The Jan 6 Insurrection: what crimes were committed, what does accountability look like?

Politics & Elections
1

I’m not talking about the violent mob – I’m referring to the actual plotters.

If people like Jon Eastman, Mark Meadows and Peter Navarro hatched a hair-brained scheme that involved the VP invoking powers that he doesn’t have – is that actually a crime?

Congresspeople do have the right to object to the seating of a state’s electors – if they make that objection entirely in bad faith, based on not a shred of evidence, does that now become a crime?

If Trump ignored repeated requests to get involved in stopping the riot, is there a crime there?

To me, it seems like the slam-dunk crime is Trump’s phone call to Georgia SoS Raffensberger, where he pressed him to commit election fraud. But other than that … what have we got? Will there be enough to bar individuals from holding office for having participated in an insurrection?

2

Let’s wait and see what AG Merrick Garland says today at 2:30 p.m. eastern time. He’s holding a pre-announced press conference to speak to this issue exactly.

I don’t expect him to name names, but I do think we’re going to get an idea of how the DOJ plans to handle the plotters.

3

Interesting question. For the rest, keep in mind I am not a lawyer nor a constitutional expert.

Since Pence did his constitutional duty he certainly committed no crime, and I’m not sure that the plotting/powerpoint rises to the level of an actual crime. I think you’d actually have to prove some action occurred to further the plot.

I don’t know but I’m hoping someone else will give us an answer.

I do not think so.

Not sure there’s a slam dunk there but added to other actions it might contribute to evidence leading to conviction.

Politically… no, I think the Trumpists will do everything they can to block that sort of penalty. They already did it when Trump was impeached.

4

Based on what they have been giving the insurgents, probably “conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding”.

It would be nice to charge them with felony murder, but I think that that is too much of a stretch.

5

I’ve been thinking “conspiracy to defraud the United States”.

IANAL, but everything I’ve read about this offense indicates that the fraud doesn’t have to involve cheating the government out of money or property — interfering with or obstructing legitimate government activity is enough.

6

I hoping for “conspiracy to commit treason.” I know it’s unlikely, but they definitely conspired, and plotting to overturn legitimate election results and the orderly transfer of power counts as treason in my book.

7

As much as I agree his behavior warrants it, establishing intent is a bloody bitch and I do not have high hopes for this.

However, members of the Committee have stated plainly and openly that they believe 18 US Code §1505, obstruction of official proceedings, is applicable against Trump. His failure to act was on display for the whole world to see; he cannot claim he wasn’t aware that anything was happening since he was happily watching it all unfold on live tee vee. So that will be an easier (but not easy) lift.

I hope there is more, but the Committee seems very focused on the above if nothing else.

8

I wasn’t speaking about Trump per se, but more about the Eastmans, Meadows and Navarros who have all but but publicly confessed to conspiring to overthrow the government. Not to mention the GOP reps who gave guided tours to insurrectionists on Jan. 5.

Of course, if they go down, one of them is bound to implicate Individual 1.

9

I’m listening to Garland now. I’m very encouraged to hear what he’s saying. Some pretty big hints that they’re going to go after the higher-ups.

10

I’m impressed by the speechwriting itself.

11

I expect him to say something along the lines of “time to move on, healing for the good of the country, yadda yadda yadda”

Then nothing will happen. Which gives the green light for the Thugs to just do it again, only with some experience under their belts, and more loyalists in position to throw an election.

12

Then you will be disappointed. This is a strong speech.

Things he has emphasized:

The investigation will go on for as long as it takes and will follow the facts wherever they lead.

January 6th perpetrators “at all levels” will be prosecuted if the facts merit such prosecution and “must” be held accountable.

I’m glad he is speaking also about the adverse attacks on voting rights and the unfounded claims of vote fraud.

This is the Merrick Garland I was counting on. If you are missing this speech, I’m sorry.

13

Thanks - I tend to be pessimistic, and I’m glad to be proven wrong! I’ll have to catch the speech later tonight.

14

If you can watch the whole thing, I encourage it.

15

If people like Jon Eastman, Mark Meadows and Peter Navarro hatched a hair-brained scheme that involved the VP invoking powers that he doesn’t have – is that actually a crime?
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be sedition. They attempted to nullify an election, overthrowing a legitimately elected government.

Congresspeople do have the right to object to the seating of a state’s electors – if they make that objection entirely in bad faith, based on not a shred of evidence, does that now become a crime?
I don’t think so. It makes them stupid, it doesn’t make them criminal.

If Trump ignored repeated requests to get involved in stopping the riot, is there a crime there?

I think there is. Dereliction of duty and by inaction, causing injuries and fatalities and damage to public property.

To me, it seems like the slam-dunk crime is Trump’s phone call to Georgia SoS Raffensberger, where he pressed him to commit election fraud. But other than that … what have we got? Will there be enough to bar individuals from holding office for having participated in an insurrection?

Yes I agree that the call to Georgia was a felonious assault on electoral process. What else have we got? We’ll see when the House committee and DOJ complete their work.

Overall, a good speech by Garland but I was a bit disappointed when he said that extremism isn’t limited to one ideology. Like hell it isn’t.

16

I didn’t hear the whole speech so I don’t have the context for this statement, but I’m not sure that he is engaging in bothsiderism. In other speeches when he’s talked about different types of extremist ideology leading to violence, his goal was to clearly state that he wasn’t targeting violent right wing extremeists because they were right wing, he was targeting them because they were violent.

Also, given that for most of the last 20 years violent extremist ideology was synonymous with Islam in most people minds, it needs to be mentioned that home grown extremist ideologies can be violent too.

17

I really wish a reporter would straight up ask Trump if he ordered people to break laws. I feel like there is a decent chance he’d admit it if the question was asked in the right way. Ari Melber (from MSNBC of all places!) got Peter Navarro to say the quiet part out loud and Trump has the exact same weakness.

18

He would say no, because he doesn’t understand the concept of laws. When he orders people to do things, their legality is utterly irrelevant to him.

19

What I’m worried about is what happens when the mid-term elections show that Republicans win a majority in the House and Senate. Isn’t it very likely that this committee’s work will abruptly end before the major instigators of 1/6/21 are identified and tried?

20

100% guaranteed that the House committee will be disbanded the instant the Republicans get a majority. So the committee needs to wrap up its work before the end of this year.