The Overt Investigative Steps into Trump’s Co-Conspirators TV Lawyers Ignored

The first overt act in the investigation into Donald Trump’s six co-conspirators happened on January 25, 2021.

The Jeffrey Clark investigation started at DOJ IG

On that day, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced that he was opening an investigation, “into whether any former or current DOJ official engaged in an improper attempt to have DOJ seek to alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election.” The announcement came three days after Katie Benner did a story laying out Jeffrey Clark’s efforts to undermine the election results. Horowitz explained that he made the announcement, “to reassure the public that an appropriate agency is investigating the allegations.”

We don’t know all the details about what happened between Horowitz’s announcement of that investigation and last week’s indictment describing Clark as co-conspirator 4. Probably, when Merrick Garland arranged for Joe Biden to waive Executive Privilege so Jeffrey Rosen and others could tell the Senate Judiciary Committee what happened in July 2021, that freed up some communications to DOJ IG. For the record, I raised questions about why it took so long — though I suspect the delay in restoring the contacts policy at DOJ was part of it. Some time before May 26, 2022, DOJ obtained warrants for a private Jeffrey Clark email account and on May 26, Beryl Howell approved a filter process. On June 23, 2022, the FBI seized Clark’s phone — with some involvement of DOJ IG — and the next day DOJ seized a second email account of Clark’s. When FBI seized Clark’s phone, I predicted it would take at least six months to fully exploit Clark’s phone, because that’s what it was generally taking, even without a complex privilege review. Indeed, five months after first seizing some of Clark’s cloud content, on September 27, 2022, he was continuing to make frivolous privilege claims to keep his own account of the events leading up to January 6 out of the hands of investigators.

The first overt act in the investigation into one of Trump’s co-conspirators happened 926 days ago. Yet TV lawyers continue to insist the investigation that has resulted in an indictment including Clark as Donald Trump’s co-conspirator didn’t start in earnest until Jack Smith was appointed in November 2022.

A privilege review of Rudy’s devices was set in motion (in the Ukraine investigation) in April 2021

Clark is not the only one of Trump’s co-conspirators against whom investigative steps occurred in 2021, when TV lawyers were wailing that nothing was going on.

Take the December 6, 2020 Kenneth Chesebro memo that forms part of the progression mapped in the indictment from Chesebro’s efforts to preserve Wisconsin votes to trying to steal them. NYT liberated a copy and wrote it up here. It’s not clear where DOJ first obtained a copy, but one place it was available, which DOJ took steps to obtain starting on April 21, 2021 and which other parts of DOJ would have obtained by January 19, 2022, was on one of the devices seized from Rudy Giuliani in the Ukraine influence-peddling investigation. The PDF of a December 6 Kenneth Chesebro memo shows up in Rudy’s privilege log in the Ruby Freeman suit, marked with a Bates stamp from the Special Master review initiated by SDNY.

While Rudy is claiming privilege over it in Freeman’s lawsuit, it is highly likely Barbara Jones ruled that it was not (only 43 documents, total, were deemed privileged in that review, and there are easily that many emails pertaining to Rudy’s own defense in his privilege log).

The way in which SDNY did that privilege review, in which SDNY asked and Judge Paul Oetken granted in September 2021 that the review would cover all content post-dating January 1, 2018, was public in real time. I noted in December 2021, that Rudy’s coup-related content would be accessible, having undergone a privilege review, at any such time as DC investigators obtained probable cause for a warrant to access it.

Since then, Rudy has claimed — to the extent that claims by Rudy are worth much — that all his coup-related content would be available, and would only be available, via materials seized in that review. (In reality, much of this should also have been available on Gmail and iCloud, and Rudy’s Protonmail account does not appear to have been captured in the review at all.)

But unless you believe that Rudy got designated co-conspirator 1 in the indictment without DOJ ever showing probable cause against him, unless you believe DOJ decided to forego directly relevant material that was already privilege-reviewed and in DOJ custody, then we can be certain January 6 investigators did obtain that content, and once they did, the decisions made in April and August and September 2021 would have shaved nine months of time off the investigation into him going forward.

Indeed, those materials are one likely explanation for why DOJ’s investigation, as represented by subpoenas sent starting in May 2022, had a slightly different focus than January 6 Committee did. The first fake elector warrants sent in May 2022 as well as those sent in June and November all included Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova. Rudy’s known J6C interview included the couple as key members of his post-election team. But no one else seems to have cared or figured out what they did. After Rudy listed them in his January 6 interview, the Committee never once raised them again. But they were always part of a sustained focus by DOJ.

The more explicit investigative steps targeting Rudy have come more recently. Rudy was subpoenaed for information about how he was paid in November 2022. He sat for an interview in June.

But a privilege review on the coup-related content on seven of Rudy’s devices would have been complete by January 19, 2022 — the day before the long privilege battle between J6C and John Eastman started.

DOJ’s investigation of Sidney Powell’s graft was overt by September 2021

The investigation into one more of the six co-conspirators described in Trump’s indictment was also overt already in 2021: Sidney Powell.

Subpoenas sent out in September — along with allegations that Powell’s associates had made damning recordings of her — were first reported in November 2021. The investigation may have started under the same theory as Jack Smith’s recent focus on Trump: That Powell raised money for one thing but spent the money on something else, her legal defense. Molly Gaston, one of the two prosecutors who has shown an appearance on Trump’s indictment and who dropped off her last crime scene cases in March 2021, played a key role in the investigation.

By the time of DOJ’s overt September steps, both Florida’s Nikki Fried and Dominion had raised concerns about the legality of Powell’s graft.

According to Byrne, Powell had received a wave of donations in the aftermath of the election after being praised by mega-popular right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh. But the donations were often given haphazardly, sometimes as a dollar bill or quarter taped to a postcard addressed to Powell’s law office. Byrne claims he discovered that Powell had amassed a fortune in contributions, somewhere between $20 and $30 million but provided no evidence to support the claim. A projected budget for Defending the Republic filed with the state of Florida lists only $7 million in revenue for the group.

Defending the Republic’s funds weren’t going towards the pro-Trump goals donors likely envisioned, according to Byrne. Instead, he claimed they were spent on paying legal bills for Powell, who has faced court disciplinary issues and a daunting billion-dollar defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems.

“It shouldn’t be called ‘Defending the Republic,’” Byrne said in the recording. “It should be called ‘Defending the Sidney Powell.’”

Attorneys for Dominion have also raised questions about the finances for Defending the Republic, which the voting technology company has sued alongside Powell. In court documents filed in May, Dominion accused Powell of “raiding [Defending the Republic’s funds] to pay for her personal legal defense.”

Dominion attorneys claimed in the filing that Powell began soliciting donations to Defending the Republic before officially incorporating the group. That sequence, they argued, meant that donations for the group “could not have been maintained separately in a bank account” and “would have necessarily been commingled in bank accounts controlled by [Powell].”


Defending the Republic’s finances first attracted the scrutiny of regulators in Florida shortly after Powell founded the group in November 2020 when authorities received a complaint and subsequently issued a subpoena to internet hosting service GoDaddy for information about the group’s website.

In a June press conference, Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried said Defending the Republic was “found to be soliciting contributions from the State of Florida or from persons within the State of Florida” on the internet “without having filed in the State of Florida” as a charitable organization.”

On Aug. 24, Defending the Republic paid a $10,000 fine as part of a settlement agreement with Florida authorities over its fundraising.

All that graft would directly overlap with the sole focus on Powell in the indictment: on her false claims about voting fraud, particularly relating to Dominion. Aside from a claim that Powell was providing rolling production of documents in January 2022, it’s not clear what further steps this investigation took. Though it’s not clear whether Powell showed up on any subpoenas before one sent days after Jack Smith’s appointment in November.

Unlike Clark and Eastman, there have been no public reports that Powell had her phone seized.

DOJ may have piggybacked off John Eastman’s legislative purpose subpoena

DOJ’s overt focus on John Eastman came after the January 6 Committee’s long privilege battle over his Chapman University emails. Two months after Judge David Carter found some of Eastman’s email to be crime-fraud excepted (at a lower standard for “corruptly” under 18 USC 1512(c)(2) than was being used in DC District cases already), DOJ obtained its own warrant for Eastman’s emails, and a month later, his phone.

While it seems like DOJ piggybacked off what J6C was doing, the phone warrant, like Clark’s issued on the same day, also had involvement from DOJ IG.

Whatever the import of J6C, it’s notable that J6C was able to get those emails for a legislative purpose, without first establishing probable cause a crime had occurred. DOJ surely could have subpoenaed Eastman themselves (though not without tipping him off), but it’s not clear they could have obtained the email in the same way, particularly not if they had to show “otherwise illegal” actions to do so, which was the standard Beryl Howell adopted in her first 1512(c)(2) opinion, issued orally on January 21, 2022.

DOJ’s focus on Kenneth Chesebro (whom J6C didn’t subpoena until July 2022, months after DOJ was including him on subpoenas; see correction below) and whoever co-conspirator 6 is likely were derivative of either Rudy and/or Eastman; J6C subpoenaed Rudy, Powell, and Epshteyn on January 18 — though Epshteyn did not comply — and Mike Roman on March 28. Epshteyn shows up far more often in Rudy’s privilege log than Roman does.

But of the four main co-conspirators in Trump’s indictment, DOJ opportunistically found means to take investigative steps — the DOJ IG investigation, probable cause warrants in another investigation, and a fundraising investigation — to start investigating at least three of the people who last week were described as Trump’s co-conspirators. Importantly, with Clark and Rudy, such an approach likely helped break through privilege claims that would otherwise require first showing the heightened probable cause required before obtaining warrants on an attorney.

We know a fair amount about where and when the investigation into four of Trump’s six co-conspirators came from. And for three of those, DOJ took investigative steps in 2021, before the January 6 Committee sent out their very first subpoena. Yet because those investigative steps didn’t happen where most TV commentators were looking — notably, via leaks from defense attorneys — those steps passed largely unnoticed and unobstructed.

Update, August 20: The J6C sent a subpoena to Chesebro in March, before the July one that was discussed at his deposition.

86 replies
  1. David F. Snyder says:

    I hope your post here helps clarify the record as discussed in the mainstream.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You have been dropping your middle initial F. frequently from your name which increases moderation. I’ve fixed it this time but please note your comments may not clear if you don’t use the exact same username each time. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  2. Peterr says:

    TV attorneys distracted by Bright Shiny Things?
    TV attorneys engaging in not “access journalism” but “access punditry”?
    TV attorneys leaning on members of Congress intent on puffing up their own importance, saying “we led the investigation, and DOJ is only now starting to catch up!”?


    Seriously, though: I was impressed by the J6 hearings, but the claim that DOJ was sitting on its thumbs prior to that is nuts. Thanks for the reminders, Marcy,

  3. harpie says:

    Thanks for this, Marcy!

    FYI: Right now, the link is not working in both places where you reference Rudy’s privilege log.

    • emptywheel says:

      Okay, NOW should be fixed.

      I forgot I was trying to do a cleaned up copy of this but this will go to courtlistener.

      • Diane_11AUG2023_1522h says:

        Thank you so much.
        Thank you for ALL of it!

        [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too common (there are several Dianes in this community) it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  4. Yogarhythms says:

    TV lawyers like most MSM personalities source the stories they tell by listening. Someone with special skills and intelligence that doesn’t rely on listening to people for sources and can read like few others weaves a fabric almost bulletproof by reading the legal records and other documentary evidence and follows her truth. I’m so proud of my small financial support of EW Village.

      • BobS says:

        It’s classy of you to say so.
        (also, in anticipation of the reminder, I’m a longtime semi-regular reader who knows I’ve commented in the distant past, under which username I don’t remember)

        [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. You used “BobS” when commenting some time ago, but you’ll need to update your name to the new standard. Please also continue to use the same email address each time you comment. Thanks. /~Rayne]

        • bmaz says:

          That is okay. But make one of at least eight characters, announce it and stick with it in the future. Thank you.

          • UniqueUsername says:

            Will do.

            [Moderator’s note: No, this will not suffice. We’ve already had users attempt this same name. Come up with something personal to you and easy to remember, add a relevant number and something more so than another number you’ve been using. ~Rayne]

  5. harpie says:

    Marcy, I am sure you will know the answer to this. Were you previously aware of the following, from the indictment? [I know that if we were, then I had missed it]:

    12/27/20 [Morning] After having told ROSEN on 12/26/20, that he would “not have unauthorized contacts with the White House again”, CLARK speaks with TRUMP on TRUMP’s cell phone for nearly three minutes. [73]

    In the afternoon of that day, TRUMP called Rosen / Donoghue and said, among other things: “People tell me [CLARK] is great. I should put him in.” and “Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” [74]

    • emptywheel says:


      We SHOULD have known it but I’m wondering what cell phone they’re discussing there.

      • harpie says:

        Thanks. TRUMP was at MAL at the time. That’s also the same day that STONE says he thanked TRUMP in person for the pardon.

          • harpie says:

            Yes…a VERY busy day, all in all.
            I wonder which phone TRUMP used when he called Rosen/Donoghue twice.

            [FYI – fixed. /~Rayne]

            • SteveBev says:

              The background to the Trump /Clark call being teed-up as per J6C report section 4.6 final paragraph p384

              “Representative Perry continued to advocate on Clark’s behalf. The Congressman texted Meadows on December 26th, writing: “Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down. 11 days to 1/6 and 25 days to inauguration. We gotta get going!” 112 Representative Perry followed up: “Mark, you should call Jeff. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy [position] won’t work especially with the FBI. They will view it as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done.” 113 Meadows responded: “I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position.” 114 Representative Perry then sent additional texts: “Roger. Just sent you something on Signal”, “Just sent you an updated file”, and “Did you call Jeff Clark?” 115

              112. Documents on file with the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Mark Meadows Production), MM014099 (December 26, 2020, text message from Rep. Perry to Mark Meadows).

              113. Documents on file with the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Mark Meadows Production), MM0140100 (December 26, 2020, text message from Rep. Perry to Mark Meadows).

              114. Documents on file with the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Mark Meadows Production), MM014101 (December 26, 2020, text message from Mark Meadows to Rep. Perry).

              115. Documents on file with the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Mark Meadows Production), MM014102-014103, MM014178.“

  6. drhester says:

    You have done an enormous service laying out this timeline. Many many people on TV oand on the net badmouth the Doj for being so tardy in investigating this issue. This piece puts that complaint to rest. Thanks a ton.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      I only wish EW’s post *would* put this narrative to rest. It seems that the current takeaway from that “blockbuster” WaPo story about the DOJ delay is the misleading and simplistic “Garland sat on his hands for a year.” I haven’t heard TV lawyers discuss the difficulties kicked up by the FBI’s DC field office under D’Antuono, and how his foot-dragging held the hold investigation back.

      Worst of all, to me, was Ari Melber arguing that it was the appointment of Smith that triggered the investigation into the higher-ups. How the hell does Melber think Smith got his hands on all that prior evidence? He didn’t snap his fingers the last week of November 2022 and magic it into existence.

      “Assumes facts not in evidence.” That describes most of the reporting about the supposedly dilatory DOJ, which seems created to fill the (essential) void created by an investigation pursued with integrity. If it weren’t for Trump team’s near-constant leaks (from a side with a vested interest in making Garland look bad), we would know next to nothing until indictments speak publicly.

  7. HikaakiH says:

    Para 5. Possible typo: “… which DOJ took steps to obtain starting on April 21, 2021 and which other parts of DOJ would have obtained by January 19, 2021, …”
    Is that meant to be January 19, 2022?

        • Rayne says:

          Re-read the article. It was corrected. Check your own work before being a pedant.

          You should also leave the URL field blank after your username and email address when commenting; is NOT your own website. I am deleting the entry in that field because it’s obviously wrong.

  8. HikaakiH says:

    [B]ecause those investigative steps didn’t happen where most TV commentators were looking — notably, via leaks from defense attorneys — those steps passed largely unnoticed and unobstructed.
    Should we be, in some way, grateful for the waywardness of the TV lawyers eyes and ears?

  9. greenbird says:

    ” shows up in Rudy’s privilege log ”

    link not accessible … ?

    Document not found
    The document you requested either does not exist or you lack permission to access it.

    [Moderator’s note: A single comment noting a problem with a link shared in a post is all that’s necessary. Please avoid chewing up thread space with this. Your three related comments have been edited into one to reduce thread space./~Rayne]

    • greenbird says: = XX
      can’t believe i found it …
      Attach­ment 5 Exhibit 4 (Def.’s First Privilege Log)
      03354 Doc34.5 p27

      #318 12.09.2020 Kenneth Chesboro A-C, W-P
      Confidential draft memo, prepared in anticipation of litigation, providing legal advice from Kenneth Chesebro regarding
      electoral statutory requirements for selection of presidential electors in Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

      #319 ref Cheseboro
      Confidential draft document, prepared in anticipation of litigation, reflecting legal advice provided by Kenneth Chesebro
      regarding selection of presidential electors in Wisconsin.

      #320 ref Cheseboro
      Confidential draft memo, prepared in anticipation of litigation, reflecting legal advice provided by Kenneth Chesebro
      regarding elector information for lawsuits challenging selection of presidential electors in Wisconsin.
      “… It’s not clear where DOJ first obtained a copy, but one place it was available, which DOJ took steps to obtain starting on April 21, 2021 and which other parts of DOJ would have obtained by January 19, 2022, was on one of the devices seized from Rudy Giuliani in the Ukraine influence-peddling investigation. The PDF of a December 6 Kenneth Chesebro memo shows up in Rudy’s privilege log in the Ruby Freeman suit, marked with a Bates stamp from the Special Master review initiated by SDNY …”

  10. Rugger_9 says:

    As part of the investigative toolkit, can the DoJ freeze funds from a PAC operating like Save America does? It would be political dynamite, but Alina Habba said Defendant-1 would use his own money if he had to (btw, that sure sounded like an admission of grift to me since I doubt the PAC is up-front about the real use of the funds).

    What would DoJ have to do to freeze the funds since I’m sure a court would have to order it?

    • P J Evans says:

      He said he’d fund his own campaign in 2016, but didn’t.
      He said he’d fund lawyers for the 1/6 arrestees, but AFAIK they have to pay for their own.
      He doesn’t use his own money for anything that he can fund from other people’s money.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      What role Habba is playing is unclear, but her comments were pure PR. As PJ Evans said, Trump never uses his own money or pays a bill he can get out of, but he loves to suggest otherwise, especially to his down and out supporters.

      Freezing and/or seizing the funds in a PAC would be legally difficult; a thorough investigation that found sufficiently damning facts would have to precede it. It would create a political maelstrom, but Smith probably wouldn’t hesitate, if he had the facts.

  11. Al Coda says:

    Hate to reply-guy, but … “graft” is misappropriation of public funds, while “grift” is profiting off fraud.
    Thank you for your laser focus on all of these details.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Please pick a site-standard compliant username and stick with it, avoiding single-use names which is sock puppeting. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  12. Sussex Trafalgar says:

    Excellent piece! Well stated!

    Unfortunately, TV attorneys appearing on network TV or Cable TV must condense their comments to so few minutes and seconds by the TV producers, that it too often renders the attorneys comments to nothing but broad recaps. That’s a shame.

    After the November 2020 election, Senators McConnell and Graham did everything they could to prevent the incoming Biden Administration from being able to fill the AG position and his staff. AG Garland wasn’t confirmed until March or April 2021. In addition, none of Trump’s outgoing AG officials and executives were given permission by Trump to execute a reasonable passing of salient DOJ material to the new incoming administration. So, in reality, Garland and his staff couldn’t really start working on the J-6 Insurrection until late Summer/Fall of 2021 thanks to Trump, McConnell and Graham.

    Garland has done an outstanding job prosecuting the largest case in DOJ–the unlawful and illegal conspiracy by Trump and his enablers to overthrow a free and fair election so Trump could remain in power.

  13. Randy Baker says:

    Showing that investigating some things and people potentially relevant to investigating Trump occurred prior to the Jan 6 committee hearings does not establish that all or even most important things that should have been done to investigate Trump — such as subpoening relevant witnesses and documents immediately, e.g. Meadows and Cipollone, before documents could be lost and/or destroyed, cover stories coordinated, witnesses tampered with and memories faded — occurred before the Jan 6 committee got going. Indeed, there are people who work in the DOJ — presumably who know as much about DOJ’s activities as those not working there — who report they did not believe Trump was being investigated until after the Jan 6 committee got going.

    • Marinela says:

      And there are people who work at FBI/DOJ that were actively slow walking the Trump/J6 related investigations. Merrick Garland and top FBI probably had to solve these issues first.
      But I don’t know if this happened just on the documents case or on J6 related investigations as well.

      • emptywheel says:

        It was on both. The most credible thing from Carol Leonnig’s long story is that Steve D’Antuono, the same guy who interfered with the docs case, did the same here.

        The funny thing is, know who should have sussed him out? J6C. But the FBI is the BIGGEST cap in the report.

        • Marinela says:

          Good thing Merrick Garland appointed a SC. At the time you were thinking it will help with the integrity of the investigation by preventing the GOP congress interference, but it looks like it needed to be walled internally.

          Thank you for everything you and the team are doing every day.

    • Peterr says:

      Your “presumably” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. DOJ is a relatively siloed department, and unless an investigation is going on in your section of the department, you are not likely to know about it until you hear/read about it through the news media.

      As Marcy notes here, on Lisa Monaco’s first day on the job after being confirmed (April 21, 2021), she authorized a search warrant for Rudy Guiliani’s phones. Throughout the summer, the DOJ worked with the courts to have them reviewed by a special master to eliminate any privileged information. The warrant was sought as part of a FARA investigation, as became clear when the search actually happened, but the privilege review was done in such as way as to preserve the material on Rudy’s phones so that the DOJ’s J6 investigations could use it without having to go back to a judge to get another warrant.

      Just because we didn’t see stuff happening in public doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening. Indeed, Garland was probably happy if folks thought that nothing was going on, as it would lead Trump and his minions to think they were safe and thus they’d get sloppy (OK, sloppier) with hiding their secrets.

    • emptywheel says:


      Now why the fuck would you start by subpoenaing people when you know nothing and it adds to the obstruction?

      I mean the shit that people think about what DOJ should do is almost always 100% opposite of what you should be doing.

      So thanks for littering my site with more of the same.

      I’m SO FUCKING SICK of people who think they know better bc they just need to get their rocks off on something they can SEE rather than something that is EFFECTIVE.

        • emptywheel says:

          I mean, I guess I should have left your response and just left it.

          But yeah. I’m done with this bullshit self-indulgent CSI demand shit.

          • Vinnie Gambone says:

            Marcy , sorting through this stuff must be exhausting and, on top of it dealing with some of us knuckleheads, myself included, makes the frustration and irritation that much more difficult.
            Guessing you and your team have long known what Shakespeare meant when he said, “The wise man can play the fool,but the fool can’t play the wise man.”
            thinking some of us here, including myself, should resist this urge to just chime in on every post. Noticing a significant number of comments are questions we should ask ourselves are they relevant before we ask them.
            I think you know but bears repeating, we all cherish the work you and your team are doing, and love you for doing it. At least boxers get a minute to rest in between rounds.

            You guys don’t. Honest, smart, and dedicated.

            This is a war. You guys are true patriots. “money talks and Bullshit walks. ” Past due for me to get a donation in.

            Thank You. Thank you. Thank you !

  14. paulka123 says:

    Slightly OT, but a Utah man was killed by the FBI today “The deceased suspect was Craig Robertson, according to multiple sources and a federal complaint obtained by ABC News.

    Robertson was facing three counts, according to the complaint — interstate threats, threats against the president, and influencing, impeding and retaliating against federal law enforcement officers by threat.

    The complaint includes numerous social media posts believed to have been made by Robertson threatening to kill Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as several officials involved in prosecuting former President Donald Trump.”

    So, Trump is stoking terrorism against government officials including the president and presumably Jack Smith.

    I ask again, why is this not sufficient justification to put him behind bars pending trial?

    What will happen when a disgruntled Trumper is able to pull something off?

    • bmaz says:

      Because Trump is the defendant, not some cluck in Utah.

      Exactly how many people do you think should be detained without bail pending trial? Or is it only Trump? Do tell.

      • paulka123 says:

        So, Trump’s twitter feed didn’t lead to 1/6?

        Inspiring or directing (through dog whistles) attacks against the FBI (has happened already), we have people apparently plotting to attempt to assassinate Biden, Harris and probably Smith and the defendant who is issuing threats doesn’t have any responsibility?

        Isn’t the purpose of pre-trial detention to prevent the defendant to commit or cause to commit violence?

        The distinct possibility exists of another Oklahoma bombing due to Trump’s threats.

          • paulka123 says:

            With all respect Trump is the reason 1/6 happened, I don’t think it even slightly unreasonable to think that he could cause further violence.

            • Peterr says:

              Unless and until you can convince a court that this is true, all the talk of locking him up is silly.

        • Rayne says:

          So, Trump’s twitter feed didn’t lead to 1/6?

          Just stop with this crap. You don’t have any conclusive evidence whether Trump was in direct contact with Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, or others like Alex Jones who herded normies into their January 6 attack on the capitol. That’s what Special Counsel’s investigation is still working on since the former Twitter has been uncooperative.

          Just take a fucking backseat for a while instead of crying “Lock him up!” every time you drop into comments here. If you have to do that, go to Xitter.

          • paulka123 says:

            IANAL and I am not claiming Trump coordinated directly with any of the militia, he may very well have, but that is beside the point. My point is his threats and his rhetoric on social media and his speeches have in the past driven or motivated people to commit violent acts. And there is a reasonable possibility that his actions will lead to further violence. Does that not warrant action or sanction being taken against him when the targets are the prosecutors and judges in the trials he is facing?

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Your feelings and proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are not the same thing.

Comments are closed.