A favorite activity among pundits these days is trying to figure out what is happening — or not happening — with the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 investigation. This administration is particularly tight-lipped, so the most people can do is speculate.
Still, based on publicly available information, there are at least four conclusions we can draw with confidence.
First, the criticism that the Justice Department has decided not to go after defeated former president Donald Trump is, from all appearances, false. The department continues to reaffirm it has not ruled out going after anyone. A grand jury, the New York Times reports, is already “asking for records about people who organized or spoke at several pro-Trump rallies after the election,” including two events before Jan. 6. It is also seeking “records about anyone who provided security at those events and about those who were deemed to be ‘V.I.P. attendees.’ ” The grand jury has also requested evidence “about any members of the executive and legislative branches who may have taken part in planning or executing the rallies, or tried to ‘obstruct, influence, impede or delay’ the certification of the presidential election.” Ostensibly, that would include Trump and former vice president Mike Pence.
The Post has also similarly reported that the Justice Department is investigating the conspiracy to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election victory. Again, there is no sign that Trump or any senior official has been excluded.
Second, none of this means that the Justice Department is acting with a sufficient sense of urgency. The rationale that the feds have to start at the bottom and work their way up — as though this were a Mafia case — makes no sense.
Prosecutors go after foot soldiers if they have no real proof the kingpin has engaged in criminal activity. But the former president has shouted from the rooftops that he wanted Pence to overturn the election. And there is an audio recording of Trump trying to twist the Georgia secretary of state’s arm to find just enough votes to flip his state’s results. Former senior advisers have written books, blabbed in TV interviews and testified before the Jan. 6 committee concerning communications with Trump and other senior advisers.
Prosecutors have no reason to disregard all that evidence and focus exclusively on the violence on Jan. 6, thereby putting off investigating Trump and his inner circle for months. Either the Justice Department is deliberately slowing down the train, or it has decided to wait for the House select committee investigating the Capitol insurrection to finish its work. In either event, only the most politically naive lawyer would fail to appreciate the danger that comes with delay, given the potential destruction of evidence and opportunity for witnesses to coordinate their stories.
Third, there is one investigation of which the Justice Department is properly deferring to a state prosecutor. Fani Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., has impaneled a grand jury to investigate Trump’s pressure campaign against secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to manipulate the Georgia’s vote totals.
The Justice Department’s prosecutorial manual plainly states: “In determining whether prosecution should be declined because the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction, the attorney for the government should weigh all relevant considerations.” Those factors include “The strength of the other jurisdiction’s interest in prosecution; the other jurisdiction’s ability and willingness to prosecute effectively; and the probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted in the other jurisdiction.”
Willis should be seeking from the Justice Department and Jan. 6 committee all relevant evidence, which is almost certainly far more extensive than she currently has (e.g., interviews with the U.S. attorney in Georgia, Byung “BJay” Pak, who resigned two days after the infamous call between Trump and Raffensperger, and other testimony regarding pressure on the Justice Department to declare the election fraudulent). It is appropriate to allow Willis to take a crack at the case, but the department should also render assistance so she can gather evidence and, if facts warrant, make a powerful case against Trump.
Finally, it doesn’t really matter whether the Jan. 6 committee makes a “referral” to the Justice Department suggesting criminal prosecution. A referral, although the media and lawmakers have made much ado about it, would have no real legal significance, especially because the Justice Department is already well along in its investigation.
That said, public hearings in prime time laying out a powerful case against Trump and a written report summarizing those findings followed by a referral may convey to the public the gravity of the matter. It may also force the Justice Department to explain itself if it decides not to prosecute.
In sum, Attorney General Merrick Garland seems to be conducting a full investigation that could implicate Trump for, among other things, conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States or seditious conspiracy. Someone would be wise to point out to Garland the dangers of unnecessary delay. As publicly available information and daily revelations from Trump’s inner circle accumulates, Americans have every right to expect the former president’s prosecution in a timely fashion — or a darn good reason why the Justice Department won’t pursue him.
"Opinion" - Google News
April 10, 2022 at 09:01PM
https://ift.tt/WmePsEC
Opinion | We don't know much about the DOJ's Jan. 6 inquiry. Here are 4 things we do know. - The Washington Post
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/OD73tgS
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment