The House’s January 6 committee has completed its work, making a criminal referral on several charges to the Attorney General. The editors of the Washington Post declaim:
This criminal referral is symbolic; the Justice Department is responsible for making a tough call on whether such charges would stick — and whether it would be prudent to indict a former president and current presidential candidate.
The committee has secured its legacy in different ways, providing a searing picture of what occurred on Jan. 6, 2021, and exhibiting the cowardice of those who, out of fear of Mr. Trump, refused to help it reckon with that dark day.
The public now knows much more about Mr. Trump’s culpability. New details, including videotaped testimony from former Trump aides, showed Mr. Trump had been told he’d lost the election but nevertheless leaned on state officials, the Justice Department, his vice president and others to keep him in power — a campaign that resulted in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal remark:
The House Jan. 6 committee decided Monday that the best way to cap its 18 months of work would be a political gesture. It thus referred President Trump to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution for his efforts to reverse the 2020 election, which culminated in the Capitol riot.
What is this supposed to accomplish? A Congressional referral to the Justice Department has all the legal force of an interoffice memo. Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed special counsel Jack Smith to investigate Mr. Trump’s schemes to stay in office. The Jan. 6 committee’s loud public intervention makes his job more complicated, given the clear partisan context.
The House Jan. 6 inquiry has done useful work gathering documents and putting witnesses under oath. The wiser course was to let the established facts speak for themselves, while releasing full transcripts of its interviews to provide a complete public record.
concluding:
Jan. 6 was a disgrace, and Mr. Trump’s behavior on that day and since is a reason not to trust him with the Presidency ever again. But Justice must balance a decision to indict Mr. Trump with the risk of setting a momentous precedent: prosecuting a former President running against a current President.
The proof to support such a charge would have to be undeniable, with a legal theory straightforward enough to convince most of the country, including most Republicans. Otherwise it could cleave the country in two, and it might even help Mr. Trump in rallying supporters to his defense. Indicting a former President would also take the scourge of criminalizing political differences to new heights. Democrats would surely be future targets.
I think the Department of Justice would be prudent to demur from indicting President Trump. Since the events of January 6, 2020 I have maintained that President Trump should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law but that many would be disappointed at how limited that extent is. IMO we need a constitutional amendment to address this particular set of facts. There are both common law and case law arguments that a president cannot be charged with crimes for actions taken while in office. There are also separation of powers arguments. Consider, too, that the Department of Justice is subordinate to the president. A sitting president indicting his predecessor for crimes in office will open a Pandora’s box of problems we might well wish to avoid. Gerald Ford saved us from that eventuality in the aftermath of the Watergate incident and it probably cost him re-election. I doubt that any future president will escape being indicted for something if he should happen to be succeeded by a president of a different party.
Three observations.
The connection between Trumps rhetoric and the Jan 6 events is tenuous, bordering on fanciful. Politics. Note: no one blames HRC for her ongoing inflammatory comments about 2016. She’s in the correct party.
The recommendation is all politics. Impotent and sham politics. It says more about the anti-Trumpers than Trump. The ATs don’t believe a word of their sanctimonious drivel.
It’s all irrelevant. Trump is done.
The entire J6 panel was a trashy travesty, based on one-sided testimony dug up and presented by a very biased, self-serving bunch of ideologues. In the end it shamed what most people look for in such investigations – an honest, fair-minded approach to discover the truth.
As for Trump’s role in all this, he was doomed once he surprisingly won the 2016 election. There was no way the powers that be would give him any credit for successful policies crafted under his presidency. Instead all opposition energies were directed at throwing him out of office and/or defaming and ruining his reputation. The fact he was able to sustain himself, through 4 brutal years of constant harassment and contrived government investigations, is a remarkable feat of human tenacity, all unto itself. The loyalty and admiration of a constituency and movement that emerged while he was in office, will also be duly noted in future less biased versions of his presidency. What happens to him, from this point forward, however, is still an unwritten political story. Unlike Drew, I would not count the man out, as Trump continues to inspire and give working class families hope for a better government – one who reflects the people’s interests rather than a government seeking only more power for itself and control over the people it manages.
“Note: no one blames HRC for her ongoing inflammatory comments about 2016.”
I missed the part where Democrats stormed the White House. I do work a lot so I suppose I could have missed it.
This is a tough one but ultimately probably best they dont charge him. As a practical matter he (his lawyers) will drag it out for years and it will be an eternal funding source for him and the GOP. He has a lot of experience with lawsuits. On the merits he deserves it but I agree it means every other president gets sued, but unlike Trump it would likely be for bogus reasons. Still it is hard to govern that way.
On the other side this does mean that future politicians would know that attempts at insurrection and overturning elections illegally will not face punishment. In general this is just another step towards making it so that POTUS is above the law.
Steve
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/20/a-case-of-hope-over-experience-the-j6-criminal-referral-falls-short-of-a-credible-criminal-case-against-trump/
“I missed the part where Democrats stormed the White House.”
A narrow standard voiced by a narrow mind.
Speaking of Hillary Clinton and her machinations. But she is of the correct party……..
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/nunes-accuses-doj-seeking-blackmail-material-during
The Charlottesville accusations against Trump, created by taking his comments out of context and then distorting them, supposedly was the villainous rhetoric inspiring Biden to run for POTUS. Like everything in Biden’s fabricated biography or “truthsâ€, there is nothing real in his back story or his interest in helping the American people. Nonetheless, the democrat-aligned legacy media, FBI, CIA, DOJ, etc. is a cattle-call of collaborated hypocrisy and one-sided mud-slinging at one side of the aisle, as all these supposedly neutral entities become deaf, blind, and ignorant to the many conflicted interests, influence peddling, money laundering, kangaroo court functions exemplifying the Biden Administration and progressive left. Trump is a nothing-burger compared to the deep state hubris that has run amuck the last half dozen years. He was unfairly criticized and indicted as a distracting side show taking the focus off of the destructive, economy destroying policies being engineered under the noses of the citizenry.
Nice to see you two could take time out from admiring your new trading cards to come defend your superhero.
Steve
In the unlikely event there will actually be charges, finding an impartial jury should be fun.