Will Donald Trump be Indicted? Gerry OShea
The January
6th Congressional Committee has done a superb job so far. Using
testimony, mostly by stalwart Republicans, they have shown that ex-president
Trump rejected the clear evidence that he lost the election, leading to his
promotion of the Big Lie, which has caused a major crisis in American
democracy.
He warned
people in advance of the poll in November, 2020 that there could only be one winner.
Think about the absurdity of this contention. Elections are central to the idea
of a democracy because it is clearly understood that the candidate who gets the
most votes earns the legitimacy that accompanies winning. Trump’s statement in
advance that if the voters favored his opponent, then the results had to be
fraudulent makes a mockery of the whole balloting process.
The
committee has established that Mr. Trump settled on a multi-pronged attack on
the official results. Focusing on the swing constituencies from Pennsylvania to
Arizona to Georgia he accused Democrats of tarnishing the election by engaging
in all kinds of chicanery in order to steal victory.
His lawyers
led by the posturing Rudy Giuliani went before sixty-two judges but failed to
show any evidence of possible election fraud, so the “cases” didn’t even merit
a hearing. The former New York mayor is disbarred from practicing in his own
state because of his lack of professionalism and he is facing a similar penalty
in Washington.
In a last
Hail Mary play Trump went to the Supreme Court to plead election irregularities
in four swing states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin. He had
appointed three of the justices, so he felt that his plight should get
favorable treatment. Instead, the court rebuffed his efforts in an unsigned
order refusing even to consider the case.
Enter
Michael Flynn, onetime national security advisor to Mr. Trump who was convicted
of lying to the FBI about his ties to Russian oligarchs, proclaiming in Newsmax
that the president had the power to seize every voting machine in the country.
He also claimed Mr. Trump could instruct the military to arrange a rerun of the
election in swing states. In his appearance before the congressional committee
General Flynn astonishingly pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked if he agreed
with the peaceful transfer of power after the presidential election.
Mr. Trump
was receptive to Flynn’s ideas which had the loud approval of the paranoid
right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell. With executive orders prepared by her, the
president weighed the viability of using his powers as commander-in-chief to
stay in office. Reportedly, he finally listened to his staff, including Mr.
Giuliani, who prodded him to stay away from the asinine approach of calling in
the military.
His next move
brought to mind the Cat’s assertion in Alice in Wonderland: “Imagination is the
only weapon in the war with reality.” He and his cronies found fake electors
and provided them with all the documentation that would suggest to the
untutored eye that they were genuine, ready to push their claim in Washington.
Evidently, the Department of Justice is
meeting with these sham electors who are in deep doo-doo as they try to justify
their willingness to cast a ballot for president on January 6th in Washington.
They are also resolutely questioning John Eastman, reputedly a whiz lawyer, who
seems to be the brains behind this odious idea.
Meanwhile,
Trump pleaded with his usually-docile vice-president to renege on his clear vice-presidential
duty affirming the official results; instead, he wanted Pence to send the
results from the swing states back for review by local legislators. Mr. Pence
stood tall against the massive pressure exerted on him and insisted on doing
his job in accordance with the constitution.
Next, he
summoned his avid supporters, including right-wing militia groups, for a mass
demonstration on January 6th. They came in their thousands ready for
action. Trump pointed publicly to Pence as the man who was refusing to
co-operate with his strategy which would
open the door to victory.
The mob
identified the vice-president and Nancy Pelosi as their main enemies as they
ferociously attacked the Capitol building. Pence, gibbetted by the crowd,
narrowly escaped their clutches as he and his family were led to a hiding room
in the basement in the Capitol.
What about
the law? Are there legal implications for the participants in the effort to
change the official result of the presidential election? Some members of the
Proud Boys or their likes have been sentenced to up to a few years in prison while
many others are awaiting trial. But what is happening to people higher up, the
men who called the angry crowd to Washington?
In
particular, what about the former president’s legal liability? He summoned the
crowd promising a wild time. He spoke in the ellipse praising the big numbers
and urging the Secret Service to exempt some of the crowd from the ban on
carrying weapons in the environs of the Capitol.
There are
three main considerations by the Justice Department in deciding how to deal
with a really knotty situation. The first raises the question of establishing
criminal intent. No doubt, Mr. Trump and his lawyers will insist that their
client’s actions were driven by his considered legitimate opinion that the
election was stolen by corrupt Democrats. How credible is this assertion
considering his belligerent behavior after the election results were confirmed
in the various state capitals?
Merrick
Garland, the attorney-general, is well aware that no previous president has
been indicted and if he choses to move to a trial, Trump’s followers will not
see that decision as legally valid but will view it through the prism of their
grievances. The ensuing trial would inevitably deepen the divisions in an
already-fractured country.
In addition,
he will worry about the precedent of future ex-presidents facing legal action
when the opposing party takes over in the White House. Already, Republicans in
the House of Representatives are plotting revenge for the ongoing Thompson
hearings when they - as expected - assume majority status in the House after
the November elections.
Garland has
stated that he will be solely guided by a commitment to the rule of law which,
he explained, means his decisions will reflect the basic legal principle that
in any constitutional democracy all citizens, irrespective of social status or
importance, must be treated equally. Mr. Trump is no exception.
Gerry
OShea blogs at wemustbetalking.com
Comments
Post a Comment