Jan. 6 Committee Tells Special Counsel Jack Smith To LOCK HIM UP

House Select Committee On January 6th Holds Its 7th Hearing

(Photo by Sarah Silbiger-Pool/Getty Images)

It’s not every day that a Congressional committee refers a former president to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. In fact, it’s never happened before this afternoon, when the January 6 Select Committee voted unanimously to refer Trump for violating at least four criminal statutes. Presumably when Republicans take the back the speaker’s gavel, they’ll refer Biden for prosecution at least once a week, and it will become part of the background din in DC. But for today, it’s a BFD.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

This afternoon at its final public hearing, Rep. Jamie Raskin announced the Committee’s recommendation that the wider Congress vote to refer Trump for prosecution under 18 USC §§ 1512, 371, 1001, and 2383.

The View from Inside: How In-House Leaders Can Improve Department Dissatisfaction and Mitigate Attrition Sponsored The View from Inside: How In-House Leaders Can Improve Department Dissatisfaction and Mitigate Attrition Here’s the bottom line: if you are a GC or in-house legal leader, more than half of your legal team should be considered a flight… From Axiom and Above The Law

Under 18 USC § 1512(c)(2), “Whoever corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” In its executive summary, the Committee points to Trump’s many efforts to obstruct the electoral certification on January 6, 2021, an official proceeding as recognized by every jurist to consider the matter save US District Judge Carl J. Nichols.

As evidence, the Committee cites the plot to get cosplay electors to swear themselves in; the pressure campaign on state legislatures to certify the fake electoral slates; Jeff Clark’s flailing attempt to get the Justice Department to launch investigations into non-existent vote fraud to give the state legislators cover; and the pressure campaign to get Pence to unilaterally reject swing state electors.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

All of which is corrupt if, as many of his own aides testified, Trump was repeatedly informed that there was no significant fraud which affected the outcome of the election and no legal rationale for Pence to unilaterally reject electors.

And while the Committee is calling out Donald Trump, they’re also referring John Eastman under § 1512, seeing as how Judge David O. Carter did them a solid and said in multiple opinions that the crime-fraud exception abrogated attorney-client privilege, because Trump and Eastman were cahootsing to obstruct Congress.

Sponsored Thomson Reuters’ Practical Law — The Journal: Transactions & Business Sponsored Thomson Reuters’ Practical Law — The Journal: Transactions & Business Explore decentralized finance, ESG-driven divestments, supply chain disruptions, and much more with the help of Practical Law’s over 300 attorney editors.   From Above the Law and Thomson Reuters MyCase And LawPay — Better Together Sponsored MyCase And LawPay — Better Together Why small and midsize firms win big in a blockbuster merger. From Above the Law From Equity Management to Liquidity: How Morgan Stanley at Work Is Supporting Top Law Firms Sponsored From Equity Management to Liquidity: How Morgan Stanley at Work Is Supporting Top Law Firms Read on to learn how empowering your clients with equity solutions can set them and their employees up for success. From Stephanie Wilkins MyCase And LawPay — Better Together Sponsored MyCase And LawPay — Better Together Why small and midsize firms win big in a blockbuster merger. From Above the Law

Much of the same conduct forms the basis of the referral under § 371 for conspiracy to defraud the US, although Jeff Clark comes in for special attention here:

President Trump entered into agreements – whether formal or informal – with several other individuals who assisted with the multipart plan. With regard to the Department of Justice, Jeffrey Clark stands out as a participant in the conspiracy, as the evidence suggests that Clark entered into an agreement with President Trump that if appointed Acting Attorney General, he would send a letter to State officials falsely stating that the Department of Justice believed that State legislatures had a sufficient factual basis to convene to select new electors. This was false – the Department of Justice had reached the conclusion that there was no factual basis to contend that the election was stolen.

Similarly, the Committee suggests that Trump might be liable for making false statements under § 1001, because he conspired to assemble the false slates of electors and have them sign and submit false certifications to the National Archives. And if Trump is in trouble for that one, so are a whole bunch of other people, potentially including RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel testified before this Committee that President Trump and Eastman directly requested that the RNC organize the effort to have these fake (i.e. Trump) electors meet and cast their votes.631 Thus, the Committee believes that sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of President Trump for illegally engaging in a conspiracy to violate Section 1001; the evidence indicates that he entered into an agreement with Eastman and others to make the false statement (the fake electoral certificates), by deceitful or dishonest means, and at least one member of the conspiracy engaged in at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (e.g. President Trump and Eastman’s call to Ronna McDaniel).

Finally, there’s the insurrection charge under § 2383: “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.”

Sponsored Looking For A Turnkey Solution To Move Your Law Firm To The Cloud? Sponsored Looking For A Turnkey Solution To Move Your Law Firm To The Cloud? You can have fast, secure access to your files and applications from anywhere without having to learn anything new or purchase upgraded hardware. Here’s how. From Above the Law The View from Inside: How In-House Leaders Can Improve Department Dissatisfaction and Mitigate Attrition Sponsored The View from Inside: How In-House Leaders Can Improve Department Dissatisfaction and Mitigate Attrition Here’s the bottom line: if you are a GC or in-house legal leader, more than half of your legal team should be considered a flight… From Axiom and Above The Law

The committee accuses the former president of “summoning what became a violent mob to Washington, DC, urging them to march to the Capitol, and then further provoking the already violent and lawless crowd with his 2:24p.m. tweet about the Vice President.” And it cites his refusal to call them off, even as he parked himself in the Oval Office and watched the violence unfold on television for hours on end, as evidence that his supporters were doing exactly what he intended.

The committee also points out that rulings by Chief Judge Beryl Howell have enabled the Justice Department to pierce executive privilege as pertains to several members of Trump’s inner circle, including White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy Patrick Philbin, and well as Pence’s top aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob. So the DOJ should be able to get total clarity on what was going on at the White House on the morning of January 6, when Trump pressured Pence to violate his oath, and in the afternoon as he watched the mob sack the Capitol.

TL, DR? Hey, Jack Smith, you up?

Reached for comment, Trump responded with characteristic gravitas:

Screen Shot 2022-12-19 at 3.58.07 PM

And now, let’s enjoy a brief period of holiday cheer before we return in January with a new Congress, wholly dedicated to investigating the important issue of Hunter Biden’s dick pics. Can’t hardly wait.

Executive Summary

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Topics

Capitol riot, Department of Justice, Donald Trump, Government, Jack Smith, January 6th Committee, Jeff Clark, John Eastman


Introducing Jobbguru: Your Gateway to Career Success

The ultimate job platform is designed to connect job seekers with their dream career opportunities. Whether you're a recent graduate, a seasoned professional, or someone seeking a career change, Jobbguru provides you with the tools and resources to navigate the job market with ease. 

Take the next step in your career with Jobbguru:

Don't let the perfect job opportunity pass you by. Join Jobbguru today and unlock a world of career possibilities. Start your journey towards professional success and discover your dream job with Jobbguru.

Originally posted on: https://abovethelaw.com/2022/12/jan-6-committee-tells-special-counsel-jack-smith-to-lock-him-up/