There is no longer any doubt, and there is abundant evidence and overwhelming testimonies.
Donald Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to annul the result of the presidential elections despite the fact that both those responsible for the Prosecutor’s Office and his advisers warned him that the action was illegal and the argument of alleged electoral fraud, “crazy”.
Additionally, the former president and his cronies intimidated, insulted, and intimidated numerous senior Republican officials and election workers in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania into tampering with the voting and thereby preventing Joe Biden from being declared the winner of the race.
Trump finally “lit the flame” of the greatest coup attempt against American democracy by instigating the hordes that occupied the Capitol on January 6, 2021, resulting in nine deaths. All this has been proven in the first four hearings of the committee investigating 6-E in Congress. Hence, more and more prosecutors, former prosecutors, parliamentarians and jurists defend Trump’s indictment for serious criminal offenses.
The key to being able to prosecute the former president is to show that he knew what he was doing. In the words of former federal prosecutor and law professor Samuel Buell, “it must be shown that he knew what he was doing was wrong and had no legal basis” — something both former Attorney General Bill Barr and his own attorney and alleged accomplice John Eastman told him. directly, as stated in committee.
Constitutionalist Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, was until recently reticent about what would be the first criminal prosecution of a US president, because it would “further inflame our already deeply polarized society.” Now, however, Chemerinsky believes that “the 6-E committee hearings have shown that the Justice Department (and Attorney General’s Office) should file criminal charges against Trump.”
In a recent ruling to compel Eastman to hand over 159 documents to the committee, federal judge David Carter considered it “more likely than not” that the lawyer and Trump himself committed the federal crimes of conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of a congressional procedure: two charges to which many lawyers add that of seditious conspiracy.
In one of the commission sessions, Democrat Zoe Lofgren opened a new line of incrimination: the money trail related to what she called Trump’s “great scam” with his campaign to create a fund to legally combat alleged fraud. electoral. The fund “never existed,” but the leader raised $250 million that he diverted to both his unofficial political campaign, Save America, and his personal business dealings, she Lofgren said.
Attorney General Merrick Garland will face a diabolical dilemma if he ends up considering that, in addition to evidence, there are legal elements to bring Trump to trial: charge him and avoid a devastating precedent for the country’s rule of law, or drop it to, perhaps with legal invocation of the general interest as some jurists suggest, avoid the risk of a political and social conflict with unpredictable consequences. For now, Garland is thinking about it while he waits for the end of the investigation.
