The subpoenas, three of which were reviewed by The Washington Post, were far-reaching and covered 18 different categories of information, including any correspondence the recipient had with dozens of people in six states that supporters of then-President Donald Trump were trying to promote.” alternate” electors to replace those in states that Biden won.
One requirement is to “send, send or include” any communication to certain persons associated with such work in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Most of the names listed are fake voters in those states, while a few are Trump campaign officials who organized the lists.
Taken together, the subpoenas reveal that an investigation began immediately after the Jan. 1 attack on the U.S. Capitol. June 6, 2021, and casts a wider and wider net, even as it gathers information about the former president’s inner circle.
“This looks like a multi-pronged fraud and obstruction investigation,” said former federal prosecutor Jim Walden. “It’s shocking to me that they’re going after a very, very large group of people and I’m guessing they’re going to make all the charging decisions at the end.”
After being told the various types of information sought in the indictment, Walden noted that the focus is on broad categories of communication between individuals. He said he suspected it was part of a prosecution strategy to try to quell any claims that Trump activists were simply following the advice of their lawyers to try to prevent a Biden victory.
“It’s hard to say you’re just relying on all these lawyers if there’s a chain of text showing conspirator conversations or a sense of guilt,” Walden said.
Prosecutors seek Trump PAC fundraising information
Subpoenas are not evidence, not even evidence of wrongdoing, Rather, there is a need for information that can provide evidence of criminal conduct. The new batch of subpoenas identifies three main areas of interest for the Justice Department, which are distinct but related:
- Efforts to replace valid Biden electors with unearned pro-Trump electors ahead of official congressional votes January 2020 election results. June 6, 2021
- The rally before the riots that day
- Save the fundraising and spending of the U.S. Political Action Committee, an entity that raised more than $100 million after the 2020 election, largely based on calls for a pro-Trump legal challenge to the election result.
Even these three aspects missed the other important parts of the Justice Department’s January. The June 6 investigation saw more than 870 arrests on charges of violence, criminal trespass and incitement to conspiracy, two extremist groups that prosecutors say played a key role in the chaos. Hundreds of people are still hunting for riot-related crimes.
The Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating former top Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark for conspiracy, misrepresentation and obstruction, according to a new letter filed in attorneys’ disciplinary cases. According to emails and public testimony, Clark sought to get the Justice Department to publicly express skepticism about the election results, even offering to take over from his then-boss Jeffrey Rosen. He denies wrongdoing.
In another sign that the Justice Department’s own role in 2020 is part of a growing investigation, the most recent subpoena seeks lawsuits against “any member, employee, or agent of the U.S. Department of Justice, or any component, branch, agency, or agency. unit or office”.
Echoes of Watergate: Trump’s appointment sheds light on his efforts to overthrow the Justice Department.
The subpoenas reviewed by the Post also sought additional information from a broad category of recipients, including former Trump aides and Republican activists.Subpoena requires recipient to produce all documents and communications related to election “proof” within two weeks, and any “related to or constitutes any evidence that (a) tends to suggest the existence of any type of fraudulent conduct related to the 2020 Presidential Election, or (b) is used in support of or relied upon in support of any allegations of fraud related to the 2020 Presidential Election Any evidence presidential election.”
Also asks for any documentation “and communicated to you or anyone else that questions, refutes, weakens, tends to show or claims that there was no fraud in the 2020 presidential election, or claims or tends to show that any allegations of fraud are unfounded, unfounded or incorrect in whole or in part” and anything sent to any local, state or federal official regarding election fraud or attempting to persuade government officials to “change or influence” the outcome of an election, “or delay the certification of the outcome.”
Some who received subpoenas said compliance within the two-week time frame was impossible because there were too many categories of information and too many things to review, Some recipients don’t even have a lawyer. It is not uncommon for a subpoena recipient to seek and obtain additional time to provide all requested information. Two Trump advisers said more than 30 people were subpoenaed in the investigation, including some low-level executives. Trump’s team is arranging lawyers for at least some of his aides under subpoenas, according to a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be named.
Trump himself has not received a subpoena, according to a person close to him who requested anonymity to discuss the matter.
As of January 7, more than 840 suspects had been charged. 6 Capitol Riots
The outburst of subpoenas, which came about two months after a similar unrest in mid-June, sought to fight with lawyers including Trump and Rudy Giuliani, Bernard Crick and others. Dozens of individuals, including Kerik) and others.
Crick was among those to be subpoenaed this month, a sign that the Justice Department, which was criticized by some lawyers earlier this year for not actively investigating people close to Trump, is now reviewing many different categories of people. Behavior – including some very close to the former president.
Earlier this summer, former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows received a subpoena to submit a subpoena he had handed over to a House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, a person familiar with the matter said, speaking on condition of anonymity. , and has handed over a record of the response. The subpoena did not seek testimony from Meadows or documents he withheld from the committee citing executive privilege, the person said.
CNN reported Wednesday night that Meadows provided documents to the Justice Department’s subpoena. Stephen Miller, another former senior Trump adviser, also received a subpoena. The New York Times first reported his subpoena.
Prosecutors investigated Trump’s conduct in January. 6 attempts
After submitting thousands of emails and text messages to the House committee in response to congressional subpoenas, Meadows ended working with the committee, citing executive privilege. He also sued the House of Representatives in an attempt to quash a congressional subpoena; the case is still pending in federal court.
“In the absence of confirmation or denial of any interaction with the DOJ investigation, Mr. Meadows’ attitude has always been to honor his legal obligations with respect to the production and privilege of documents or testimony,” said Meadows attorney George Terwilliger III.
Meadows is far from the only recipient of a subpoena who has been asked to provide the Justice Department with records they have provided to House committees.
But the new batch of subpoenas asks others not only to submit any documents they submit to the committee, but also any documents that can respond to the committee’s request — a sign that federal prosecutors are working to ensure that witnesses who come across new material should also provide .
Status of key investigation involving Donald Trump
Ask for a copy of what has been provided to Jan. 6 The committee also noted that the Justice Department faces a chronically worsening problem — House committees have been slow to provide the Justice Department with access to committee evidence, a potentially key issue as prosecutors prepare to trial members of the Oathkeepers, and others. The new subpoena appears to be an attempt by the department, at least in part, to gather this evidence through other means.
The subpoena also seeks all “documents and communications related to Bailout America PAC, including, but not limited to, documents relating to the formation of Bailout America PAC, the use of Bailout America PAC funds, and/or the use of funds received by Bailout America PAC.”
In seeking information about the PAC, the Justice Department appears to be looking for evidence of fraud. Prosecutors must meet a high legal threshold to bring criminal charges in such cases.
“You have to show that they knew it was a lie and that it was fraudulently raising money anyway,” said a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation. “I’m not sure about anyone [who donated to the PAC] will want to take action. “
The Justice Department has added fraud and public corruption experts to its investigative team and is “adequately staffing the business,” although, as the subpoena reflects, the work is still in its early stages, the person said.