The House of Representatives committee on Jan. 6 heard dramatic testimonies from former White House aides and others about Donald Trump’s relentless efforts to overthrow the 2020 election – and his encouragement to supporters who invaded the U.S. determined to achieve its goal. But the big question remains: Were any of them criminal? Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Trump’s White House, added new urgency to the question Tuesday as she gave new explosive testimony to Trump’s actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021 uprising. She said Trump was informed there were protesters at his morning rally before taking to the stage and telling them to “fight like hell” at the Capitol. He then argued with his security guards, he said, trying to get away with the crowd. Trump aides knew there could be legal consequences. Hutchinson said White House adviser Pat Shipolone told her “we will be charged with every crime imaginable” if Trump had gone to the Capitol that day as Congress certified President Joe Biden’s victory. Cipollone said Trump could be exposed to obstruction of justice charges or fraudulently counting the election, she said. Following Hutchinson’s public testimony, the House committee issued a summons on Wednesday for Cipollone, saying in a letter that while he had given an “informal interview” on April 13, his refusal to testify on file was a summons. necessary. The Justice Department recently expanded its investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, targeting some of Trump’s allies in Washington and across the country involved in his plan to undo Biden’s victory. However, prosecutors have not indicated whether they will file a lawsuit against the former president. A look at possible crimes and what Congress and the Department of Justice can do: WHAT HAVE THE EVIDENCE PROVED? Witnesses testified that Trump was repeatedly informed by campaign aides and top government officials that he had lost the election to Biden and that his allegations of widespread voter fraud were isolated from reality. However, he went ahead, shouting the false allegations that culminated in the Capitol uprising. Still in power, he relied on the Ministry of Justice to get government law enforcement officials to take up his cause. He pressured the states – asking Georgia’s Secretary of State to “find” votes, for example – and Vice President Mike Pence, who chaired the joint congressional hearing that day. Hutchinson testified that Trump said he wanted the metal detectors removed from the area near where he was speaking on Jan. 6. He said it did not matter to him if the supporters, who were heading to the Capitol, were carrying weapons because they were not there to hurt him. Trump visited his social media site on Tuesday to deny much of Hutchinson’s testimony, which was based on both her own interactions with Trump and information from others who spoke to him that day. WERE CRIMES COMMITTED BY TRUMP? He has not been charged, but legal experts believe the testimony, assuming it can be confirmed, gives prosecutors a way to proceed. Federal law, for example, makes it a crime to incite, organize, encourage or promote an uprising like the one that enveloped the Capitol. But this is a high limit for prosecutors to clarify. Trump’s urge to “fight like hell” could be interpreted as a more general call to action. He was acquitted by the Senate on charges of incitement to refer after the uprising. However, a federal judge in February, rejecting Trump’s request to dismiss conspiracy theories by Democratic lawmakers and two Capitol police officers, said Trump’s words “reasonably” led to the uprising. And Hutchinson’s first-hand account of hearing Trump complain about metal detectors suggests that he knew some supporters were capable of using violence, but they dissolved it. A more likely option for prosecution, said Jimmy Gurule, a former federal prosecutor who is a law professor at Notre Dame, would be to follow a hypothesis that Trump conspired to deceive the United States through his broad efforts to overthrow the election and obstruct the congressional process in which the results were to be certified. This broad statute was referred to by the House committee when it claimed in a March legal statement that it had evidence that Trump was involved in a “criminal conspiracy.” “He was spreading the big lie. For what purpose? To stay in power and prevent Biden from taking over the presidency,” Gurule said. “It was a scam for the American people.” Some legal experts say it does not matter whether Trump believed the election was stolen or not. But others say much will depend on the president’s intentions and state of mind and whether he supported activities he knew were illegal. Although witnesses have testified under oath that they told Trump he lost, it would be difficult to prove what he actually believed. “I can say with certainty that any serious federal felony crime to be charged here will require proof beyond any reasonable doubt of criminal intent,” said Samuel Buell, a professor of criminal law at Duke University. “Any argument that he does not believe he is doing something that is against the law … is still an argument that can be put forward and something that the prosecutor must prove.” WILL THE JUSTICE SERVICE REALLY MAKE A CASE? This is everyone’s guess. The congressional hearings were shocking, but the one-sided presentation of the facts, with no opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses, is far from the burden of proof and the limitations of the prosecution. One of Hutchinson’s most striking stories – that Trump, angry that he was taken to the White House instead of the Capitol on January 6, tried to get behind the wheel of his presidential car – was something he heard second-hand, probably unacceptable. before jurors. There are clear indications that prosecutors are moving beyond the rioters, summoning several Republican Party presidents last week as they consider a plan by Trump allies to create plaques of alternative or fake voters in a bid to overturn the vote. Attorney General Merrick Garland, a former federal appeals judge and aware of his nature, has vowed that the Justice Department will be accountable to offenders “at any level” – more than 800 people have been charged so far – but did not say one way or another that he is considering a case against Trump. Some Democrats in Congress are pushing Garland to act. The January 6 commission itself could make a formal referral to the criminal court based on its more than 1,000 interviews. The Ministry of Justice would not need to act on such a referral, but pressured the committee to hand over the minutes of its interview as it examines its own case. A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice declined to comment. There is no legal impediment to prosecuting Trump as a former president. As he is no longer in office, the legal opinions of the Ministry of Justice that protected him from criminal charges are no longer valid. But while it may be difficult for the department to move away from a case if the cumulative evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, there are other factors to consider. No former president has ever been prosecuted by the Ministry of Justice, and a criminal case against the already polarized former president risks further dividing the country. Trump is also laying the groundwork for another presidential election, and the ministry may want to avoid any notion that it is targeting a Biden political opponent in the election fever. “It will be,” Buell said, “one of the most difficult issues any U.S. Attorney General has ever faced.”
title: “Hearings January 6 Did Trump Commit A Crime " ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-15” author: “Ruth Kappel”
Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Trump’s White House, added new urgency to the question Tuesday as she gave new explosive testimony to Trump’s actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021 uprising. She said Trump was informed there were protesters at his morning rally before taking to the stage and telling them to “fight like hell” at the Capitol. He then argued with his security guards, he said, trying to get away with the crowd.
Trump aides knew there could be legal consequences. Hutchinson said White House adviser Pat Shipolone told her “we will be charged with every crime imaginable” if Trump had gone to the Capitol that day as Congress certified President Joe Biden’s victory. Cipollone said Trump could be exposed to obstruction of justice charges or fraudulently counting the election, she said.
Following Hutchinson’s public testimony, the House committee issued a summons on Wednesday for Cipollone, saying in a letter that while he had given an “informal interview” on April 13, his refusal to testify on file was a summons. necessary.
The Justice Department recently expanded its investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, targeting some of Trump’s allies in Washington and across the country involved in his plan to undo Biden’s victory. However, prosecutors have not indicated whether they will file a lawsuit against the former president.
A look at possible crimes and what Congress and the Department of Justice can do:
WHAT HAVE THE EVIDENCE PROVED?
Witnesses testified that Trump was repeatedly informed by campaign aides and top government officials that he had lost the election to Biden and that his allegations of widespread voter fraud were isolated from reality.
However, he went ahead, shouting the false allegations that culminated in the Capitol uprising.
Still in power, he relied on the Ministry of Justice to get government law enforcement officials to take up his cause. He pressured the states – asking Georgia’s Secretary of State to “find” votes, for example – and Vice President Mike Pence, who chaired the joint congressional hearing that day.
Hutchinson testified that Trump said he wanted the metal detectors removed from the area near where he was speaking on Jan. 6. He said it did not matter to him if the supporters, who were heading to the Capitol, were carrying weapons because they were not there to hurt him.
Trump visited his social media site on Tuesday to deny much of Hutchinson’s testimony, which was based on both her own interactions with Trump and information from others who spoke to him that day.
WERE CRIMES COMMITTED BY TRUMP?
He has not been charged, but legal experts believe the testimony, assuming it can be confirmed, gives prosecutors a way to proceed.
Federal law, for example, makes it a crime to incite, organize, encourage or promote an uprising like the one that enveloped the Capitol. But this is a high limit for prosecutors to clarify. Trump’s urge to “fight like hell” could be interpreted as a more general call to action. He was acquitted by the Senate on charges of incitement to refer after the uprising.
However, a federal judge in February, rejecting Trump’s request to dismiss conspiracy theories by Democratic lawmakers and two Capitol police officers, said Trump’s words “reasonably” led to the uprising. And Hutchinson’s first-hand account of hearing Trump complain about metal detectors suggests that he knew some supporters were capable of using violence, but they dissolved it.
A more likely option for prosecution, said Jimmy Gurule, a former federal prosecutor who is a law professor at Notre Dame, would be to follow a hypothesis that Trump conspired to deceive the United States through his broad efforts to overthrow the election and obstruct the congressional process in which the results were to be certified.
This broad statute was referred to by the House committee when it claimed in a March legal statement that it had evidence that Trump was involved in a “criminal conspiracy.”
“He was spreading the big lie. For what purpose? To stay in power and prevent Biden from taking over the presidency,” Gurule said. “It was a scam for the American people.”
Some legal experts say it does not matter whether Trump believed the election was stolen or not. But others say much will depend on the president’s intentions and state of mind and whether he supported activities he knew were illegal. Although witnesses have testified under oath that they told Trump he lost, it would be difficult to prove what he actually believed.
“I can say with certainty that any serious federal felony crime to be charged here will require proof beyond any reasonable doubt of criminal intent,” said Samuel Buell, a professor of criminal law at Duke University.
“Any argument that he does not believe he is doing something that is against the law … is still an argument that can be put forward and something that the prosecutor must prove.”
WILL THE JUSTICE SERVICE REALLY MAKE A CASE?
This is everyone’s guess. The congressional hearings were shocking, but the one-sided presentation of the facts, with no opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses, is far from the burden of proof and the limitations of the prosecution.
One of Hutchinson’s most striking stories – that Trump, angry that he was taken to the White House instead of the Capitol on January 6, tried to get behind the wheel of his presidential car – was something he heard second-hand, probably unacceptable. before jurors.
There are clear indications that prosecutors are moving beyond the rioters, summoning several Republican Party presidents last week as they consider a plan by Trump allies to create plaques of alternative or fake voters in a bid to overturn the vote.
Attorney General Merrick Garland, a former federal appeals judge and aware of his nature, has vowed that the Justice Department will be accountable to offenders “at any level” – more than 800 people have been charged so far – but did not say one way or another that he is considering a case against Trump.
Some Democrats in Congress are pushing Garland to act. The January 6 commission itself could make a formal referral to the criminal court based on its more than 1,000 interviews. The Ministry of Justice would not need to act on such a referral, but pressured the committee to hand over the minutes of its interview as it examines its own case.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice declined to comment.
There is no legal impediment to prosecuting Trump as a former president. As he is no longer in office, the legal opinions of the Ministry of Justice that protected him from criminal charges are no longer valid.
But while it may be difficult for the department to move away from a case if the cumulative evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, there are other factors to consider. No former president has ever been prosecuted by the Ministry of Justice, and a criminal case against the already polarized former president risks further dividing the country.
Trump is also laying the groundwork for another presidential election, and the ministry may want to avoid any notion that it is targeting a Biden political opponent in the election fever.
“It will be,” Buell said, “one of the most difficult issues any U.S. Attorney General has ever faced.”
