Sherwin’s interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” program drew criticism from employees, although the remarks largely reflected those previously made by Sherwin at a news conference in January.
David Laufman, a former prosecutor, echoed some of the internal criticism, saying, “It’s totally inappropriate”, adding “I don’t think it’s good for a [assistant US attorney] talking to the media about what charges are appropriate in a case under investigation. ”
Sherwin did not obtain prior approval from the Justice Department heads before the 60 Minutes interview, according to people informed on the matter, a breach of protocol.
Their comments also made it clear that, as CNN reported earlier, prosecutors recommended filing charges of sedition against some people accused of the riots, but the matter remains under discussion at Justice headquarters.
“I believe the facts support these charges,” said Sherwin. “And I think that, as we move forward, more facts will support this.”
Some bailiffs believe that the comments may serve to restrict the top officials who are assessing whether the department can uphold such a set of politically controversial charges, particularly given First Amendment protections. Others have also raised concerns that comments about the ongoing investigation could harm the jury of cases that are unlikely to come to trial for months.
Sherwin – who returned to Miami, where he serves as an assistant US attorney, declined to comment. A DOJ spokesman also declined to comment.
Federal prosecutors were successful in using the law against Puerto Rican separatists in the 1930s.
Sherwin in the 60-minute interview also raised the possibility that Trump could face charges, repeating his January comments that everything remains on the table for prosecutors. His comments also made it clear that the evidence so far is bidirectional, with some defendants blaming the former president and evidence showing that some have acted on their own.
There is no indication that Trump or lawmakers are the target of an investigation and the prospect of bringing criminal charges for comments that incited the crowd at the pro-Trump rally before the riot remains unlikely, informed American officials on the matter say.
Garland’s methodical approach
Garland is still only in his first few weeks as Attorney General, and Capitol insurrection cases are among the important issues he has vowed to prioritize. Justice officials said he spent many days being informed about national security and other matters.
People familiar with Garland’s briefings describe him as frequently interrupting to ask questions, as befits someone who most recently was a judge for 24 years and, in some cases, asking lawyers to explain if and how they can be sure that the department could support the taking of a particular court action.
His government is expected to be methodical in decision-making, say court officials. Former attorney general William Barr, by comparison, was known for making decisions quickly and for interrupting advisory briefings to express his strongly held opinions.
One issue that seems to reflect the slower pace under the department’s new management is confession discussions with some defendants in Capitol riot cases.
The department asked judges for more time to meet so-called discovery requirements, to produce evidence for defense lawyers, some of whom are complaining in court. Many of the cases are unlikely to go to trial because the defendants are facing relatively minor charges that are unlikely to merit jail time and want to plead guilty, if the Department of Justice permits.