As was noted yesterday (see below), and as reported in the Washington Post, the Justice Department is focusing a grand jury on the efforts of the Malignant Loser to attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Here are salient passages from that blockbuster Post report:
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, these people said.
In addition, 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.
(Ed.: as we and others have noted, DOJ investigations and prosecutions aren't 60- minute Law and Order episodes; they unspool slowly, in secret without public drama, as the article goes on to note.)
Federal criminal investigations are by design opaque, and probes involving political figures are among the most closely held secrets at the Justice Department. Many end without criminal charges. The lack of observable investigative activity involving Trump and his White House for more than a year after the Jan. 6 attack has fueled criticism, particularly from the left, that the Justice Department is not pursuing the case aggressively enough. [snip]
Many elements of the sprawling Jan. 6 criminal investigation have remained under wraps. But in recent weeks the public pace of the work has increased, with a fresh round of subpoenas, search warrants and interviews. Pence’s former chief of staff, Marc Short, and lawyer, Greg Jacob, appeared before the grand jury in downtown Washington in recent days, according to the people familiar with the investigation. Both men declined to comment.
The article notes the Malignant Loser's primary areas of vulnerability:
There are two principal tracks of the investigation that could ultimately lead to additional scrutiny of Trump, two people familiar with the situation said, also speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
The first centers on seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding, the type of charges already filed against individuals who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 and on two leaders of far-right groups, Stewart Rhodes and Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, who did not breach the Capitol but were allegedly involved in planning the day’s events.
The second involves potential fraud associated with the false-electors scheme or with pressure Trump and his allies allegedly put on the Justice Department and others to falsely claim that the election was rigged and votes were fraudulently cast. (our emphasis)
Keep in mind also that the Georgia grand jury led by Fulton County DA Fani Willis is running on a parallel track looking at the Malignant Loser's criminal efforts to pressure Georgia officials to "find him" enough votes to win the state, a request that was helpfully recorded.
In the meantime, Attorney General Garland is trying to make it as clear as he can that the Malignant Loser isn't exempt from prosecution:
We know there are many out there that have a healthy skepticism about AG Garland's willingness to ultimately press charges against the Malignant Loser. He's taken a lot of angry criticism, generally from folks who are impatient and/or who don't know how the Department operates, especially in high profile cases. But with these recently reported developments, we should at least afford him some slack, while the wheels of justice grind.
