This headline from The Guardian is an update to the January 6 insurrection unfolding story
and public hearings:
“Searing
testimony increases odds of charges against Trump, experts say”
I have listed key points below
from legal experts that support the overall status of the January 6 public
hearing to date that is now in the last phase of that horrible day’s events and
everything leading up to it which was planned, approved, and ordered by Trump.
The article is long yet detailed worth the read.
The searing testimony and growing evidence about Donald J. Trump’s central role in a multi-pronged conspiracy to overturn Joe Biden’s
election in 2020 presented at the House January 6 committee’s first three
hearings, has increased the odds that Trump will face criminal charges.
Former DOJ lawyers say new revelations at the
hearings increase the likelihood that Trump will be charged with crimes
involving conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, or defrauding the
United States, as he took desperate and seemingly illegal steps to undermine Biden’s
election.
Trump could also potentially face fraud charges over his
role in an apparently extraordinary fundraising scam – described by House panel
members as the “big rip-off” – that netted some $250 million for an “election
defense fund” that did not exist but funneled huge sums to Trump’s Save America
political action committee and Trump properties.
Those key points in story
follow (formatted to fit the blog):
1. Bill Barr, Trump’s former AG, said in his scathing video testimony that Trump was told repeatedly by top aides and cabinet officials that “the election was not stolen, and that his fraud claims were completely bullsh*t and crazy stuff.”
But, despite all that Trump still persisted in pushing baseless fraud claims with the backing of key allies including his former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and lawyer John Eastman.
2. Michael Bromwich, a former DOJ IG told the Guardian: “The January 6 committee’s investigation has developed substantial, compelling evidence that Trump committed crimes, including but not limited to conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct official proceedings.”
In a novel legal twist
that could emerge if Trump is charged, Bromwich then said: “Bizarrely, Trump’s
best defense to the mountain of evidence that proves these crimes seems to be
that he was incapable of forming the criminal intent necessary to convict. That
he was detached from reality, in Barr’s words. But there is strong evidence
that he is not crazy – but instead is crazy like a fox. How else to explain his
attempts to pressure the Georgia secretary of state to ‘find the votes’
necessary to change the result? Or his telling DOJ officials to simply declare
the election ‘corrupt’ and leave ‘the rest to me’ and Republican House allies? All
of this shows not someone incapable of forming criminal intent, but someone who
understood what the facts were and was determined not to accept them. Because
he couldn’t stand to lose. That was far more important to him than honoring our
institutions or the constitution.”
3. Donald Ayer, deputy AG under H.W. Bush said: “The committee hearings have bolstered the need to seriously consider filing criminal charges against Trump.”
Ayer then cited the importance of a justice department
regulation identifying factors to consider in deciding whether to charge, and
noted three of particular relevance to Trump – the nature and severity of the
offence, the important deterrent effect of prosecutions, and the culpability of
the individual being charged.
4. Greg Jacob, former counsel to Mike Pence, recounted how
Eastman and Trump waged a high-pressure drive, publicly and privately, to prod
Pence to unlawfully block Biden’s election win certification.
5. Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of the DOJ fraud
section, said: “It is a target-rich environment, with many accessories both
before and after the fact to be investigated.”
6. Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney for eastern Michigan, said: “The panel’s early evidence was strong, including video testimony of Trump insiders who told Trump that he was going to lose badly, and that with regard to claims of election fraud, there was ‘no there there’ (Mark Meadows acknowledged in one exchange made public at the hearings). Barr’s testimony was devastating for Trump. He and other Trump insiders who testified about their conversations with Trump established that Trump knew he had lost the election and continued to make public claims of fraud anyway. That knowledge can help establish the fraudulent intent necessary to prove criminal offenses against Trump.”
7. Michael Zeldin, former Federal prosecutor said: “Trump
could face charges over what Cheney called the “big rip-off” which centers on
the allegation that Trump raised money from small-dollar donors after the
election under false pretenses. Trump asked for money to fight election fraud
when, in fact, the money was used for other purposes. This type of conduct
could violate the wire fraud statute.”
8. Dennis Aftergut, former Federal prosecutor said: “Charging
Trump seems imperative. No one should underestimate the gravity of deciding to
criminally charge an ex-president. Ultimately, the avalanche of documents and testimony
proving a multi-faceted criminal conspiracy to overturn the will of the people
means one thing: If no one is above the law, even an ex-president who led that
conspiracy must be indicted.”
But it might not be all plain sailing as experts caution any decision to charge Trump will be up to AG Merrick Garland who has been careful not to discuss details of his department’s January 6 investigations, which so far have led to charges against more than 800 individuals, including some “Proud Boys and Oath Keepers” charged with seditious conspiracy.
AG Garland told reporters after watching the first two hearings:
“I’m watching and I will be watching all the hearings, and DOJ prosecutors are
doing so likewise. We’re just going to follow the facts wherever they lead … to
hold all perpetrators who are criminally responsible for January 6 accountable,
regardless of their level, their position, and regardless of whether they were
present at the events on January 6.”
Nonetheless, as Garland weighs whether to move forward with
investigating and charging Trump, experts caution a prosecution of Trump would
require enormous resources, given the unprecedented nature of such a
high-stakes case, and the risks that a jury could end up acquitting Trump –
which might only enhance his appeal to the Republican base. Yet at the same
time, the stakes for the country of not aggressively investigating Trump are
also extremely high.
The B/L: The crux of any prosecution of Trump would hinge heavily on convincing a jury that Trump knew he lost the election and acted with criminal intent to overturn the valid election results.
The hearings have
focused heavily on testimony that Trump fully knew he had lost and nevertheless
went full steam ahead to concoct schemes to stay in power.
My 2 Cents: I strongly believe that the evidence against Donald J. Trump is compelling and overwhelming.
As stated above, it is now up to AG Garland to do what is right and just, and that is to indict and prosecute Trump and others for their January 6 crimes and to ensure that it never happens again.
Given the chance he and they would again try.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment