Wonder no more. The Department of Justice is investigating former president Donald Trump for potential criminal liability relating to his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Yesterday The Washington Post reported that a federal grand jury has heard detailed testimony about Trump’s actions following the election through to the January 6 insurrection and beyond. Its focus centres upon allegations of seditious conspiracy, obstruction of an official government proceeding, and fraud related to the fake electors plot.
If indicted, Trump would be the first US president charged with a crime. Richard Nixon, who was named an unindicted co-conspirator for his role in the Watergate scandal, was pardoned by Gerald Ford after he resigned to spare the nation a trial.
Federal grand jury proceedings are secret. However, witnesses are not bound by this requirement and may disclose their appearance and evidence if they choose.
Two of Mike Pence’s most senior aides, former chief of staff Marc Short and legal counsel Greg Jacob, testified before the grand jury last week. Both men have also been interviewed by the House January 6 Committee. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former assistant to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, whose appearance before the committee provided crucial insight into Trump’s conduct and the reactions of senior staff, is also cooperating with DOJ’s investigation.
DOJ personnel have been reviewing phone records of key administration officials, including Meadows, since April. This predates the committee’s public hearings and establishes that DOJ has been running a parallel probe for many months at least. Given that the department planned to hire 131 additional lawyers to help prosecute hundreds of offenders in March, this should be no surprise. High-profile raids in June on Trump lawyers Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman indicate it is closing in on the former president.
This should put to rest fears that the DOJ has been asleep at the wheel, until pressure from the January 6 Committee’s public hearings roused it from its slumber. It should also allay concerns that prosecutors would punish the little fish, but let the ringleaders walk. The committee and the department are not in competition. They are pursuing the same ends. To the extent that the committee unearths additional witnesses and evidence, this only strengthens the DOJ’s hand.
Federal prosecutors have a tried-and-tested method to unravel large-scale conspiracies. It’s a technique used repeatedly to dismantle organised crime gangs and incarcerate the kingpins. They start at the bottom of the hierarchy, seeking cooperation from low-level operatives in exchange for leniency. As they move up the chain of command, prospective targets are faced with the prisoner’s dilemma. Do they hold out and hope their fellow crooks do the same, or flip to save their hides?
In a pre-recorded interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, aired last night, US Attorney General Merrick Garland reinforced the DOJ’s commitment to prosecuting all the perpetrators, at any level. “We will hold accountable anyone who was criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.”
Before he was attorney general, before he was a jilted Supreme Court nominee, before he served 24 years as a judge of the US Court of Appeals, Garland made his reputation overseeing DOJ prosecutions. In particular he supervised several prominent domestic terrorist cases, including the Unabomber, the Atlanta Olympics bombing, and the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people and wounded 650 more in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Each time those responsible were convicted for their crimes.
Donald Trump boasted that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters. That may be true. But that didn’t mean he wouldn’t be prosecuted for it.
Soon he may have to answer for his real crimes. Let justice be done.
If he is found guilty can it be overturned by the corrupt supreme court he stacked to deal with this type of thing?
Certainly. Anyway, that’s just the backstop. Long before it gets that far he will probably be able to tie up the proceedings in knots by refusing to cooperate, by procedural obstruction, various appeals about the investigation and all the other legal trickery he has used for decades. The next election can be relied on to put him in the clear by bringing in an adminstration that will pull the plug, whether he or someone else is president. Even the mid-terms will probaby be enough because with the Republicans in full control of Congress after the end of this year there wil be all sorts of ways to sabotage the DoJ. The odds for Trump being found guilty of anything remain tiny.
Americans generally give past presidents the honorific of “President”
Some do. But when Trump addressed a rally this week and was introduced to the crowd as ‘President Trump’ I am confident the title was being used in its plain sense. Trump of course said in his speech he is the duly elected president. Anyone thinking they can use it merely as an honorific that simply acknowledges an ex-president is being naive at best, and intentionally or otherwise is contributing to Trump’s ongoing campaign of destabilisation and insurrection.
“If Donald Trump were to be indicted, he would be history’s first US president charged with criminal conduct.”
“If indicted, Trump would be the first US president charged with a crime.”
Really? This assertion demands you concur with Trump’s consistent claim that he won the 2020 election and is the legitimate president, unlike the old fraud Biden. In reality, if Trump is now charged with anything it will still not breach the theory, cooked up long ago by a partisan White House lawyer but mysteriously treated ever since with the utmost respect as a definitive ruling on the constitution, that a president cannot be indicted.
Trump was president at the time he committed the crimes… So the statement makes sense to me…
I agree it can be understood, but only by ignoring what it actually says and substituting an interpretation that fits. The Mueller investigation refused to consider indicting Trump because he was president. That has not changed. If he is indicted for anything now it is because, among other things, he is not president. Crikey is getting steadily worse for publishing sloppily composed journalism that requires a constant effort to replace what is written with what is meant.
Assuming that it is possible to discern “…what is meant.” from the usual word salads, non sequitors and banal solecisms.
non sequitur.
If you’re going down the pedantry path you should at least check your spelling.
What’s that old saw about splinters and eyes?…………….
The Mueller investigation refused to consider indicting Trump because he was a SITTING President.
In the USA, ex-Presidents are accorded the courtesy title of President in perpetuity…… hence he is STILL “President”.
Just not THE President.
Oh come on, Trump is a “US President” the same way Washington is a “US President”