Opinion: Trump must have his day in court for Jan. 6
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/05/trump-must-have-his-day-court-his-crimes-jan-6/
Trump must have his day in court for Jan. 6
George T. Conway III5-6 minutes1/5/2022
Above all, he pledged that the Justice Department has “no higher priority” and would do “whatever it takes for justice to be done — consistent with the facts and the law.” Most important, he made clear that “the Justice Department remains committed to holdingallJanuary 6th perpetrators,at any level, accountable under law —whether they were present that day or were otherwisecriminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.” (Emphasis mine.)
If Garland means what he says, then the investigative road must lead prosecutors to the individual most responsible for the events of Jan. 6: former president Donald Trump. To be sure, the Justice Department deserves plaudits for what it has done already:More than 725 peoplehave been charged, and 165 have pleaded guilty. Seventy defendants have been sentenced, 31 to prison.
Attorney General Merrick Garland on Jan. 5 said investigators would prosecute people involved in the Jan. 6 riot "at any level." (Reuters)
But however guilty they might be, these defendants do not and should not bear the ultimate responsibility for the attack on Congress and the Constitution. As Judge Amit B. Mehtatolddefendant John Lolos at his sentencing, “I think you are a pawn. You are a pawn in a game that’s played and directed by people who should know better.”
As the pawns meet their fates, the man who led them to try to stop the peaceful, democratic transfer of power remains safe in his Palm Beach palace. As Mehta put it, “People like Mr. Lolos were told lies, falsehoods, told the election was stolen when it really wasn’t.”Those lies were Trump’s.
And not only did Trump deceive the mob, but also he directed it. Trumpurgedthe rioters to come to Washington on Jan. 6, promising itwould be “wild!”On that day, he told his supporters to march on the Capitol, to “fight like hell” — and warned that “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He told the crowd that “our country will be destroyed” if Joe Biden took office, and that “we’re not going to stand for that.”
Trump’s intent was obvious well before Jan. 6. Itweeted on Dec. 26, 2020, “It’s pretty clear now that @realDonaldTrump’s next desperate play is to encourage disruption, if not violence, in Washington on January 6.” I wasn’t being prescient; I had just listened to what Trump had been saying. As Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said inannouncing her voteto impeach, “The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.” He did it all in plain sight.
So now the question is, will the Justice Department hold Trump responsible for his role in the attack? If Garland truly means that perpetrators at any level will be held accountable, and that “there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless,” then the department can, it should, and it must.
Garland must not fear that prosecuting Trump would be viewed as a partisan act. He need only look to the words of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who, after voting against an impeachment conviction on the (meritless) ground that Trump had left office,all but called for Trump’s prosecution. “We have a criminal justice system in this country,” McConnell said. “President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office,” McConnell added. “He didn’t get away with anything yet. Yet.”
The Justice Department has plenty of statutory tools available to make sure Trump doesn’t get away with what he did. Most notably, it could invoke one of the same provisions it has applied to individual rioters:Title 18, section 1512(c)(2)of the U.S. Code punishes “whoever corruptly … obstructs … or impedes any official proceeding.” The statute makes clear that an “official proceeding” includes one “before the Congress.” At least one judge handling Jan. 6 cases hasalready heldthat it includes Congress’s joint session for counting electoral votes.
That Trump himself wasn’t present at the Capitol doesn’t shield him from liability for obstructing the electoral vote count or for any other crimes committed that day. The criminal codeprovidesthat whoever “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” the commission of an offense, or “willfully causes … another” to commit an offense, “is punishable as a principal," as though they had directly committed the deed himself.
A number of criminal lawexpertshavenotedthat you can aid and abet a crime simply by doing nothing —ifyou have a duty to intervene but don’t. A bystander who watches a store break-in and does nothing hasn’t committed a crime. The store security guard who sees the break-in and does nothing, knowing that his dereliction is allowing the crime to proceed, has.
As president, Trump had the duty to intervene. Instead, as theJan. 6 select congressional committee is learning, he spent hours watching the mayhem on TV. And that dereliction of duty, along with his open and manifest desire to stop the electoral-vote count, should suffice to make him guilty of a crime. The evidence is already bad for him, and it can only get worse.
If the attorney general means what he says, Trump’s day in the dock will come — if not soon, then soon enough.
Tags
Who is online
103 visitors
As president, Trump had the duty to intervene. Instead, as the Jan. 6 select congressional committee is learning , he spent hours watching the mayhem on TV. And that dereliction of duty, along with his open and manifest desire to stop the electoral-vote count, should suffice to make him guilty of a crime. The evidence is already bad for him, and it can only get worse.
So it took a select congressional committee to learn what was reported in the papers immediately after?
ould suffice to make him guilty of a crime
What crime?
It's been a year. There will never be any evidence he incited the rioters (as that's all on the tape and makes any charge of incitement impossible) , so what crime did he commit?
What was reported in the papers immediately after?
Whatshisname did indeed incite them.
Exactly how did he do that and what words did he use?
Remember, your feelings don't count.
It took a select congressional committee to CONFIRM what was reported in the papers immediately after.
Of course not.
It takes a select congressional committee to drag it out for 18 months in the desperate hope it might somehow matter for the next election.
Take it up with the author of the seed. He's the one who used "learned" to described what was reported immediately after.
What does Benghazi have to do with what we are talking about? Or is this Hillary's emails again?
a little late for that play after you have already demonstrated you know the topic wasn't Benghazi, Clinton, or emails
I'll take "Stupid Pointless Congressional Committees" for $600, Alex.
I think this is a fantasy. Does Trump bear a moral responsibility for January 6? Absolutely. Does he bear legal responsibility? I really doubt it.
Saying insane shit over and over for months or years to the whole world does not make you legally responsible for the criminal behavior of a specific someone on a specific day. Our legal standards for incitement are relatively clear cut and present a tough standard to meet for prosecution. First Amendment protections on this point are broad.
As to his duty to intervene, could he have possibly done more to prevent or stop the violence? Of course. Was he legally required to do more? I don’t think so.
Some people will not want to hear this truth and will get angry over it, but that doesn’t change the reality of it. Like it or not, nailing Trump for the January 6 riot is a very unlikely outcome.
Would the crowd that had just left Trumps rally and the other Trump supporters waving Trump flags as they broke into the capital have stopped if Trump had immediately come to the capital and called for them to stop or even through a video conference call told them all to stop?
I think the answer is clearly yes. They are his fans, his sycophants, they practically worship the Mango Mussolini, of course they would have stopped and come to his beck and call outside the capital and gathered around him where he could have led his rats away Pied Piper style. But he didn't, he further encouraged them. He rewarded them with his love. A few hours after the violence starts he tells them he "knows" their "pain" and "hurt" and that he "loves" them and that they're "very special,".
How can that be anything but aiding and abetting a crime. Trump should be held criminally negligent at minimum for doing nothing and knowing he could have stopped them at anytime but let them continue because he thought maybe they would win and he'd stay in power. And he knew if they weren't successful he'd throw them under the bus later and act as if he never knew them.
Do you think that the president of the United States has a duty to intervene against an attack on the U.S. government?
I think most reasonable people would think so.
The duty has to be within your power. Clearly lots of people were trying to stop the riot. So it’s not like nothing was being done. Authority was legally delegated. And ultimately, the riot was stopped in a matter of hours.
Crimes are committed in Washington D.C. every day. Whether or not the president knows about them at any level, he is not usually expected to intervene.
The resolution of the January 6 riot in a matter of hours actually compared very favorably to other riots that took place around the country over the preceding year, some of which lasted days or even weeks. So if you want to prosecute Trump for putting his feet up for a few hours, you need to also be ready to prosecute the mayors and police chiefs of several large cities.
All that deflection and whataboutism. Tsk tsk.
Protecting the government and the Constitution is not only within POTUS's power, it is part of his oath of office.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So it was okay for him to ignore his duty?
And those delegates acted extremely slowly. Why?
With only a few deaths and hundreds of injuries and property damage? It should have been stopped in minutes, not hours.
Those crimes are not direct attacks on our government and Constitution.
You're comparing the Capitol insurrection to PROTESTS that had individual spots of violence break out.
What criminal statute do you imagine he violated?
Do you understand that your question has absolutely nothing to do with quote you provided?
However, by refusing to do his job, it is possible that he could be named an accomplice. See JohnRussell's post .
DO you understand your argument?
Name the criminal statute he violated. Biden's DOJ is silent. Pelosi's partisan committee is reduced to leaking stories we've known for a year and claiming we just "learned them." All these progressives claim he's guilty of something, but can never provide a coherent argument of what that is.
He has a duty to stop riots? Since when? He talked about sending troops to stop some of the longer riots that took place over the preceding summer and Democrats insisted he didn’t have the authority. Suddenly, it’s his job to stop riots?
Extremely slowly? The thing was over in like 5 hours.
What other riot has been stopped in minutes?
What do you call this?:
So you’re saying 100% of the people in DC that day were violent?
No, I’m comparing one violent riot with other violent riots. Riots that did a lot more damage, by the way.
No comparison is exact, but that’s close enough.
I cannot help the fact that you willfully refuse to understand the difference between a riot and an attempt to overthrow the government.
You can keep your blinders on in order to continue to support Trump, but what ever. If you are not going to argue honestly, just go away.
That’s a completely new take I haven’t heard before. What do you think riots are? Do you think there is no purpose behind them beyond simple destruction? Do you think they are not intended to provoke change in government behavior or policy?
What Trump was advocating - that Congress refuse to certify the election - is actually legal. If Congress didn’t have a choice, there wouldn’t be any point to the certification process. This was Trump’s legal ploy of last resort.
The problem with what Trump wanted is that he was alleging election fraud even though there was no evidence for it. That makes him factually wrong, possibly disingenuous, or maybe just crazy, but having an opinion on the election and urging the Vice President or Congress to act in a certain way that is within its authority are not crimes.
Furthermore, asking citizens to legally harass elected officials to exercise their discretionary authority in a certain way is also not criminal. Citizens are routinely urged to “call their representative.” And they do. They march. They chant. They write letters. They make phone calls. They block building entrances and hallways. And they do so in ways that literally prevent the official from doing anything other than to pay attention to the protest.
So there was nothing illegal about Trump inviting these fools to march to the Capitol and express themselves. There was nothing illegal about urging them to “fight” for their cause. That is common political rhetoric. Acting to induce government change is not criminal until you do it violently or in an otherwise unlawful way.
It crosses a line when it becomes genuinely violent. That’s where January 6 crossed the line.
Where we actually had a criminal problem on January 6 was when hundreds of maniacs turned violent and inflicted that violence on the Capitol and the police, and threatened the lives of the Vice President and members of Congress. That’s the riot part.
They were rioting in this case to overturn an election. Sometimes people riot to compel a prosecutor to prosecute a case. Sometimes they riot to get local politicians to change an important policy. They are still acts of violence intended to change something about government.
Without the violence - without the riot part of it - all we have is a story about another embarassing legal tactic by Donald Trump, a guy with a long history of making a fool of himself in court.
Nothing I have said has been in “support” of Trump.
Yes. He should have made his televised statement sooner. He was watching the assaults and mayhem on TV. According to witnesses, he was physically excited, and possibly aroused by what he was seeing.
According to subpoenaed witness Stephanie Grisham, Trump "was in the dining room gleefully watching on his TV as he often did. ‘Look at all those people fighting for me.’ Hitting rewind. Watching it again. That’s what I know.”
Tacos, Trump took an oath of office on 20 January 2017.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Do you think he was defending the Constitution of the United States as he watched the Capitol attack from the safety of one of the beautiful dining rooms in the White House?
Also, ask yourself this: Why wasn't Trump or the friends and family around him worried that the insurrectionists might show up at the White House? The Capitol Building was being successfully breached by thousands of armed assailants, and yet all was calm and secure just up the street. How would Trump and those around him know that they were safe when it was clear that something horrible was happening a couple of thousand yards from the White House?
He needs to be held accountable for his part.
Of course you are 100% correct sister. It is nothing short of bizarre that Trumpsters think his behavior on Jan 6 was perfectly fine or even remotely acceptable. But thats the way these misfits think.
This is why our country is in so much trouble.
I wouldn’t argue against doing it, but I’m dubious as to how much it would have helped. It certainly couldn’t hurt, and it would have been better optics. But was it legally a crime to not do it? No way.
I understand how appealing it can be to cite this standard, but if we went that route, it would be a crime for the president to sign bills later found to be unconstitutional. It would be a crime to tolerate a single illegal alien within our borders.
I don’t defend the morality of his behavior. I just don’t think it was criminal.
Depraved indifference to human life is a crime.
A person has a depraved indifference to human life when that person has an utter disregard
for the value of human life – a willingness to act, not because he or she means to cause grievous harm, but because he or she simply does not care whether or not grievous harm will result. Source: NewYorkCourts.gov
Donald Trump simply didn't care whether or not people were harmed as the insurrection continued. He wound them up at his rally before sending them off on their mission. He told them he would be right there with them as they marched. Instead, he chose to watch 'gleefully' as Capitol police officers were being beaten with fire extinguishers, metal poles, metal batons, and other blunt objects. He watched as they were maced with bear repellant and pepper spray, and then stomped and beaten once they were on the ground. He watched as reporters were assaulted and their equipment destroyed. He watched for hours and did nothing.
In addition, he was our Commander in Chief, and he did nothing.
As commander-in-chief, the president’s wartime responsibilities include deploying troops, ordering air strikes, invasions and bombings, and peacetime and home front duties such as stationing troops, meeting with military and defense leaders, and making sure the nation’s veterans are treated well. Source
He was still President on 6 January, and it was still his job to use his authority to order the resources necessary to stop the attack on the Capitol, and he did nothing. As a result of his inaction, people died and hundreds of others were injured, many of them critically. I'm sorry m'dear, but his inaction was indeed criminal.
No it isn’t. Killing someone as a result of an act committed with a depraved indifference to human life is a crime. It’s commonly called “depraved heart murder.” But just not giving a shit about people is not a crime. We don’t criminalize emotions - or the lack of them. We criminalize acts.
We also don’t typically criminalize being an ineffective, lazy, or apathetic government official.
Using that standard then Joe Biden can be charged for abandoning US Citizens, Green Card holders, and Special VISA holders in Afghanistan.
Also, ask yourself why Pelosi is blocking requests be the Republican Jan 6th committee regarding her roll in the delayed deployment of National Guard troops. It is her authority to do so. If you want to prosecute Trump; then grab Nancy as well.
The only legal option while he was in office was impeachment and removal...and as a civilian, he can't be charged with a crime that allegedly happened while serving as president, since no there is no evidence of his direct involvement in the protest
there is no evidence of his direct involvement in the protest
How on earth would you know the evidence that is so tightly held by the DoJ?
Exactly how many crimes has he committed while president? Since you seem to know about it all with inside knowledge, which crime are you talking about?
He posted "allegedly" in case you passed over that part....................SMMFH
I just didn't feel the need to repeat something he had already stated. But for those of you looking to jump down people's throat for any reason regardless of the conversation, I will re-phrase.
Exactly how many alleged crimes has he committed while president? Since you seem to know about it all with inside knowledge, which alleged crime are you talking about?
zero would be my guess. If not, where are the charges. You are asking for something that may or may not be there..............yet.
Seriously? With all the current investigations about him?
Patience grasshopper.
Keep dreaming weedhopper.................
Are you claiming there are no criminal investigation on Trump? If so, I'm not the one asleep.
Investigations without charges/convictions mean squat in the context of this conversation.
Disagree. They show potential, especially when you are talking over a dozen ongoing investigations.
You said nothing of "potential" so again.........Fail. Sorry.
And you got closer with this gem...........
But you are still asking someone else to prove your point for you. Bad form.
If he does testify, he should be hooked up to a lie detector. That goes for his kids also.
Should he and they be given the presumption of innocence?
Of course not, as far as they are concerned he should be strung up by the neck until dead...
[Deleted]
Given the source, a known liberal rag, is opinion, this is pure fantasy. The same fantasy they have run with for 5 years now.
Uh...guess what? This seed is posted in Op/Ed.....it's not presented as news
Again - Given the source, a known liberal rag, is opinion, this is pure fantasy.
It was written by George Conway...remember him?
so the fuck what if you think it's fantasy. Nobody cares
We all know that to most liberals, a fellow leftist opinion should be treated as fact.
No questions asked.
He's talking about the Washington Post, generally considered America's number two newspaper.
I suppose Jeremy prefers Infowars or Breitbart.
George Conway is not a leftist. As usual you dont know what you are talking about.
Again - Given the source, a known liberal rag, is opinion, this is pure fantasy.
At providing fiction as fact. They are only outdone by CNN and that group of pedophiles.
Yeah, fuck that. These are the people who tell us "Biden is doing just fine as POTUS".
Holy shit...what kind of dumbasses would do something like that? s/
No, he is far, far, worse- he is a TDS driven idiot that is part of the Lincoln project.
Think the Republican Party will ever take those ass clowns at the Lincoln Project back? They can scream whatever they want about their political bonafides; they work for the Democrats.
That's what this whole fucking shit show is about. They pretend they want to get to the bottom of what happened and how to prevent it from happening again. That is pure bullshit. They want, once again and as always, nothing more than to get Trump and make sure he never returns to the remotest amount of power. That's it. We all know what happened one year ago today. We saw it live and have seen it ad nauseum since. A bunch of whack jobs (who probably couldn't collectively hold up a seven eleven successfully) got together in a frenzy over what they felt was a rigged election. Errantly they thought they could reverse the result. Dumbasses. There is no fucking way they are looking for a causation as the result was right in front of all of our eyes. They had enough warning that "something could happen" and did jack shit to react. If anything caused this is was lack of planning by the Capital Police and the whole of law enforcement community in the area. It's a Goddamned good and lucky thing that things weren't worse.
Again, we saw what happened and the only way to avoid it again is intelligence and overreaction when the minutest of threats arises. Period. They act like this was some big assed conspiracy of some sort when it sure as hell looked spontaneous and instigated by some in the crowd who thought they had the numbers.
Democrats doing what they do best. Witch hunt.
As I posted elsewhere, If this was a planned "insurrection", I'm happy as hell these people didn't plan the D-Day invasion.
Well of course they do. And given what Trump did, I applaud any legal and factually correct effort that hinders his ability to hold any public office of responsibility ... especially the presidency.
Importantly, Trump most definitely played a key role in the insurrection by lying to the world and having his supporters actually believe what he told them. He abused the influence of the presidency to whip his supporters into a frenzy.
After all, you do not believe that the insurrectionists were at the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021 to peacefully observe the final counting of certified votes. Right? And you do recognize that Trump's words before and especially during his Big Lie con-job were the foundation of their misguided beliefs and actions, right?
Of course you and others do. He upset the status quo apple cart. As for "what Trump did" what would that be?
Opinion, one shared by all the "we've got him this time" players.
Peacefully observe? Wherever did you get that idea. They were there to protest the final counting of certified votes. Period so, WRONG
And................you have to prove intent to make the pile stick. Sorry but your extreme disdain for the man doesn't mean your dreams will come true. And again, I thought they were trying to get to the bottom of "what happened" so it doesn't happen again. THAT my friend is pure bullshit and you admitted it. And also again, we all saw what "happened" and no matter what it was, their findings alone aren't going to stop it or any variation of it since all they are really after is Trump. It is a pure and simple fucking façade and that is IT.
No, Jim, he lied.
As a sitting PotUS, Trump abused the authority and influence of his office against the nation because of a bruised ego:
By breaking and entering the Capitol. You recognize that, right?
Let's see how this plays out. Your simplistic view of what is required does not match reality.
My objection is based on truth, not dislike for Trump. What is more interesting is how you can possibly defend Trump given the facts that are publicly known.
Political speak. Like I said, of course this is partisan. But the facts are also on their side and I doubt that they will need to resort to partisan spin here. Anyone with the means to think objectively can see what Trump did.
Amazing that you defend Trump's actions.
You have no facts to back up your baseless claims.
I stated facts in my comment.
I stated more @5.2.3:
Your weak allegation is without merit.
What they fail to realize is that by keeping him in the forefront of everything they are giving him power.
You're right. It could have turned into what we saw happen in the Minneapolis, Baltimore and Ferguson. Those were actual riots. But it didn't. Maybe that is what they are so upset about.
If they planned D-Day I think it would have played out the the Afghanistan retreat we say this past August.
Jeremy, were people who attempted to break down a barricaded door literally 20 feet from the chamber of the US House of Representatives, and enter the area en masse, "protesters"?
What were they going to do when they got there, sing songs ?
Was anyone still in the chamber? Or had they all been evacuated to the "secret" tunnels?
Insurrectionists did not know if there was anyone in chambers, they did not know people were being evacuated. Insurrectionists were after blood, it is extremely lucky they did not get to anyone in Congress.
Why does that matter? Breaking and entering does not require anyone be in the chamber.
Because he was protecting no one when he shot. That's why. If a burglar breaks into your house and you're not home, who stops them and how, other than material shit, were you hurt.
Break and enter the chambers of the federal Capitol during an armed insurrection and you run the risk of getting shot.
Who entered the chambers?
Is this the best you ever have … nit picking? Okay, Jim, add ‘attempt to enter’. Same consequence.
I learned that from a couple of the wordsmith members. And it doesn't really feel as good to me as it seems to to them LOL
In the same way the people burning down Minneapolis were "protestors".
If all one has is irrelevant nit-picky bullshit, that just harms the nit-picker's credibility.
After all if one leaps past the point and instead looks for inconsequential nits (or, worse, spelling) that pretty much screams that one does not have anything better to offer.
Not a good look.
The talk of crimes by Trump is a just a red herring. It's just red meat to keep the progressive masses perpetually angry. As was made clear, Democrats only care about it in so much as it's a political tool that they think they can exploit. They know they've failed in governing, so they are going to run on a riot that occurred in 2021.
Agreed. The Democrats really don't have much to run on for the 22 elections so they need to keep Jan 6th front & center for their minions. Gotta keep the donors with wallets open.
Elections are mostly won on kitchen table issues and what are the two largest issues facing everyday Americans? Inflation and Covid. While it may not be fair the party in power always gets the blame for inflation. And a lot of people are very concerned with Covid and any potential for future lock-downs and financial disruptions again. And both of these issues are long running issues, no way this is resolved by March. So the Democrats will have to fight against these two issues all the way to November. I think it's going to be a really rough election cycle for the Democrats.
legal stalling by trump will assure that 1/6 will be splattered all over the media during the 2022 campaign. tough shit.
And it won't mean a damned thing.............................this isn't a presidential
Lol. tough shit for you. I hope the Democrats run on 1/6, I'd like to see a Republican Congress. Read a poll. No one cares about the riot .
yep, but IMO a lot of the media that will do this is already left-leaning and will take their marching orders from the DNC. Problem in my mind is that it won't mean anything other than keeping the anger over Jan 6th alive in the minds of the Democratic party. It won't be that big of an impact to the majority of voters including independent voters, they will be looking at other issues and the Democrats really don't have much to point to in the way of success. Other than the infrastructure bill what do the Democrats really have to point to as their success? And that infrastructure bill, a lot of people do not like parts of that bill and feel it costs too much for what it provides, so it's not in my mind the big win either.
It's gonna be an interesting November. My biggest problem is that we have 10 very long months of highly partisan political ads coming our way...
And absolutely no one with a lick of common sense will give a shit about it.
By Trump.
Riiiiiiiight.
Because Pelosi & Schumer don't want this going on during the campaign. Riiiiiiiight.
Here's the score card...and it's not even close.
Nothing was better than watching someone rub their bare ass on Nancy's phone live on Youtube.
We need more protests like that minus the murder of that poor lady.by that cop.
What a sterling example of misguided priorities. (Note: I have never been a Pelosi fan.) How could the rest of the planet not view the USA electorate as having lost its collective mind?
You disgust me. Would you want someone to do that to your phone? Or your wife's?
[Deleted]