Analysis: The damning case against Donald Trump that the House committee uncovered

The primetime finale of the compelling and highly produced television saga, otherwise known as Thursday’s January 6 House Hearings, featured a presidential dereliction of duty horror show and a promise to return with even more damaging evidence against Donald. Trump in September.

At the start of this summer’s hearings, the select committee faced questions critical to its credibility and its prospects of being one of the few investigative processes to hold Trump accountable.

• Was there anything new to add to the well-known story of January 6, 2021 – a day of infamy in US history when Americans watched a coup attempt in real time?
• Could it penetrate Trump’s West Wing and thwart the former president and House Republicans’ attempts to cover up their attack on the American tradition of free elections and peaceful transfers of power?
• Can it prove that the events following the 2020 election and the subsequent riot at the US Capitol were knowingly orchestrated by Trump?
• And could it then use that evidence to show criminal intent that could lead to the Justice Department prosecuting the former president?
• With Trump eager to launch a new campaign that would test US institutions like never before, could the committee further shift public opinion against a lawless, autocratic former president who remains a threat to democracy?

The committee comprehensively answered at least the first three questions and made progress on the other two.

He also embroidered a broader narrative of an out-of-control president who placed his own fanciful belief that he won an election above more than two centuries of democratic tradition and national interest. And, most frighteningly, a case is advancing – in the words of a key witness, retired Conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig – that Trump remains “a clear and present danger” to US democracy.

As committee vice chair Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming, put it after Thursday’s extraordinary hearing: “Every American should consider this: a president who made the choices Donald Trump made during the violence of Jan. can he be trusted with any position of authority in our great nation again?

Audiences painted a far more detailed and horrifying picture of the Capitol insurrection than ever before. He received critical testimony from former White House adviser Pat Cipollone.

Some of Trump’s younger aides, like Cassidy Hutchinson, who worked for former chief of staff Mark Meadows, showed great courage to tell the truth — shaming years of appeasement of the aberrant former president by far more important Republicans and leading others to introduce themselves. with evidence.

This evidence exposed a direct and dominant role for Trump in discrediting the 2020 election, making a false case that he won it, and the cascade of events that led to the worst attack on the US Capitol in over 200 years.

What the committee established

Hearings can be compared to an indictment in a courtroom, with evidence from various documentary sources interspersed with videotaped depositions and live depositions from the most convincing witnesses.

Cheney often opened hearings with a summary for the public using language like “You’ll hear like former President Trump …” as if she were a lawyer addressing a jury, in this case the one at home.
That’s what the committee has established so far.

• The insurrection was carnage, not the over-the-top protest described by Trump allies. Never-before-seen film footage from outside and inside the Capitol showed the Trump crowd smashing windows, fighting security agents and seeking revenge on then-Vice President Mike Pence for failing to prevent President Joe Biden from winning the election. Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards testified about a “war scene”, adding, “I was slipping on people’s blood.”
• Trump was repeatedly told he had lost the election by campaign advisers, officials and lawyers, but he persisted in his lies and attempts to steal power.
• These allegations of fraud were “idiotic” and lacking in evidence, according to several witnesses, including Trump’s former attorney general, William Barr.
• Trump has put extreme pressure on Republican officials in key swing states to overturn the election — like Arizona Republican House Speaker Rusty Bowers, who testified that he chose the Constitution over politics. Georgia election officials Wandrea “Shaye” Moss and her mother Ruby Freeman said Trump’s intimidation campaign made them afraid to leave their homes.
• Trump was personally involved in schemes to get Pence to overturn the congressional election – a power the vice president lacked – and create fake voter lists to steal Biden’s statewide victories.
• According to witness testimony, Trump thought that Pence, rushed by the Secret Service when protesters broke in, heeded calls for him to be hanged. The danger for Pence was real – the crowd came within 12 meters of him. A committee witness, whose identity has been obscured, testified in a recording on Thursday that members of Pence’s team genuinely feared they would be killed.
• Protesters testified that they came to Washington because Trump asked. The former president incited the crowd at his rally on Elipse, and he knew the crowd members were armed, but he urged them to march on Capitol Hill anyway. In fact, he would have gone there himself if the Secret Service had allowed it.
• Trump didn’t just watch the chaos on television; he expressly refused to fulfill his duty as president to protect the Capitol and democracy. And he further incited the crowd with a tweet.

How the committee did it

It is only fitting that a president who won office in part because of the image he created on a TV show and whose tenure played out as an unhinged daily reality show sees his conduct gutted in a new kind of congressional investigation that feels more like a drama. broadcast than to the harsh Capitol Hill audience.

The committee recruited experienced TV producers to shape its ratings – two of which took place in prime time. The committee members who conducted each session worked from a script, as clips of witness statements were interspersed with other evidence, such as Capitol Police radio traffic, clips of violence, texts by former White House officials, and depositions. Live.

While key figures like Meadows and other close aides to Trump have tried to stop the committee, he has used classic investigative techniques to piece the story together. People within Trump’s inner orbit who were reticent to speak out were put under oath, including his daughter Ivanka, son-in-law Jared Kushner and senior White House officials. Week by week, the shocking video paid off. More people inside the West Wing on January 6, 2021 came forward.

Hutchinson’s courage unleashed a wave of personal attacks from the Trump world. But that may only have opened a faucet for more testimonies and evidence. Cipollone seemed to balance his responsibilities as president and the doctrine of executive privilege with his duty to history and his own sense of right and wrong. In a compelling example of his testimony on Thursday, he left the blunt impression that everyone in the White House that day wanted the protesters to leave — except Trump.

In another effective technique, the committee criticized by pro-Trump Republicans as a partisan sham often used Republicans to argue against the former president. Crowd members said how they thought they were doing Trump’s wishes because of what he said. Republican Party officials such as Bowers and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger witnessed his abuses of power. On Thursday, the committee aired Fox footage showing the carnage Trump watched in real time.

What comes next?

At the beginning of these hearings, it seemed difficult that the committee could build a case with criminal implications for the former president. That could be changing. Some seasoned lawyers believe that the committee did indeed establish evidence of Trump’s intent to precipitate the horrendous events leading up to and on January 6 – an important component of any court case.

However, it is important to remember that, as effective as it is, the committee’s case is being made solely from the perspective of an indictment. The panel is able to select the most advantageous pieces of information for your case. There was no cross-examination of witnesses. Weaknesses or contradictions in your recollection or testimony were not brought about by a defense attorney.

Then there is the question of whether a possible indictment of Trump, as a former president, would be in the national interest – as it could rip even deeper partisan divisions in an already internally isolated nation. Setting a precedent that a former president may be liable to criminal prosecution can be dangerous as it could be misused by future commanders in chief to go after their predecessors. These questions could become even more so, as Trump may soon launch a presidential campaign that would make it easier for him to claim that the investigation against him is politically motivated.

However, the weight of evidence already unearthed by the committee raises an equally serious question. What message will it send to future generations if Trump escapes political and criminal responsibility for trying to incite a coup against the US government he is sworn to protect?

Attorney General Merrick Garland insisted this week that no one is above the law, sparking new speculation about the possibility of a Justice Department investigation and possible prosecution of Trump.

Harvard constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe believes the committee’s summer hearings made that outcome more likely.
“The committee, through witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson and through the testimony it took under oath, painted an extremely strong image of someone who… Thursday.

“I think the committee made it much easier to file a lawsuit in part because the people of the United States were better informed. You have to prepare people for something as unusual as the prosecution of a former president.”