January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[President Johnson]

I mean Republicans are under oath saying that Trump's Truths from 1 HOUR AGO are false. What more do we need?

I guess they're all under control of the Deep State and the Clintons because they can't handle TRUMP won...

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Even Trump can see it.  McCarthy could have sabotaged the investigation from the get-go ostensibly in the name of 'bipartisanship', and smothered it before it ever got to this stage.  Oh well, too late now.    

Congressional leadership has made no secret of their disdain for Trump.

I'm not sure how capable McCarthy is of playing 4-D chess, but I wonder if he decided to let Pelosi unilaterally call the shots so Dems (plus Cheney and Kinzinger) could do the dirty work of getting Trump out of the picture.

IIRC, McCarthy wanted to appoint Trumpster congressmen like Jim Jordan to the commission last year (I wonder why....).  Pelosi said no dice, so he pulled out of negotiations:

McCarthy pulls all Republicans from January 6 Select Committee after Pelosi rejects two picks

So yes, I think he certainly would have done exactly what I suggested had Pelosi been stupid enough to allow him to.  

I think the suggestion is that McCarthy could have offered up sane-appearing Republicans for the committee who would still have been willing and able to sabotage the whole thing. Instead he offered up the Trumpiest Trumpists he could find, and when Pelosi natually turned those down, he took all his toys and went home, leaving the committee to do its work and take a clean shot at Trump.

If the committee wrecks Trump, McCarthy will secretly celebrate while publicly saying "I tried".  And if the committee has no real impact, well, McCarthy doesn't take any heat, and can even claim he made sure n "real Republicans" supported it.

[Torie]

Well, we got a bit closer to crime time, although without more, still not there, in my view. That is when I heard on the Trump recording berating the Georgia SOS, Raffensperger, that it was or would be "dangerous" for him to say/find that that there had been no fraud. Raffensperger was then harassed. He was characterized as writing in his book that he viewed Trump's "dangerous" comment as a threat. If Trump really was threatening Raffensperger that bad things would happen to him if the votes were not found, that I think gets us there. What we don't have though is evidence that Trump was telling people to harass and threaten the SOS (and family), and make his life hell.

[LBJer]

Well, we got a bit closer to crime time, although without more, still not there, in my view. That is when I heard on the Trump recording berating the Georgia SOS, Raffensperger, that it was or would be "dangerous" for him to say/find that that there had been no fraud. Raffensperger was then harassed. He was characterized as writing in his book that he viewed Trump's "dangerous" comment as a threat. If Trump really was threatening Raffensperger that bad things would happen to him if the votes were not found, that I think gets us there. What we don't have though is evidence that Trump was telling people to harass and threaten the SOS (and family), and make his life hell.

We're already there with Trump knowing that Eastman's plan was illegal.  Believing a law in unconstitutional (even if it's a good faith belief, which this wasn't) doesn't give you the right to break it and obstruct an official proceeding.  It entitles you to seek a remedy from the court, which they didn't do:

https://www.nycsouthpaw.com/p/whats-really-stopping-a-trump-prosecution

With all due respect, it seems like you've been bending over backwards to say there isn't enough evidence.

[Torie]

I call them as I see them. But you have a point, LBJer, which is that it probably is annoying. The only reason I made the post is that I think that bit of evidence moved the ball. I had the other day opined that I was quite confident that Garland would not indict based on Trump telling the Georgia SOS to find him some more votes, without more.

Btw, you need not say you respect me, to disagree with me. I do disagree that I am trying to salvage Trump. I would be delighted if Trump becomes a felon.  But my motives really don't matter here, nor really my opinion other than to the extent it gives others more information.

Time will tell better what the lay of the land is, and who does what.

[LBJer]

I call them as I see them. But you have a point, LBJer, which is that it probably is annoying. The only reason I made the post is that I think that bit of evidence moved the ball. I had the other day opined that I was quite confident that Garland would not indict based on Trump telling the Georgia SOS to find him some more votes, without more.

Btw, you need not say you respect me, to disagree with me. I do disagree that I am trying to salvage Trump. I would be delighted if Trump becomes a felon.  But my motives really don't matter, nor really my opinion other than to the extent it gives others more information.

Time will tell better what the lay of the land is, and who does what.

I didn't think you were necessarily motivated by any pro-Trump sentiment.  I just thought your standards and way of looking at the evidence was unreasonable.  And if higher standards of proof are being used--regardless of the reason--regarding Trump than would be regarding ordinary defendants, then that's just another form of injustice. 

[Torie]

A double standard of justice is of course wrong. The rest is a matter of what the criminal law provides, and how it operates, and standards of proof. And I admit I am not a criminal lawyer. So sure, perhaps I have it wrong. Time will tell.

[emailking]

We should also keep in mind convincing 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt it a much higher bar than we're applying here casually. But yes personally I'm convinced of crimes at that standard.

[LBJer]

It should also be noted that while there's the possibility of jury nullification--jurors voting to acquit Trump even if they're convinced he's legally guilty--there's also the possibility of what's known as "reverse jury nullification"--jurors concluding that the prosecution did not meet the legal standards required to convict Trump, but also concluding that he needs to be stopped and, to that end, voting to convict him anyway.  While reverse jury nullification, unlike jury nullification, can be overturned by a judge, that doesn't mean it would be.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1539354793063456769

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1539354793063456769

Steve Bannon baby (it is just so wrong that we share the same first name), to speak to you in your own dysutopian universe language, when you lose Fox News, you have lost America.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1539373269287112706

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1539373269287112706

Senator Johnson needs to be charged and brought to trial. (As do any GOP politicians involved with Trump's coup attempt, before or after January 6th.)

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Either the perpetrators and their allies face consequences under the law, in the very near future, or the rest of us will suffer from the failure to do so for the rest of our lives.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1539644114014072833

[Mr. Illini]

Johnson's aide texted saying that the Senator wanted to personally deliver a slate of alternate electors to the VP. Johnson's reaction? "I had no idea what was in the envelope."

He should be subpoenaed immediately. What kind of contact did he have with Trump? How many other Senators were a part of this?

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1539409932277235713

[GeorgiaModerate]

!!!

CNN: Rep. Mo Brooks says he's willing to testify in public as Jan. 6 committee prepares to reissue him a subpoena

A bit of revenge for Trump unendorsing him?

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/davidcharns/status/1539787421369262080

[Inmate Trump]

!!!

CNN: Rep. Mo Brooks says he's willing to testify in public as Jan. 6 committee prepares to reissue him a subpoena

A bit of revenge for Trump unendorsing him?

One can hope but I don’t want to get too excited.

Brooks is shallow and evil. Trump just needs to dangle another carrot and he’ll cave.

[Torie]

If you submitted a novel with a plot line that state political parties were pretending that their party's losing candidate had won in their state, and submitting fake electors with the idea that their fake votes would actually count, I would have rejected it as utterly implausible. I mean why would they do anything so clownish that had a zero probability of success, and potentially subject them to vote fraud liability? Come on. That would just not happen in the real world, and nobody is going to suspend their disbelief for that one. The critics will pan the novel, and it will be a money loser.

[LBJer]

Some legal experts have argued that Trump's best defense is arguing that he relied on lawyers he thought knew what they were doing and/or that he was detached from reality.  Apart from the fact that critical holes have now appeared in that defense (particularly Eastman telling Trump that violating the Electoral Count Act, as he wanted Pence to do, was illegal, and Trump pressuring Pence to do it anyway), the main problem with this approach is that if Trump was going to go that route, he'd have to effectively admit that the election was NOT stolen.  He'd have to abandon the "Big Lie" that he continues to preach.  I don't think he'd be willing to do that, even if doing so was the only possible route to an acquittal. 

[Torie]

Some legal experts have argued that Trump's best defense is arguing that he relied on lawyers he thought knew what they were doing and/or that he was detached from reality.  Apart from the fact that critical holes have now appeared in that defense (particularly Eastman telling Trump that violating the Electoral Count Act, as he wanted Pence to do, was illegal, and Trump pressuring Pence to do it anyway), the main problem with this approach is that if Trump was going to go that route, he'd have to effectively admit that the election was NOT stolen.  He'd have to abandon the "Big Lie" that he continues to preach.  I don't think he'd be willing to do that, even if doing so was the only possible route to an acquittal. 

Again Eastman's theory was that the Electoral Count Act was itself Unconstitutional, so that act was void.

[LBJer]

Some legal experts have argued that Trump's best defense is arguing that he relied on lawyers he thought knew what they were doing and/or that he was detached from reality.  Apart from the fact that critical holes have now appeared in that defense (particularly Eastman telling Trump that violating the Electoral Count Act, as he wanted Pence to do, was illegal, and Trump pressuring Pence to do it anyway), the main problem with this approach is that if Trump was going to go that route, he'd have to effectively admit that the election was NOT stolen.  He'd have to abandon the "Big Lie" that he continues to preach.  I don't think he'd be willing to do that, even if doing so was the only possible route to an acquittal.  

Again Eastman's theory was that the Electoral Count Act was itself Unconstitutional, so that act was void.

Believing a law is unconstitutional isn't a legal defense for breaking it, even if the belief is sincere and well-founded (and Eastman's was neither).  Such a belief entitles you to seek redress in court.  That's not what Trump and Eastman did.  The legal way of doing it would have been to go to court first, not tell Pence to break the law and, as they were planning on doing, only argue their theory when someone else challenged what they did in court.  

[Torie]

Some legal experts have argued that Trump's best defense is arguing that he relied on lawyers he thought knew what they were doing and/or that he was detached from reality.  Apart from the fact that critical holes have now appeared in that defense (particularly Eastman telling Trump that violating the Electoral Count Act, as he wanted Pence to do, was illegal, and Trump pressuring Pence to do it anyway), the main problem with this approach is that if Trump was going to go that route, he'd have to effectively admit that the election was NOT stolen.  He'd have to abandon the "Big Lie" that he continues to preach.  I don't think he'd be willing to do that, even if doing so was the only possible route to an acquittal.  

Again Eastman's theory was that the Electoral Count Act was itself Unconstitutional, so that act was void.

Believing a law is unconstitutional isn't a legal defense for breaking it, even if the belief is sincere and well-founded (and Eastman's was neither).  Such a belief entitles you to seek redress in court.  That's not what Trump and Eastman did.  The legal way of doing it would have been to go to court first, not tell Pence to break the law and, as they were planning on doing, only argue their theory when someone else challenged what they did in court.  

If the belief turns out to be right, of course it is. If the belief turns out to be wrong, it isn't, and one bears the consequences of being wrong. Laws are often deliberately broken in order to test their validity in court. That is what happened to the anti-sodomy law in Texas. Two guys did it, and told the cops in advance, so they could watch and then arrest them. The rest is history.

[LBJer]

Some legal experts have argued that Trump's best defense is arguing that he relied on lawyers he thought knew what they were doing and/or that he was detached from reality.  Apart from the fact that critical holes have now appeared in that defense (particularly Eastman telling Trump that violating the Electoral Count Act, as he wanted Pence to do, was illegal, and Trump pressuring Pence to do it anyway), the main problem with this approach is that if Trump was going to go that route, he'd have to effectively admit that the election was NOT stolen.  He'd have to abandon the "Big Lie" that he continues to preach.  I don't think he'd be willing to do that, even if doing so was the only possible route to an acquittal.  

Again Eastman's theory was that the Electoral Count Act was itself Unconstitutional, so that act was void.

Believing a law is unconstitutional isn't a legal defense for breaking it, even if the belief is sincere and well-founded (and Eastman's was neither).  Such a belief entitles you to seek redress in court.  That's not what Trump and Eastman did.  The legal way of doing it would have been to go to court first, not tell Pence to break the law and, as they were planning on doing, only argue their theory when someone else challenged what they did in court.  

If the belief turns out to be right, of course it is. If the belief turns out to be wrong, it isn't, and one bears the consequences of being wrong. Laws are often deliberately broken in order to test their validity in court. That is what happened to the anti-sodomy law in Texas. Two guys did it, and told the cops in advance, so they could watch and then arrest them. The rest is history.

But "turns out to be right" in this context means "if a court rules that you are correct."  If that never happens, then your belief never becomes a defense for breaking the law.  No court ever ruled that Trump and Eastman were right about this.  So they can't use their (insincere) argument that it is unconstitutional as a defense for telling Pence to break it.

And two guys having consensual sex is hardly the same as a vice-president throwing out electoral votes for no valid reason and overruling the American people as to who will be president (and vice-president).  

[Torie]

Some legal experts have argued that Trump's best defense is arguing that he relied on lawyers he thought knew what they were doing and/or that he was detached from reality.  Apart from the fact that critical holes have now appeared in that defense (particularly Eastman telling Trump that violating the Electoral Count Act, as he wanted Pence to do, was illegal, and Trump pressuring Pence to do it anyway), the main problem with this approach is that if Trump was going to go that route, he'd have to effectively admit that the election was NOT stolen.  He'd have to abandon the "Big Lie" that he continues to preach.  I don't think he'd be willing to do that, even if doing so was the only possible route to an acquittal.  

Again Eastman's theory was that the Electoral Count Act was itself Unconstitutional, so that act was void.

Believing a law is unconstitutional isn't a legal defense for breaking it, even if the belief is sincere and well-founded (and Eastman's was neither).  Such a belief entitles you to seek redress in court.  That's not what Trump and Eastman did.  The legal way of doing it would have been to go to court first, not tell Pence to break the law and, as they were planning on doing, only argue their theory when someone else challenged what they did in court.  

If the belief turns out to be right, of course it is. If the belief turns out to be wrong, it isn't, and one bears the consequences of being wrong. Laws are often deliberately broken in order to test their validity in court. That is what happened to the anti-sodomy law in Texas. Two guys did it, and told the cops in advance, so they could watch and then arrest them. The rest is history.

But "turns out to be right" in this context means "if a court rules that you are correct."  If that never happens, then your belief never becomes a defense for breaking the law.  No court ever ruled that Trump and Eastman were right about this.  So they can't use their (insincere) argument that it is unconstitutional as a defense for telling Pence to break it.

And two guys having consensual sex is hardly the same as a vice-president throwing out electoral votes for no valid reason and overruling the American people as to who will be president (and vice-president).  

Well, as we go round in circles here, we agree really. If Pence is found wrong in agreeing with Eastman in this hypo, he broke the law, and bears the consequences. If the nation goes up in flames, until SCOTUS rules, that is yes, far more consequential than consensual sex. And yes, Eastman's theory is frivolous, but has not been specifically  ruled upon by a court.  

The only relevance of all of this is the business of whether Trump has committed a crime. On that one, we don't agree, at least based on what I know so far. The opinion of Garland on the matter, is the opinion that really matters. We, on the other hand, are just pounding the keyboard.