Reader Ken sent me some timely news. Now I’m not sure i the House recommendations will influence the Department of Justice, which will be making its own decisions, but they can’t hurt. What do you think they’ll do? Will they recommend indicting the Orange Man? I think so. Here’s what Ken wrote:
The final hearing of the Jan. 6th house special committee starts at 1 pm Eastern today. The committee will be delivering the executive summary of its final report and making criminal and ethical referrals as to the key miscreants.It will be live streamed on PBS; watch below, or watch at C-Span here.
Surely, even if you’re working, you’ll want to have this on in the background.
14 thoughts on “Beginning NOW: House committee holds final hearing on January 6 insurrection, and will recommend sanctions. Watch live here.”
I expect that today’s referrals will have little (if any) impact on the criminal investigation of this matter being conducted by Special Counsel Jack Smith and the US Department of Justice. Today’s proceeding was more in the nature of a public-education announcement (or, perhaps, a public-relations announcement, if one takes a more partisan view of the committee’s proceedings).
I think that the J6 committee’s referral on the charge of inciting an insurrection is a stretch, given the exacting First Amendment free-speech standards pertaining to criminal “incitement” under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), and given the cover-his-ass statement about marching to the Capitol “peacefully” in the prepared text Trump read from the teleprompter at the rally on the Ellipse on January 6, 2021.
OTOH, the other three crimes upon which referral against Trump were made appear well-taken. Indeed, it is difficult to see what viable defense Trump might mount to those charges.
Nevertheless, given the relative factual complexity surrounding the other three potential charges stemming from Trump’s efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, I expect that Trump will be indicted first on charges arising from his theft of presidential records and spiriting those records away to Mar-a-Lago (and, perhaps, elsewhere). Trump’s lack of a viable defense to those charges is even more glaringly obvious.
Merrick Garland seems to think an ex-president should not be indicted or prosecuted for anything. If anyone else had stolen classified documents, the DOJ would have moved swiftly. Trump even said he took them….but nothing from the DOJ. So I’m not holding my breath regarding charges about trying to overturn the election, impede a government function, or incite an insurrection.
Besides just the plain grifter/scam aspect, I think the virtual cards may actually be laying the foundation of an insanity defense.
Headline on The Federalist: “J6 Committee Asks Justice Department To Neutralize Political Opponents With Criminal Prosecution.” The real test will be the Republican counter-report (which in a proper committee would be the minority report). If they can make a compelling argument that the J6 Committee is a one-sided view of the matter, DOJ might not want to pursue actual indictments.
Given the testimony of the Trump insiders, how could it be considered “one-sided”?
What you call a “proper committee” was the Republicans for the asking. Hell, Republicans had the opportunity to do even better than that with a completely bipartisan commission — comprising 10 independent commissioners, with an equal number nominated by Republicans and by Democrats, equal numbers of staff, and with equal subpoena power for bother sides — under the precise terms House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy’s designated negotiator (Homeland Security Committee ranking Republican, Rep John Katko) reached with Homeland Security chairman Benny Thompson, but McCarthy reneged on the deal after having been summonsed to Mar-a-Lago and having his pussy grabbed by Donald Trump (because Trump is a star and McCarthy just let him).
In any event, Special Counsel Jack Smith and Merrick Garland’s Justice Department will make their prosecutorial decisions in this matter based solely on the facts and the law (as set forth in the Justice Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution), without regard to congressional politics, one way or the other.
In response to DrBrydon at #4.
You forgot to ask for the return of the platter.
The J6 committee’s work is significant for the historical record, at the least. I’m grateful for at least that much.
I don’t expect Trump to ever see the inside of a jail, but others will. Maybe they can at least prevent him running again.
Some want to prevent him from running. Others want to prevent him from standing. They all want to prevent him from lying. I don’t think this is working out for the poor chap.
One can especially hope that this steady erosion will soon break the spell that the Orange One has held on the Republican party. One thing they can do on occasion is pivot (with amazing displays of amnesia) and look forward.
So far everyone who’s been charged for the 1/6/21 United States Capital riot hasn’t been charged with the crime of insurrection
Are you familiar with the US Code? Do you have any idea what “insurrection” is per the USC? Or, how about “seditious conspiracy?”
The following explanations of these crimes are from the articleUnderstanding Insurrection and Sedition at the Center for Strategic and International Studies website.
Note the similarities of these two crimes and that Seditious Conspiracy carries a maximum prison sentence twice that of Insurrection.
From the article Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack at Wikipedia . . .
In addition to those 3, at least 5 others have also been indicted for seditious conspiracy. Given your pointed use of “riot” and your “gotcha” statement that no one has been charged with insurrection it seems to me that whatever sources you deem reliable have lied to you. If I were you that would piss me off (US usage).
A much needed reply. Thanks.