The likelihood of a criminal investigation and charges against Donald Trump are rising due to allegations by a House panel of a “criminal conspiracy” involving his aggressive drive to overturn the 2020 election results, coupled with a justice department (DoJ) inquiry of a “false electors” scheme Trump loyalists devised to block Joe Biden’s election.
Former federal prosecutors say evidence is mounting of criminal conduct by Trump that may yield charges against the ex- president for obstructing an official proceeding of Congress on 6 January or defrauding the US government, stemming from his weeks-long drive with top allies to thwart Biden’s election by pushing false claims of fraud.
A 2 March court filing by the House January 6 panel implicated Trump in a “criminal conspiracy” to block Congress from certifying Biden’s win, and Trump faces legal threats from justice department investigations under way into a “false electors” ploy, and seditious conspiracy charges filed against Oath Keepers who attacked the Capitol, say department veterans.
The filing by the House panel investigating the 6 January assault on the Capitol by a mob of pro-Trump supporters stated that it has “a good-faith basis for concluding that the president and members of his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States”.
The panel’s hard-hitting findings about Trump’s criminal schemes were contained in a federal court filing involving top Trump lawyer John Eastman, who has fought on attorney client privilege grounds turning over a large cache of documents including emails sought by the committee.
Back in January, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, also revealed a criminal investigation was being launched into a far reaching scheme in seven states that Biden won which was reportedly overseen by Trump’s ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani to replace legitimate electors with false ones pledged to Trump.
But the House panel’s blockbuster allegations that Trump broke laws to overturn the election have prompted some ex-prosecutors to call on the justice department to quickly accelerate its investigations to focus on the multiple avenues that Trump used to nullify the election results in tandem with top allies like Giuliani.
“The compelling evidence of criminal activity by Trump revealed by the committee in its recent 61-page court filing should spur DoJ to act expeditiously,” Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of DoJ’s fraud section, told the Guardian.
“Given the gravity of the revelations, the department should consider a strike force or even a special counsel to coalesce sufficient resources to focus on these criminal attacks that strike at the heart of our democracy,” Pelletier added. “There is no time to waste now that the House committee has provided the clearest view yet into how Trump and his campaign apparently schemed to upend our democracy.”
And now, some ice cold reality from former federal prosecutor Michael J. Stern.
I get why people are angry; I count myself among them. It’s fair to say that any ordinary citizen who committed similar offenses would have been swiftly indicted by the Justice Department. Want proof? Look at the 750 Capitol rioters who have already been arrested. They are minions compared to the man who instigated the attack and on whose behalf they acted — the man the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot recently referred to as a member of a “criminal conspiracy.”
But, having worked as both a state and federal prosecutor and as a defense attorney, I know that there are Justice Department considerations in play beyond a simple analysis of whether there is sufficient evidence to indict Trump on criminal violations.
Every competent prosecutor knows why Garland and the Department of Justice have not indicted Trump. I’m going to say it out loud.
If Trump were charged, it’s unlikely he would negotiate a plea deal. Instead, he would go to trial and make every step of the process a platform to cast himself as a victim of a vindictive Biden administration. He would use the renewed attention to spew lies about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. And he would raise money, lots of money, to fund his anticipated 2024 presidential campaign.
But most important, despite a mountain of evidence that would convict most people many times over, Trump would not be convicted. Criminal convictions require a unanimous verdict. On a 12-person jury, there are going to be Trump supporters.
The Republican National Committee recently proclaimed that the people responsible for the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol were engaged in “legitimate political discourse.” Members of Congress, right-leaning media, and much of the Republican base consider the Capitol rioters patriots.
And so, it is a near certainty that at least one juror would accept the widely held Republican position that any prosecution of Trump is political persecution. That would all but ensure a hung jury in any case brought against him. Such a circumstance would have ramifications far beyond the prosecution of Trump.
Ninety-eight percent of federal cases are resolved short of a trial — mostly by guilty pleas. The federal court system would be crippled if many more defendants started exercising their right to a jury trial.
Pulling back the curtain to reveal a Justice Department incapable of convicting the former president, despite overwhelming evidence, would be a disaster for DOJ. It could lead to defendants across the country taking their shot, hoping they too could convince at least one juror to hang their case. Garland and DOJ attorneys know this and must be terrified at the prospect.
Trump will never be charged with federal, criminal indictments. Period.
No jury would convict, and any who would? They'd be targets for life. Jury info would be leaked the second a guilty verdict came down, and it would be open season.
I understand that if Trump doesn't pay, all of us will. But the cost of chaos, murder, and destruction a guilty verdict would raise?
We're not ready for it as a country, and we never will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment