Hmmmmm?
A legal direction for Garland an Co. to think about, if they haven’t already, from Andrew Weissmann,
who worked with Robert Mueller to get impeachment (indictment) against Trump……
In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.[1] Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offense). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability (unless, in some cases, it occurs before the parties have committed overt acts) but may reduce their sentence….
Actually?
This COULD be a better way to go….
It would involve a MUCH Bigger case…
But it take less of effort to convict….
Based on what we know?
Donald Trump and other’s mere utterance’s , not just for Jan.6, but for actions before, afterwards, and could be enough for a jury conviction of him and his co- conspirators ….
But?
This WOULD be a BIG DEAL.….
Weissmann does point out that right now?
Trump IS getting an advance in that the House Select Committee and the Justice Department are at odds on the evidence they both have…
It is NOT known if Attorney General garland is indeed going to pursue a criminal case against the f0rmer President, which IS the aim of the committee….
The hearings should inspire the Justice Department to rethink its approach: A myopic focus on the Jan. 6 riot is not the way to proceed if you are trying to follow the facts where they lead and to hold people “at any level” criminally accountable, as Attorney General Merrick Garland promised.
The evidence gathered in the hearings describes a multiprong conspiracy — what prosecutors term a hub and spoke conspiracy — in which the Ellipse speech by President Trump and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol were just one “spoke” of a grander scheme.
This broader approach would avoid the thorny debate that has emerged as to whether Mr. Trump could be criminally culpable for inciting the riot during his Ellipse speech or if, on the contrary, his speech is protected under the First Amendment and the evidence too ambiguous to justify the extraordinary step of indicting a former president. Building a criminal case that looks solely at the riot itself is far more complex legally and factually for those who weren’t at or in the Capitol. These challenges of the current bottom-up approach have led to criticism of the slow pace of the narrow Justice Department approach.
Instead, what the hearings have revealed is evidence of a plot orchestrated by Mr. Trump and his allies in the White House and elsewhere — including players from the Mueller investigation like Roger Stone, Michael Flynn and Rudy Giuliani as well as new players like Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman. The “spoke” of the Jan. 6 riot should be seen and investigated simultaneously with the other “spokes”: orchestrating fake electors in key states, pressuring state officials like those in Georgia to find new votes, plotting to behead the leadership of the Justice Department to promote a lackey who would further the conspiracy by announcing a spurious investigation into election fraud, and pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to violate the law.
Investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection in the context of the other means by which Mr. Trump appears to have sought to undermine the transfer of power serves to strengthen any future case by presenting the complete evidence of the perpetrators’ actions and intent. And it undermines possible defenses….
image…NY Times
Maddow Blog
@MaddowBlog
NEW: May 25, 2022 Merrick Garland memo to DOJ on “election year sensitivities” doubles down on Barr’s policy against investigating candidates without approval.
Maddow Blog
@MaddowBlog
We’ve posted the memo here: https://documentcloud.org/documents/22089098-attorney-general-memorandum-election-year-sensitivities…
(With a link on http://MaddowBlog.com if you lose track of this tweet)