The evidence is clear: it's time to prosecute Donald Trump
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Laurence H Tribe and Dennis Aftergut
On the supposedly difficult question of 'criminal intent', prosecutors should have no trouble convincing a jury. Full speed ahead is the only proper course
'A March 3 New York Times story asserted that building a "criminal case against Mr Trump is very difficult for federal prosecutors". But no vigilant prosecutor should be deterred.' Photograph: Randall Hill/Reuters 'A March 3 New York Times story asserted that building a "criminal case against Mr Trump is very difficult for federal prosecutors". But no vigilant prosecutor should be deterred.' Photograph: Randall Hill/Reuters
On 8 March, a jury took three hours to render a guilty verdict against Guy Reffitt, a January 6 insurrectionist. Donald Trump could not have been pleased. DC is where Trump would be tried for any crimes relating to his admitted campaign to overturn the election.
Jurors there would have no trouble finding that the evidence satisfies all statutory elements required to convict Trump, including his criminal intent, the most challenging to prove. That is our focus here.
A 3 March New York Times story asserted that "[b]uilding a criminal case against Mr Trump is very difficult for federal prosecutors ... given the high burden of proof ... [and] questions about Mr Trump's mental state".
The clear implication is that justice department leaders may simply be following the path of prudence in hesitating to indict, or even to robustly investigate, Mr Trump. But based on the already public evidence - and there's undoubtedly lots more that's not yet public - no vigilant prosecutor would be deterred by the difficulty of convincing a jury about Trump's state of mind. Full speed ahead is now the only proper course.
The former president is vulnerable to charges of conspiring to defraud the United States, 18 USC §371, and obstructing a congressional proceeding, 18 USC §1512(c)(2).
Regarding §371's intent requirement, the US supreme court has ruled that conspiracies to defraud the United States include plots entered "for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful functions of any department of Government" using "deceit, craft or trickery, or ... means that are dishonest".
The mental state required for §1512 is a "corrupt" intent to obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. In Arthur Andersen v United States, the supreme court said "corrupt" meant "dishonest" or "wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil".
The mountain of already public evidence would surely lead a DC jury to reject Trump's defense that that he honestly believed his own "big lie" that widespread ballot fraud had deprived him of victory, and therefore that his intent was innocent.
First, Trump knew that the 60-plus court cases seeking to overturn the votes in contested states had failed.
Second, as the former Michigan US attorney Barbara McQuade has compellingly shown, five of Trump's top officials told him unequivocally that all the fraud claims were false.
Third, Georgia's secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, told Trump the same thing during the infamous recorded call in which Trump asked Raffensperger to "find" 11,780 votes, exactly one more than needed to overturn the state's election.
That call alone screams "corrupt" intent. And the barely veiled way Trump threatened Raffensperger in that call reinforces Trump's "evil" state of mind.
'Trump's speech immediately preceding the Capitol attack included a provable, telling lie.' Photograph: Emily Elconin/Reuters
Fourth, Trump's speech immediately preceding the Capitol attack included a provable, telling lie - that he would join the Capitol march with the crowd even though his pre-speech schedule showed no such plan and Trump did nothing of the sort. A properly instructed jury would likely conclude that this lie reflected Trump's desire to remain far from the violence he had encouraged, giving him both physical safety and plausible deniability and further evidencing a "corrupt" state of mind.
Fifth, Trump's failure for three hours to call off the siege after it began, notwithstanding violent televised images and entreaties from his children, advisers and allies - despite his undoubted duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" - was manifestly "depraved".
Sixth, when Trump belatedly asked the insurrectionists to go home, he called them "patriots" who should "remember this day for ever". A federal judge wrote in an 18 February opinion that "a reasonable observer could read that tweet as ratifying the violence and other illegal acts that took place that day".
Likelihood of criminal charges against Trump rising, experts say Read more
Seventh, "willful ignorance" of incriminating facts is equivalent to knowledge. Drug couriers cannot escape conviction by having chosen not to ask what was inside the heroin-containing package they were handsomely paid to import. In Trump's case, his purported belief in election-changing voter fraud was at the very least willfully blind to the facts before him.
Finally, another of Trump's anticipated "innocent intent" defenses - that he was relying on his lawyer John Eastman - would fail. Eastman has stated that it was on his advice that Trump sought to have Pence reject electoral votes for President Biden or to delay the entire vote.
Even if Trump and Eastman had the requisite attorney-client relationship, which is dubious as a matter of fact, the defense has a gaping hole: under the law, Trump's reliance must have been "reasonable".
Far from being reasonable, Eastman's claim that that Pence was "the ultimate arbiter" of the electoral count was utter "nonsense". Trump would be unable to produce any lawyer who supported that constitutionally absurd theory and could withstand even amateur cross-examination.
A concluding point. Some observers have expressed fear that a single Trump-supporting juror could "hang" the jury, suggesting that the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, might just deem that risk to be too great to be worth running. But as the BBC's observer of Guy Reffitt's trial noted, every juror there saw through the smoke the defendant was blowing. Jurors are instructed to use their common sense, and the jury in Reffitt did just that.
A DC jury would do the same in a trial of the conspiracy's central actor. Once all the evidence is expeditiously gathered, with or without the special counsel that we recommend, the justice department must indict him.
-
Laurence H Tribe is the Carl M Loeb university professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard University. Follow him @tribelaw. Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor, currently of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy
Tags
Who is online
225 visitors
Any comment that references so called "TDS" , directly, indirectly, or by implication, will be removed as off topic. Address the points made in the seed.
Hearsay and circumstantial accusations/evidence seldom result in legitimate convictions.
That sounds nice but has little to do with the case against Donald Trump.
That is your opinion.
That is your opinion.
It's not hearsay and circumstantial accusations/evidence.
So there's that!
Any out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay. Even when it’s a statement everybody heard. So, in a trial, we can talk about the statement, get testimony from the speaker on what he meant, the impact it had others, and so on, but by itself, it’s not evidence absent some exception.
Okey dokey
I don't really think they are interested in convictions in a court of law when they are quite content to try the case in the court of public opinion.
Hell, as many times we have been subjected to similar articles all claiming to be the one to bring Trump down, he would have already served some time!
When will they ever learn?
Wow.
And here we have been told how many times now that "this" is what is "going to bring Trump down"?
yawn.
"This is the beginning of the end for Trump"! Round 152
The smoking gun, for as many times as the Democrats have said they have one against Trump, should be investigated by the EPA for excessive air pollution levels.
Has the EPA finished their 25 year investigation of the 'we got the Clintons now'? Get in line ... sheesh!
I'll take deflections for $500, Alex.
Alex is dead, ask Vlad the 'Bold'.
I didn't ask any question, did you read somewhere that I did?
Not you Hal - but look whose talking about deflections!
Hmmmm. Article about Trump.
Comment about Trump.
Deflection comment about Clinton.
Yep, it is all right there in black and white for all to see!
Meh, I've got a clean sheet this month. [removed]
[removed]
You're clean? I've got 6 and it's only mid-month
4 without any points.
I've got 26 and some of them are whoppers!
Seems that 'charger' did not approve of my plain english. Ergo, in s-i-m-p-l-e language: you asked Alex to ask you a question based upon a subject. Are we good? Yay, now you can go back to calling the history you choose to ignore as being off topic cuz it doesn't fit Conservative irRational Theory.
Whoops, now 28!
The topic is Trump not Clinton.
Can you at least give me a choice of dressing for that word salad?
And you are not the seeder ...
And I don't have to be.
I have a whopping one. I always get one, usually a non point one, at the beginning of each month and usually by the same person.
As if Mods cannot see the trolls trolling us...
you're my hero... the cult can go F themselves.
Pics or it just ain't true.
under the law, Trump's reliance must have been "reasonable".
Eastman is a legal professor. Of course it's reasonable for a layperson to rely on the legal argument of an expert. To put a layperson in jail because his lawyer advanced a losing legal argument is Orwellian.
The rush to criminalize everything from the left is a sure way to kill the Republic.
So we have yet another "TRUMP'S GOING DOWN" seed.
Five right wing comments and none about the points made in the article.
But they sure are flocking to your seed.
Yes there were John. You are just choosing to ignore them because they do not match your own narrative.
The only point in the article were "Trump lied". Which we've heard you cry about since 2016.
Go get him John. We want that easy path for Ron in 2024.
Amen.
Please, tell us about all the middle of the roaders who will vote for Ron DeSantis because Trump was prosecuted.
Trump was "prosecuted"???? For what???
He thinks Trump will run again.
trumpturd has been saying he will for over a year now along with denying the results of the last one!
Only in the leftist liberal kangaroo court of public opinion.
When did this happen? Or did this happen in the world where Biden is doing well?
True that! Sure seems like they've had enough time to get all that "evidence" sorted out. The window for prosecuting is rapidly closing. And all these left wing theatrics have only served to benefit De Santis
Donald Trump started “believing” the election was rigged the moment he first ran for office. He was extremely public about it, and it was obvious to anyone with a brain that he didn’t actually believe it, he just wanted to be clear at the get go that if he loses he intends to be petulant about losing. When he won he suddenly didn’t “believe” that the election was rigged. Then when he later lost he went right back to “believing” the election was rigged. This is the most pathetic defense imaginable. I hope he embraces it with gusto in a courtroom.
I hope the left stops TALKING a big game against Trump and actually DELIVERS what they have been promising for over 5 years now.
America will never regain its honor until Trump is run out of politics, and preferably into a prison cell.
Given his post 2020 election behavior, it is inconceivable that any truly patriotic American could even consider voting for him again, but nonetheless many high profile Republicans have said they will do just that. This is an unfinished business (prosecuting him) of the highest magnitude if we want national closure to this sorry era in American history.
Nothing I have seen you post would ever lead me to believe in any way that you want an end to it.
I have been on forums like this one since 2001 and was a leading member on all of them. Donald Trump became a prominent topic in 2015.
Do you really think I had nothing to talk about for the first 14 years ?
That's wonderful and completely irrelevant to what I posted.
I don't have a clue what you talked about before I came here. My comment is specifically based on what I have seen, I figured that was pretty crystal clear when I typed "Nothing I have seen you post would ever lead me to believe in any way that you want an end to it."
What does THAT have to do with my post?
So I straightened you out. [deleted.]
No, what you did was type some random words in some lame attempt to respond to my post.
Your post was wholly unrelated to my post.
That is called deflection where I come from.
No one gives a fuck about your post but you.
"America will never regain its honor until Trump is run out of politics, and preferably into a prison cell.
Given his post 2020 election behavior, it is inconceivable that any truly patriotic American could even consider voting for him again, but nonetheless many high profile Republicans have said they will do just that. This is an unfinished business (prosecuting him) of the highest magnitude if we want national closure to this sorry era in American history."
Including that fat ass trumpturd ass kissing consigliere Barr whose resume for the trumpturd criminal enterprise of an "administration" was his summary of the Mueller Report!
"No one gives a fuck about your post but you."
True 'dat!
The usual deflection, projection, denial, +endless whining
Why do you just make stuff up and assume that no one knows the real facts?
Barr was already AG of the US when he released his summary of the Great Meuller Report.
Your premise is simply false, no matter how many times you repeat what someone told you.
"Donald Trump became a prominent topic in 2015."
And he will probably still be your main topic 5 years from now
Only 5?????????????????????
That really gets some folks panties in a wad!
Always gets that predictable response!
It should be expected that lies will be called out here.
Fastest and easiest way to stop the "predictable" responses are to stop posting outright lies.
It is past time to enact the 14th amendment for Trump and his merry band of Putin ass kissers.
There is not enough cheese to go with all of his whines.
He even demanded audits of the states he won. They turned up more votes for Biden.
low IQ individual
That is what I have been saying for quite a while...
It would be easier and quicker to get a list of left wingers who haven't been talking the same noise.
It is almost like you all got a memo or something.
If convicted this should earn him a cozy suite at Club Fed
I just do not understand how some people continue to defend this con man. Especially since they hold everyone that isn't him to a higher standard. I mean come on - they even threw Romney in the ditch for speaking out against this snake oil salesman.
That's too good for his corrupt fat ass. I'd rather see him stripped of all assets, penniless, homeless and begging.
You notice that Putin has sanctioned Biden and other democrats including Hillary, who has been out of politics for 5 years now. BUT has not sanctioned any current or former lawmakers that actually have money in Russia? A Russian sanction would kill Trump since that is where all his loans are.
Another left-wing invention, not based on facts.
Trump a pariah? New $100 million bank loan suggests not - ABC News (go.com)
So you tell me the "facts". Which bank are the majority of Trump loans from?
please read the post I replied to.
if you see evidence that all his loans are not from Russia, doesn't that mean that not all his loans are from there?
What on earth do you defend?
Semantics or facts? The former is easily refuted given any concept of context, but the latter becomes problematic and thus the tireless obfuscation.
But, please, do continue as we have all come to expect. Be brilliant.
You know the truth, which is why you once again refuse to state it.
Once again your failure to read the post you are replying to makes you look silly.
So really of his over $1B debt only $300M of it is owned by Deutsche bank which of course was caught laundering money for the Russians and approved loans for Trump with wildly inflated values for the collateral and even defaulted on a $45 million loan with seemingly no consequences.
" Trump borrowed more than $2bn from Deutsche. In 2008, he defaulted on a $45m loan repayment and sued the bank. Its private wealth division in New York subsequently loaned Trump a further $300m – a move that bemused insiders and which has yet to be fully explained ."
Deutsche Bank was embroiled in a vast money-laundering operation, dubbed the Global Laundromat . Russian criminals with links to the Kremlin, the old KGB and its main successor, the FSB, used the scheme between 2010 and 2014 to move money into the western financial system. The cash involved could total $80bn, detectives believe.
Shell companies typically based in the UK “loaned” money to each other . Companies then defaulted on this large fictitious debt. Corrupt judges in Moldova authenticated the debt – with billions transferred to Moldova and the Baltics via a bank in Latvia.
Deutsche Bank says it has “reduced its footprint” across the post-Soviet region. It no longer has relationships with any banks in Moldova, Latvia, Estonia and Cyprus, the report says. All are favorite destinations for illicit Moscow money. The bank has scaled down its business activities in Russia and Ukraine, it says."
Stating facts isn't defending. Learn the difference.
If you read what I responded TO, one sees taht a claim was made that all of Trump's loans are from Russia. That is untrue, and I provided a link to prove it.
That is the truth, and I very clearly stated as such.
If you can't see that, it's all on you.
I am sorry you don't understand.
And I am sorry that you had to have someone else do the reading for you. You owe Dismayed Patriot a big thank you for doing something you are so unwilling to do for yourself.
I owe him and everyone else zilch.
I don't know why I bother, but I will try one last time to explain the mundane AGAIN.
You--10.2.1 A Russian sanction would kill Trump since that is where all his loans are.
Me--10.2.2 Provided a link showing your claim to be false.
The rest is just you basically whining because I proved your lie wrong.
I really don't see why you are having difficulty following along the conversation.
I won't be indulging you further on this.
The posts are all there so everyone can see what you claimed and what the truth actually is.
I have been saying the truth the whole time. All of Trump's loans are NOT from Russia as YOU claimed.
How many ways would you like me to state the same exact thing I have been telling you?
Reviving Trump isn't going to change the path that Biden has put the country on for the next 20 years. The damage that Biden has done will become all too apparent before the 2024 election.
Trump is old news. Prosecute Trump all you want; that's not going to change anything. Biden has created an inflection point by doing what Clinton wanted to do. The world is totally different from what it was three weeks ago. Biden has turned Trump into ancient history that is no longer relevant.
Biden has placed the United States in a precarious position. Biden's passive aggressive show of strength is going to reverberate through the global financial system for a long time. Biden has become an existential threat to foreign wealth. Biden is attacking a central bank for geopolitical purposes. People don't think anyone is noticing? The global financial system will be taking steps to protect itself from the United States government.
The world is headed for a global recession and central banks are less inclined to trust each other. That's what Biden has accomplished. Central banks are going to be diversifying; it's become too dangerous to rely on the US dollar as a reserve currency. And central banks placing reserve holdings in foreign banks are now a source of greater risk. Biden has demonstrated that it's possible to destroy an economy without firing a shot. Finance has become a weapon of war and the United States exerting influence is an existential danger.
Even Trump wasn't that stupid. And the more effort expended to revive Trump as an opposition asset will only highlight what Biden has done. Trump did not wreck the economy. Trump did not threaten the working relationship between central banks. Trump did not gift global governance to neoliberal technocrats. Biden has destroyed the global economy the way Bill Clinton destroyed the US economy. And we're supposed to focus attention on Trump and ignore what Biden has done?
[deleted]
Since taking office, Joe Biden has only made demands and threats. Biden has not compromised on anything. For Biden it's all or nothing.
Trump took big political risks to seek compromise. That's not how Biden has done things since taking office.
Not a word of truth to be found in any of your nonsense.
The last risk Trump took was using single ply tp.
These people are amazing, but not in a good way
Compromise???? I have Nerm on ignore so I'm going by what you block quoted.
The man doesn't compromise! It's always his way
According to him Biden is supposed to compromise with Putin. To appease him I guess.
Maybe write him love letters and whisper to him at podiums.
It is all Biden's fault even though Putin attacked another country.
How people can say things like that with a straight face...
Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was a big political risk that appears to have paid off. The Middle East has become more stable and the need for US involvement has decreased.
Meeting with Kim Jong-Un was a big political risk that appears to not have paid off but the United States isn't in a worse position. Trump is the only one that lost anything by meeting with Kim Jong-Un.
Trump's less adversarial stance with Russia allowed brokering a deal where the Russian military is protecting the Kurds from Turkey. Nobody got what they wanted but everybody got something. And there wasn't a need to deploy more US troops to protect the Kurds and there wasn't a need for the US to confront Turkey.
Deal making and compromise isn't about winning. Deal making and compromise is about getting some of what you want by giving others some of what they want. Deal making is about everybody winning something. Like it or not, Trump does have a record of compromise and deal making. The United States got some things that the United States wanted. That's something Biden can't brag about.
I have thought about it, but watching neo-post-modern Libertarians joust with windfarms has become a pre-nap amusement.
Thanks, that was well worth repeating!
In what universe? The world of Fox?
Oh for gosh sake's, the Kurds have been holding off Turkey and Iraq
simultaneously for 40 plus years....
Go buy a vowel...
Not usually, but then the world seems tired of rinse and repeat Hitler wannabes
and tires of seeing instant news via smart phones when an "almost idylic"
burgeoning democracy is suddenly invaded by the fifth revisionist
coming of the Almighty Russian Empire by Ilyan/Putin.
The Ukraine will be about winning more and compromising much, much less.
[Deleted]
"Reviving Trump is not going to change the path that Biden has put this country on for the next 20 years."
You are correct, but it will serve as a smokescreen for the Democrats to deflect the huge damage Biden will have done during his one and only (I fervently hope) term in office as POTUS.
Yes, these are politically motivated prosecutions to serve as a distracting smokescreen. The fluff and noise about Trump ignoring advice and facts coupled with outrage over Trump pushing a political effort to raise doubts about the election are rather irrelevant. That's nothing but political noise about politics. Politics is about persuasion and not about facts or about what is right or wrong.
Trump is playing dirty politics as well as Democrats have played dirty politics. But that's not illegal. And making dirty politics illegal would harm Democrats as much as anyone.
Politicians will push the bleeding edge of what is legal. And that is driven by the amount of money involved. So, scrutiny and potential prosecutions are almost a requirement in modern politics. The problem is that scrutiny and prosecution are gradually becoming another tool to conduct dirty politics. Yes, Trump may have stuck his toes across the line of legality and prosecution would be justified. But Democrats winking, nodding, and ignoring Biden sticking his toes across the line of legality suggests this nothing more than typical Democrat dirty politics.
None of the many conservative comments on this seed are addressing the points made in the article. Just a lot of bs bashing Democrats.
No surprise.
That is all they have.
Below, I directly address the points made in the seed, as per the seeders request. I hope anyone responding to this comment will perform the same courtesy.
It’s easy to say that this or that piece of evidence has a specific significance, but in court, there is always another way to look at a thing. For the disputed issues on which the case turns, it’s never just one way.
My personal bias shouldn’t be an issue here. I don’t like Trump. I never have. But that doesn’t mean that I think every bad accusation leveled at him is true.
I obviously can’t know all the evidence that prosecutors have, but this article does not make a strong case.
I’ll point out only briefly this “no true Scotsman” fallacy and rebut it with the assertion that any competent prosecutor should always be considering the difficulty of convincing a jury. You don’t just charge ahead with an unprovable case because emotion demands it (that’s how you lose two impeachments).
If you need to gather more evidence, you take the time to do it. Absent a mistrial, you’re only going to get one shot at a criminal conviction, so you need to make all your efforts count. It’s hard to imagine anything more stupid than charging ahead with a case before any statute of limitations tolls if you still think you can’t convince a jury.
So what? You keep trying. For civil cases like this, it doesn’t matter how many times you lose if you still have a chance to win. Keep on appealing! That’s our system. And if you have the resources, you flog it for all it’s worth.
Again, so what? Any person is free to reject the counsel of some advisor. And clearly, Trump has spent a lifetime doing that.
Like I just said, people are free to disagree. Disagreement is not a crime.
Still not criminal. He didn’t ask the man to make something up or lie. You “find” a thing that’s there to be found. To win any election, you only need 50% +1.
Only if that’s what you want to hear. It could just as easily scream “desperate” intent or “stubborn” intent. Personally, I think it reflects a problem Trump has that his narcissism is so strong that he just can’t accept that a majority of people didn’t vote for him. That makes him a little crazy, but not corrupt.
Honestly, if I were in the crowd, I would never have assumed that Trump would physically, literally march with us. I would assume he meant it figuratively, as in “I will be with you in spirit.” We see that right now with people all over the world saying they are “with” Ukraine. They don’t mean it literally and no one thinks this figurative language needs to be explained.
I don’t doubt that he probably wanted to see where it would go, but I see no reason to assume that he could have stopped it personally. Just look at how he gets boos from the crowd when he tells them he got vaccinated and boosted. Trump’s influence is not absolute.
Also, it’s kind of a double standard considering how many other violent demonstrations around the country are just allowed to continue for hours, days, and weeks, but no one talks about prosecuting mayors and governors for not immediately putting a stop to it.
This is not remotely unusual. It’s common for someone trying to persuade to compliment a person and then ask them to stop what they’re doing. E.g.,”I understand why you’re upset, and you have a right to those feelings, but stop breaking things.”
And they could not, also. One person’s opinion of what a reasonable observer might do is hardly evidence.
Rudy Giuliani: “Hold my beer.”
This occurred well after 1-6, you might want to eliminate that argument.
Why? Where is the logical connection that makes the date important? They were still Trump rallies with a lot of people present who came out to see him in spite of the fact that he was no longer president and had no power. If anything, it just shows how those people were even more dedicated to him than ever. Yet they still boo'ed him for getting the vaccine. Furthermore, the fact that he helped with the early rollout of the vaccine as president didn't do much to persuade his followers to get vaccinated.
"Trump’s influence is not absolute"
It sure appears to be - to those that still defend him - NO MATTER WHAT.
Sad that Trumps "absolute influence" is all that is taken out of your well thought out post. It shows that logic is thrown out the window when the goal is the only thing that is important.
That looks like a response when the post can not be refuted.
deflection, projection, denial,
That's all they have, RDTC.
BTW...Thanks for posting the truth on here...
As always
Thread @3.2 locked for meta.
[deleted]