Yes, I agree. But I want them prosecuted as much as I want Trump prosecuted. The very idea of giving them anything at all – excepting a few months off of a very long sentence is offensive to me. I agree they are important but it seems that their already published written materials will do them as well as do Trump in. Are you advocating giving them immunity for testimony, or am I misunderstanding you?
I believe that the testimony from Rosen, Donoghue, and Engel in the one Committee Hearing would suffice to bury Clark without giving him any consideration at all. I would also think that Brad Raffensperger, and dozens of other state office holders in seven states can convict Eastman and that is on top of his memo which is well know throughout the land.
I am not saying they are insignificant; I am saying they are contemptible and should not be given the “queen for a day” offer that Meadows should be given. In my view, pull in Click and Clark (former listeners to Car Talk on NPR should find this phraseology hilarious!), put them under oath and dare them to lie or obstruct-- no sweetheart deals for them. Even if they take the fifth, there should be enough to convict them for seditious conspiracy. If they contradict more credible witnesses, charge them with perjury also. I just don’t want them strutting around telling people they were key to a Department of Justice trial- that were part of a sting operation. Do you think the department needs to offer them anything at all to get their testimony?
I will concede that you would be better informed than I am likely to be on this matter, but I do not see where they need to be “on team DOJ”. I see them as being, without any deals, “convicted and sentenced by team DOJ”.
I am not phrasing this well, let me try again:
To me, they are in the pot with Trump cooking up these horrific plans. Would you offer Trump some consideration to testify against . . .well, Trump?
Sorry to be so pedantic, but do you mean lesser punishment in terms of copping to a lower level crime? Or do you mean a sentencing consideration, like six months off a ten year sentence?
I have no problem giving Meadows consideration as long as he buries the others. But I would not want Eastman or Clark to get much more than peanuts ---- and I still don’t think their testimony is all that valuable. We have others talking about what they did and their own documents to use against them??? If it means locking up a conviction against trump I am for it. But if Trump can be convicted without them - - - well then, thumbs down.
I am going to shut-up now. Perhaps others have something to say on this and I want to hear what everyone has to say. And I do know you are likely to be the best informed for behind the scenes info Aspenglow*.
We’re pretty far afield. @Temporary_Name, you’ve got a lot of concepts really mixed up (sting operations with plea arrangements, e.g.). I don’t have time or inclination to sort them all out for you.
It’s important to understand the elements of a crime that must be proved before deciding what evidence will be sufficient to convict. Many, many people fail to understand this.
One element of seditious conspiracy – and probably the most important, difficult one – is the defendant’s intent. You have to prove he knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway. It’s very hard to prove, because you really do have to get inside someone’s mind to do it.
One of the very best ways to prove intent is to get a direct witness, one such as Eastman or Meadows or Clark, to say, “Yeah, he told me he knew he lost, but he didn’t care. He demanded that I fill-in-the-blank-take-this-action anyway.” Direct evidence, the best possible kind.
I don’t know what kind of plea arrangements would be made with any of the three. Depends on their total exposure for their crimes. If you’re 65 years old and facing down a total sentence of 30 years, then knocking 5 years off the sentence isn’t really much inducement to testify.
If one must choose between bullet proof evidence against Trump in exchange for testimony and a plea arrangement, or convicting others who are just as culpable but might allow Trump to escape culpability, which matters more?
It’s a question each of us must answer for ourselves. Personally, I want Trump convicted above all others.
Now it’s my turn to be pedantic (maybe). Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “You have to prove he knew what he was doing was illegal and did it anyway?”
Trump will never believe he did anything wrong. Even if he had personally presided over the execution of Mike Pence, he would be convinced his actions were totally justified and “right”. A world where Trump can’t be considered guilty unless he acknowledges wrongdoing is a world where Trump can do whatever he wants.
I’m going to return to my analogy of the innocent man about to be convicted of a crime who, in the absence of real evidence, conspires with his cronies to manufacture evidence fake evidence of his innocence. In his mind this action may be justified and “right” because it leads to a just outcome, and he may have point.
But since the actions were illegal (let’s assume he clearly knew they were illegal), I’m going to say his conviction of righteousness is not a valid defense.
I respect your experience, am I missing something?
@carrps, I so hope you are right! I can’t find confirmation of that hearing date anywhere, but I just made a lunch date for the 12th and hope I don’t have to reschedule it. Thanks for sharing what you heard.
I haven’t seen that confirmed anywhere that I can find. From a recent NPR article, “The House will reconvene the week of July 11, and Thompson indicated that’s the earliest hearings would likely resume.”
Here’s a question that might be off-topic: given the choice, would people prefer Trump convicted or permanently out of politics I.e. barred from holding office, since a conviction doesn’t stop him from running or winning?
I think it effectively would, though. His cultists will support him no matter what, but I think going to prison for what he did would push enough of the non-cultists away from him that he wouldn’t even do well in a primary, let alone the general election. It would end his chance to hold office again, regardless of what the law allows.
Note that “permanently out of politics” and “barred from running for office” are not the same thing. He can be legally barred from running and still be able to throw his weight around via toxic messaging, neo-Nazi rallies, and endorsing far-right lunatics for office. So what’s really necessary is for the Orange Peril to be thoroughly discredited and revealed as a traitorous self-serving insurrectionist. So both things are really necessary: a conviction, and removal from politics and political influence. If forced to choose one, I’d rather he at least be barred from ever holding high office due to the incalculable damage he would cause in a second term, but really, both remedies are necessary.
I stand corrected.