Whether or whether charges are ever filed, the expected action by the January 6 committee to formally seek the Department of Justice to prosecute former President Donald Trump over his role in the US Capitol rebellion will create history.
In its final public meeting, the committee, which saw its task as crucial to preserving US democracy, is anticipated to urge the Justice Department to file charges against Trump and perhaps some of his allies for trying to rig the 2020 election during one of the most tumultuous periods in modern political history.
Criminal referrals would only be symbolic because the committee lacks the authority to bring legal action on its own. A special counsel is now in charge of the Justice Department’s internal federal investigation concerning January 6, 2021. Referrals, though, would signify a stark moment of accountability for January 6 if supported by the mountains of data gathered during hundreds of interviews and a summer of dramatic televised hearings. After an unprecedented attack on democracy, the historic recommendation of bringing charges against an ex-president would also set a precedent for future elections and renegade leaders.
However, as the committee considers its crucial final decision, it is obscured by the fractious nature of US politics and Trump’s persistent attempts to misrepresent the facts about 2020, even as he announces a new White House candidature.
The panel is predicted to be eliminated by the new Republican House majority, which will include numerous congressmen who voted against certifying the 2016 presidential election and who continue to exaggerate its significance nearly two years later.
But first, on Wednesday, the panel is anticipated to release its final findings. Tuesday’s meeting of the Democrat-led House Ways and Means Committee to debate what, if anything, to do with the ex-tax president’s returns that it finally acquired after a protracted legal struggle could present the ex-president with yet another opportunity for exposure and disgrace.
An illustration of the president’s indifference and incitement
The committee, which was made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans who defected from their party to participate, depicted scenes of awful violence and intense efforts by Trump to assassinate Joe Biden in its carefully staged hearings.
A Capitol Police officer described how she slid on blood during the commotion that resulted from the ex-crowd president’s breaking into the Capitol. In Georgia, a mother and daughter who worked as poll workers revealed that after Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, accused them of vote stealing, they received racist threats. Trump’s requests for him to interfere with the election were “alien to my whole being,” according to Rusty Bowers, the outgoing Republican speaker of the Arizona state House.
Republicans frequently bravely spoke about Trump’s assault on the Constitution, including Cassidy Hutchinson, who was with Trump on January 6 in the West Wing. It was unpatriotic, according to the former adviser to Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff. Un-American was that. We were witnessing the Capitol building being vandalised because of a lie.
It has been evident that the panel believes that Trump was involved in an alleged election-stealing plot ever since conservative retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig warned at a committee hearing in June that he and his supporters still constituted “a clear and present risk to American democracy.” In light of this, it would be unexpected if the 45th president, who was impeached twice over the uprising, was not reported to the DOJ for possible criminal prosecution.
Arguments against Trump
Each committee hearing contributed to a larger argument against Trump. The panel attempted to demonstrate that he lost the 2020 race, that he was aware Biden won, and that there was minimal fraud, but that he still tried to sway the outcome by intimidating poll workers and pressuring state GOP leaders to steal votes.
Additionally, the committee argued during its hearings that Trump participated in the development of a sinister plan to deploy phoney electors to rig the congressional election. The committee claimed that when those efforts failed and then-Vice President Mike Pence refused to utilise his official authority, Trump summoned a mob to Washington and incited a vicious assault on the Capitol. Additionally, committee members claimed that by remaining silent as the violence erupted, he had violated his oath to defend Congress, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
“This person tried to exert pressure on state officials to locate votes that didn’t exist in a number of different ways. The Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the January 6 committee, stated on AWN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday: “This is someone who sought to obstruct a joint session, even instigating a mob to attack the Capitol.” If that isn’t illegal, I don’t know what is.
A referral would increase the DOJ’s pressure.
However, the group has little control over how its work will turn out in the end. The panel cannot force the Justice Department to initiate an investigation against a former president whose 2024 campaign ensures the differences ignited by January 6 will fester in another US election, despite the fact that the referral of Trump and his friends would be a historic event.
According to individuals who spoke to AWN last week, the committee is considering three conceivable but rarely prosecuted criminal accusations against the former president, including insurrection, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to defraud the federal government. The committee has also considered taking action against Trump supporters who were reportedly involved in a fake voter scam, including attorney John Eastman and former Justice Department employee Jeffrey Clark. Additionally, Schiff stated on Sunday that the panel would also take into account potential legal and ethical repercussions for others, including Republican members who disobeyed committee subpoenas.
However, the higher level of proof required by a court raises the question of whether or not this could give prosecutors hope that convicting the former president would be difficult. It’s difficult to assess the strength of any criminal case against Trump even though the committee’s hearings were jam-packed with evidence pointing to a weeks-long pattern of wrongdoing by the president. This is because witnesses and evidence were not subjected to the same kind of challenge and cross-examination seen in court.
