Update: Donald Trump Is the Subject of Two Investigations Into Possible Criminal Conduct; If Convicted, He Would Be the First Former President to Be Charged With a Crime. Satan’s Soldiers Are Pursuing Trump Relentlessly
HNewsWire:
Attorney General Merrick Garland indicated Thursday on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" that former President Donald Trump will be charged criminally by Harvard Law professor emeritus Laurence Tribe, who was a former student.
Burnett questioned, "Do you feel the committee has shown that Trump himself was aware of crimes, based on what you have seen so far, including the hearing today that focused so much on Trump provoking violence towards Pence?"
As Tribe put it, "The crimes are apparent, beyond a reasonable question, and beyond any doubt." Does Professor Tribe think that Attorney General Merrick Garland will file charges against Trump??"
There's little doubt in my mind that Merrick Garland will authorize criminal charges against this president, despite the fact that he's doing it thoroughly and not as swiftly as some would want."
As a lawyer, I believe he understands that the rule of law will not endure," he said. Judge Michael Luttig ruled today that the former president is still a clear and present risk to the future of the country. Because if they don't win the electoral college in 2024, the whole thing will be finished, not prosecuting him is like inviting him to attempt it again."
Do you feel the committee has shown that Trump himself willfully committed crimes based on what you've heard so far, including the hearing today that focused so much on Trump provoking violence against Pence?" Burnett said. There can be no mistake about the offenses, according to the Tribe, and they are evident. First and foremost, he was insinuating that his vice president should exercise authority to choose the future president, which was clearly unlawful. Even if Richard Nixon in 1960 had been able to do so, it would have been extremely convenient for Al Gore to do it in the year 2000.
However, there are many more offenses that may be committed by a president who orders his vice-president to break the law in order to remain in office."Attempts at murder have been made by various persons today. A life sentence may be handed down to anybody who attempts to kill the vice-president under United States law. We watched the president's encouragement of the crowd, telling them that his own vice-president was a traitor when he knew that the mob had gallows ready for him, that's pretty serious stuff.
Even if you haven't attended law school, you can see that this is a significant crime.Other offenses have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
For a start, that's more than enough."
HNewsWire:
FORMER President Donald Trump is the subject of two separate investigations concerning alleged criminal behavior.
If he is prosecuted, he would be the first former president to face criminal charges.
According to court papers, Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance has been investigating the Trump Organization's finances as well as Trump's personal financial issues for at least two years. According to the Associated Press, he assembled a special grand jury to evaluate evidence in a criminal inquiry into Trump's finances.
The revelation indicates that prosecutors are leaning toward charging the former president as part of their probe, which has included a long struggle for Trump's tax returns.
Vance's inquiry focuses on a number of issues, including hush payments made to women on Trump's behalf, property appraisals, and employee remuneration.
The House Select Committee probing the January 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol has began public hearings, laying forth in clear detail how Donald Trump was repeatedly advised by top advisors that he fairly lost the 2020 election, among other disclosures. Nevertheless,
Trump continued to incite anti-election rallies and voiced sympathy for those who believe Vice President Mike Pence deserves to be slain. The most pressing concern surrounding the hearings is whether they will help build a criminal case against the former President. The Justice Department is undertaking an extensive investigation into the events of January 6th, but this is not the first time Trump has looked to be in the sights of investigators.
What accusations would be brought against the former President, and how difficult would the case be to prosecute? I recently talked via phone with Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, about this. (In the early days of the Trump administration, she resigned from her post, which she had held since 2010.)
Trump's mindset is critical in any criminal prosecution, as are the arguments he may make to defend himself, and if the Justice Department is too concerned with the optics of pursuing a former President.
If a case is made against Trump, what precisely would it be for?
HNewsWire:
A thorough investigation would be required to determine if you have adequate proof. And, as the Justice Department will remind you, it investigates crimes, not persons. With that in mind, it seems to me that there are two possible offenses here: conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to hinder an official action. The first is more general. The second is more precise.
What exactly does "conspiracy to defraud the United States" mean?
Section 371 of Title 18 of the United States Code is the statutory citation. It is also known as the Klein Conspiracy, after the case United States v. Klein. It is widely used in tax disputes, although it really indicates that someone with a dishonest motive did anything to block or delay the official functioning of government. In this case, it would be something like, Trump and others colluded to mislead the American people and obstruct the rightful transfer of Presidential authority. It may even be as easy as convincing Mike Pence to refuse to certify the vote when he had a legal obligation to do so.
People sometimes consider the broader picture, that you have to link Trump to the physical assault on the Capitol. And that may work since it was one way the certification was hampered. However, it might also be his attempts to put pressure on Mike Pence to refuse to certify the vote. And that would be an impediment to an official process.
Liz Cheney said that they would attempt to prove seven distinct strategies in the next weeks. It's possible that they'll attempt seven different methods to prove conspiracy to defraud the United States, but any one of them is enough to get a conviction. Alternate slates of electors, or convincing Georgia to modify the result in that one state. Any of these elements might be enough to constitute a conspiracy to defraud the United States.
What about a plot to hinder an official proceeding?
That would be in reference to the certification endeavor on January 6th. Again, it may be shown using a variety of approaches. It might be shown by rousing a crowd. That is one option, but I believe it is much more difficult than you need. Again, it could be shown simply by forcing Mike Pence to refuse to certify. That might be considered an obstruction of a congressional official process. And, by interfering in a deceptive manner, you may be in violation of the obstruction act.
There are two related but distinct items. The first is Trump's attempt to impede Biden's confirmation as the future President. The second is the law-breaking committed by the crowd on January 6th. The mob may have been used to carry out the first strategy, but it also breached laws, such as attacking the Capitol and beating police officers. Is your impression that the crimes we'll see in connection with Trump will be more linked to the certification than to real physical damage of property and attack on police?
Yes. The latter, I guess, has been dangled a little. I haven't seen any proof of that yet, but if they could show that someone close to Trump met with the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys on January 5th and said, "Tomorrow, I want you to breach that Capital and whatever happens, come hell or high water," I'd believe it. You must ensure that their proceeding does not continue," then the two might be linked as a conspiracy. Unless you had a clear agreement: "I want you to beat up officers," it would still be for obstructing an official procedure, not for real violence.
You'd have to demonstrate consensus among those particular groups. And I don't believe we've seen it yet. We may never get there, but I don't believe we need to because you can simply show that he was attempting to obtain alternate slates of electors, or that he was pressuring Pence to refuse to certify, or that he was pressuring Georgia's secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to find him eleven thousand votes.
What might a feasible defense look like in this situation? And to what extent would it be explicitly about executive authority, with the President having broad leeway to carry out his duties as he sees fit?
HNewsWire:
The defense of demonstrating intent, which is utilized in most white-collar prosecutions, is likely to be used here. So, Trump said and did a lot of things, but it was because he really felt he had won the election and was the one attempting to prevent fraud.
He felt Joe Biden was the one who committed fraud, and that he was only performing his job to ensure that the will of the people was carried out. He may have been incorrect in the end, but he led from a good place because he felt this to be true. So showing this mindset is quite difficult. It's the most difficult thing that can happen in a white-collar case. Because you can't read people's minds, it's the reason so many white-collar criminals go unpunished.
However, there is the idea of wilful blindness, which states that a person cannot disregard a high chance that a truth is true just because he wishes it weren't true. So, if there are enough people telling him, "No, you lost," as we heard at the first public hearing, No, there was no deception. There was no such thing as there. It was nonsense," at some time, most logical individuals will conclude, "OK, I'm just making this up." There is no proof. Source: NYORKER
HNewsWire:
Trump's inner circle believes the former president is beyond the law, according to New Yorker writer Jane Mayer, who spoke to Terry Gross of NPR.
"I've spoken to people who know Trump, including - I believe it was Barbara Res who was an engineer who worked with the Trump Organization and for a long time. The woman who spoke to me indicated that he would never, ever be imprisoned "To put it another way, It's possible that Trump may spend time in jail if the investigations turn up accusations against him.
If he is convicted of any crimes as a consequence of the criminal investigations, Trump may face jail time. "She believes he would - she believes he would go away. Other individuals have also suggested that he leave the country. I have no idea - it's difficult to predict what will happen."
It's "impossible for me, at least," to fathom him actually in an orange jumpsuit at, you know, Rikers Island," she said.
When it comes to the Russia probe, what has President Trump said? A "witch hunt" has been alleged by Trump in the probe.
This is an attack on the over 75 million people who voted for him in the presidential election, he continued, and it is being carried out by partisan Democrats in the prosecution office.
