Convincing case of seditious Trump plot is only two or three facts away

This site has reported – repeatedly – that there are very few crimes that punish someone for “not doing something”, and the crimes that do exist almost always involve children and vulnerable adults. We keep hearing about Trump sitting and watching the insurgency for 187 minutes as if it was a crime in itself. This would be the case if Trump were in the military, where dereliction of duty is a crime. Unfortunately, as we all know, our army is under civilian leadership. We could impeach Trump for dereliction of duty, but not indict him.

But the “187 minutes” are important. Indeed, it is essential, as Boston lawyer James Doyle for The Crime Report writes. All crimes require some sort of proof of state of mind (there are a few exceptions, status rape being one of them, Matt Gaetz!). The 187 minutes goes a long way to prove that Trump wanted the crowd to interfere with Congress in a way that would overturn the election. In other words, the 187 minutes help prove he was about to stop Congress from doing its job.

Doyle states the targeted crime:

The Federal Crime of Seditious Conspiracy is stated in 18 United States Code §2384. In the relevant part, it indicates that:

If two or more people. . . conspire. . . by force to prevent, obstruct or delay the enforcement of any law of the United States. . . they will each be liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both.

This site hates to be repetitive, but given that it is possibly the most significant pursuit in the nation’s history, some leeway can be forgiven. The keyword is conspiracy and when it comes to Trump conspiring in this crime, you look straight at two places, the people around him at the Ellipse Speech (and its overriding purpose) and the people in the halls. War of the Willard Hotel, where Peter Navarro and Steven Bannon were leading “Operation Green Bay Sweep”. (For god’s sake, they even named the plan something that sounds like they want to hear insurgents to “sweep” all lawmakers off Capitol Hill, throwing the whole thing beyond the Constitution).

Doyle exposes a similar (if not identical) dynamic to the one we published:

A prosecutor could also choose to investigate and present to a grand jury of citizens a simplified case limited to Trump and his entourage.

A prosecutor could do it in a day. Half the evidence you need is on video; the other half is available in published texts, memoirs and interviews.

In doing so, you would be launching a criminal case hostile to the series of interlocutory appeals and grueling collateral litigation that have characterized Congressional inquiries and civil lawsuits attacking Trump’s actions over the years.

Calls? OK SR, there would be double-digit calls, that’s not the point. The point is the attempt to hold him accountable. It’s highly unlikely that Trump will ever see a jail cell, but that doesn’t make a ‘nothing’ conviction.

From this point on, Doyle begins to wonder if it’s worth chasing and Garland’s wrong direction (which we also talked about here) to start at the bottom of the pyramid and work your way up. Yes, that’s how you prosecute a drug ring, but not if the guy at the top committed the ultimate crime on TV and a phone call or two that someone is testifying to.

As the elements are laid out above, all one needs is a deal (Trump agrees that’s a good idea), with Trump doing an act – however small, like making a speech telling people to fight, fight, or a call to the War Room to see how it goes, then the attempt to stop the government, which happened live on television in front of our faces. The case is done, the appeals and everything.

There is another element to a conspiracy case that everyone should be aware of. You can’t finish a criminal law course in law school without hearing over and over again that “conspiracy” is a powerful tool in the prosecutor’s arsenal. “Why?” Because you can introduce hearsay evidence. “Hearsay” is an element of the crime of conspiracy. (eg “And what did Trump say when you suggested lighting fires outside the Capitol?”) Normally, this question is ignored; “Objection, hearsay.” In a conspiracy, this is proof.

Doyle pulls out his article in the wilderness where he wonders if it’s worth charging a president, and if Garland and Biden make a mistake in believing that Trump is too small, too dumb, his worst enemy and not worth the trouble. to be continued. All it takes is one MAGA in the jury to ruin everything.

No, it’s worth it. From time to time, prosecutors will bring people to trial even if they are not sure they have the necessary admissible evidence. (They are sure he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). But a prosecutor may decide to go to trial because “this guy’s past behavior warrants taking him to trial to at least hold him somewhat accountable for these continuing actions.”

Trump must be charged and either strike a deal or at least stand trial once in his life, in order to have to directly face a criminal charge with his name on the cover page. At the very least, that might make him a little more careful next time around.

But to come back to our thesis, a crime has been committed, no doubt. Congress has been attacked. Trump sat for 187 minutes, which is powerful proof that he wanted this crime to happen. All that needs to be proven is that Trump knew something ‘like this’ was planned to stop Congress and agreed to do his part, whether it was by giving a speech or refusing to call some sort. Support.

In any other context, this would be a fairly easy chase and one that would certainly be start at the top, not with the guy who threw a brick out the window.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight + 13 =