board with full, enthusiastic cooperation with the DOJ, that is a very curious (and anti-American) stance.

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        Yes. So more accurately, it’s an anti-rule-of-law stance. This is interesting because Judge Luttig put the rule of law as the foundational principle of the republic.

        • AgainBrain says:

          If the committee found (or were provided) an “even better smoking gun”, more certain to yield the same end goals (taking certain players off the political field), though perhaps doing so without putting so many of the committee’s peers at risk, would that explain their current behavior more, or less?

        • skua says:

          If this was Thailand or Indonesia I’d think that the committee now has concerns about the loyalty of a powerful bloc in the active military.
          But in the USA? Hints of organised disloyalty around Jan6. But still seems impossible to be the explanation.

  11. Mee says:

    I don’t understand much about how the relationship between the two work, but I’m curious as to whether the January 6 committee could continue to publicly share the information that they have if in fact they handed over to the DOJ and the DOJ deems it necessary to use in a prosecution. If that’s the case wouldn’t they have to be silent on anything that the DOJ needs to prosecute a case. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t really know about the interplay between information in a case and the rights of the defendant or the need of the prosecution to keep information secret. Could someone elaborate on how this works?

  12. Thomas Paine says:

    Their remain significant elements of the DoJ, even under Judge Garland, that are beholden to both the GOP and Giuliani. They are not all Boy Scouts, HRC was a victm of these elements in 2016. The Dems have justifiable concerns regarding “leaks”. Their are 2 kinds – leaks to the public and leaks to the RNC. In that context, I understand the J6C’s concerns.

    • bmaz says:

      Seriously? American governance is not about uniform thought. It is about continuity. Carping that not every person is your preference is absurd.

      • Thomas Paine says:

        If you believe the entire GOP was in on at least part of the coup, which seems pretty evident, at least in propagating the false notion that Biden’s victory in 2020 was illegitimate, then yes, everyone with an (R) behind their name besides Liz Cheney and Judge Luttig is suspect. A bunch of them work, today, for the DoJ, which is only theoretically apolitical. Paranoia – yes indeed, but with some hard experienced justification.

        • Yet Another Cynic Philosopher says:

          Paine — I have the sinking feeling you may be right.

          Regardless, *something* doesn’t add up here. That’s the vibe I’m sensing, but maybe I’m not reading the room well — (wouldn’t be the first time)

          A quick note from the South — I would say at least a third of the houses on our block have blue houselights in the frontdoors at night — instead of the usual yellow or white. Blue for Blue Lives Matter.

          (Except of course when the cops are those being killed by a Trumpist mob at the Capitol. Not then, obviously. )

Comments are closed.