The
LA Times has an interesting and excellent article that the entire country
is asking or wondering about with this headline:
“Prosecute Trump? AG Merrick
Garland is investigating aggressively but prosecuting cautiously”
The House Select Committee looking into the January 6 insurgency
on the National Capitol has produced impressive evidence that could allow
prosecutors to argue that Trump committed crimes as he tried to overturn the
2020 election. But, indicting a former president for trying to subvert an
election is harder than it looks.
My short introduction: With the several suppositions below
from both sides the legal argument in mind as well as any personal political
views aside, let me ask this honestly:
■ What if Lincoln had done nothing after April 12,
1861?
■ What if FDR had done nothing after December 7,
1941?
■ What if Geo W. Bush had done nothing after 9/11?
Where would we be today?
Certainly not the “United States of America” but instead where we seem to be heading
since Trump’s dreadful time in office and the aftermath since that seems to
favor a growing discontent and ugly sour mood for some sort of “Dis-United
States of America” that is solely owned and operated by Trump, Inc.
The LA TIMES main
article (formatted to fit the blog):
We know more clearly now that Trump: (1) tried to bully for
VP Mike Pence into blocking Congress’ count of electoral votes, (2) tried to
bully the DOJ into declaring the election fraudulent (even though they knew it
wasn’t), and he (3) stood by watching for 187 minutes (3 hours) showing and seeming
his approval while armed supporters sacked the Capitol.
This has led many citizens to wonder: Why isn’t AG Merrick Garland prosecuting this man?
The answer is both complicated and simple because indicting a former president for any crime is harder than it looks.
Examples of legal
doubt or assurances:
Paul Rosenzweig, a
former federal prosecutor (and anti-Trump Republican), told the article author writer:
“It’s definitely not a slam-dunk. It will require tough decisions.”
Insert Note: The problem isn’t lack of evidence.
Former Trump aides who have testified before the
House committee and been interviewed by the FBI have taken care of that aspect.
But, the problem, as Rosenzweig and other former prosecutors
say is that convincing a jury that Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
will still be difficult — especially when the former president, armed with good
lawyers, can challenge that evidence.
Rosenzweig further said: “We know from the polls that about 30% of the American public thinks Trump did
nothing wrong on January 6. Thirty percent of a jury is three or four people. I
think getting a unanimous conviction will be nearly impossible, even in liberal
D.C., and a trial that ends in Trump’s acquittal would backfire. It would not
only have the effect of giving Trump impunity, but it would give him impunity
and an aura of invincibility.”
Others disagree:
Donald B. Ayer, another Republican former prosecutor, thinks a conviction would be possible saying: “Trump was ready to have Mike Pence be killed. You tell that story to a jury, and I think you win.”
Then Ayer noted that DOJ regulations require that prosecutors believe they have a high probability of winning a conviction before they can indict.
AG Garland is doing is both: Investigating
aggressively and prosecuting cautiously.
Legal Actions to
Date:
1. Recently, DOJ lawyers have served subpoenas on Rudy Giuliani
and John Eastman, both lawyers who advised Trump on his schemes, and on
pro-Trump activists who organized bogus slates of “alternative electors in
swing states like AZ and GA.”
2. Last month, FBI agents searched the VA home of Jeffrey
Clark, a former top Justice Department official who pushed colleagues to
endorse Trump’s claims of voter fraud.
3. Prosecutors have indicted leaders of the right-wing “Proud
Boys and Oath Keepers” militias on charges of seditious conspiracy in
connection with January 6.
All this suggests that the DOJ is pursuing a traditional organized-crime model in its investigation: Prosecuting small fish to build cases against the higher-ups.
Even so, Trump will be able to
argue in his defense that he lacked criminal intent, by claiming either that he
genuinely believed the election had been stolen, or he did not know that
interfering with Congress could be against the law.
The most likely charges against Trump are (1) conspiracy to
defraud the United States, a broad statute that covers almost any illegitimate
interference with government operations, and (2) conspiracy to obstruct an
official proceeding.
There is also a
broader policy question surrounding a decision to indict a former president:
Would it be in the national interest?
Jack Goldsmith, DOJ official
in the George W. Bush administration, warned: “Indicting a past and
possible future political adversary of the current president would be a
cataclysmic event. It would be seen by many as politicized retribution. The
prosecution would take many years to conclude … [and would] deeply affect the
next election.”
Others lawyers, both Republicans and Democrats, disagree
vigorously.
Norman Eisen, former
Obama administration official, argues: “It’s essential that Trump be
prosecuted, if only to deter him and future presidential candidates from trying
to do this again. It would do terrible damage to allow a former president to
walk free after committing acts for which anyone else would be indicted.”
Those debates don’t amount to a conclusive argument against
prosecuting Trump. But they do add up to a list of reasons why Garland should
avoid a rush to judgment while his investigators do their work — and that, to
all appearances, is precisely what he’s doing.
My 2 Cents: As indicated above and no matter what Trump wants, needs, desires, or even has tried to accomplish since losing in 2020 the bottom line is this simple pic at least in my view after reading, watching, and listening to this man since he took office and more so before, during, and after January 6.
That is simply this: 30% may stand with him and choose not
to convict him, and 30% may still vote for him if he chooses to run in 2024,
but isn’t America after all is said and done and played out about “majority
rules?”
I always thought so – what about you?
Letting Trump get off
the hook on the January 6 attempted insurrection and as many have said and I
firmly believe is that he would come back come hell or high water and doom would
follow in his retribution against his enemies – that is an absolute fact.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment