Evidence is gathered that Trump may have broken federal laws.
Experts think that Trump could mount a strong defense.
The evidence presented by the committee supports their claims that Trump tried to stop the transfer of power.
The first disruption of the peaceful transfer of power in American history was the focus of the House select committee's investigation.
Now, with the committee half way through its hearings for June, another goal is coming into sharper focus: to painstakingly show why they believe former President Donald Trump violated several federal laws in the events leading up to the insurrection and its aftermath.
The committee explicitly stated that it has evidence to show that President Trump and his campaign staff engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Liz Cheney said in a video released by the committee that President Trump's advisors knew what he was saying was false.
The committee does not have the power to prosecute. It can make criminal referrals to the Justice Department, and it appears to be laying out a case that could hurt Trump's political standing, and possibly lead to a criminal case against him.
Five legal experts told Insider that the Justice Department could build a case against Trump but that he might have a strong legal defense.
The House select committee stated in a court filing that it has evidence that Trump and his campaign team violated a federal law by engaging in a criminal conspiracy.
Federal prosecutors would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the former president knowingly agreed with others to attempt to obstruct Congress's election certification process.
Each element of the crime is a challenge for prosecutors. The criminal intent, the mental state, and the culpable mind of the defendants are some of the charges.
It would strengthen the case if federal prosecutors got evidence that Trump privately acknowledged to a friend that he lost the election.
Insider was told by legal experts that the Justice Department's biggest challenge in prosecuting Trump would be to convince the public that he wasn't lying when he said election fraud didn't happen. The case won't hold up if the prosecutors can't prove that there was an intent to cheat.
The committee tried to show that there was no evidence of election fraud and that Trump broke the law by playing video testimonies of his former advisers. There is no evidence that Trump didn't believe the conspiracy theories.
The concept of willfully blind can be used against a person who tries to avoid or ignore facts that may implicate them. The approach was suggested by Barbara McQuade.
According to the House select committee, Trump violated another law when he tried to "obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding of the United States."
It is possible for prosecutors to make a case that he broke the law by telling his followers that the election was criminal and by trying to stop Congress from certifying it. Evidence of how Trump tried to force Georgia election officials to overturn the election results can be used by prosecutors.
According to a former federal prosecutor, this is the best legal argument they can make against Trump because they have a lot of evidence.
He said that the committee presented a lot of evidence that Donald Trump was told there was no election fraud, but he chose to reject that. The January 6 vote count was a proceeding.
According to legal experts, it is likely that Trump will face this charge if he is indicted.
More than 800 people have been arrested in relation to the attack on the Capitol. According to the Justice Department, more than 280 have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or interfering with an official proceeding.
During a hearing held on June 13, the House select committee revealed that Trump's campaign raised more than $250 million from his supporters and that he would use the money to challenge the election result. A new political action committee called "Save America" received money from the fund that never existed. The money from Trump's campaign was sent to pro- Trump organizations.
The Big Lie was also a big rip-off according to a member of the panel.
This evidence could be used to prove that Trump committed the crime of wire fraud by participating in a scheme to defraud individuals of money. Under federal law, wire fraud is committed when an individual invents or plans to invent a plan to defraud or obtain money through false or fraudulent pretenses and carries out the scheme by telephone call or electronic communication.
The Justice Department doesn't usually prosecute campaign solicitations as wire fraud.
"Because the people that have donated the money felt so strongly about Trump that they're not going to support the government prosecuting him, it's going to be hard to find victims to come forward."
Stephen Saltzburg was an associate independent counsel during the Iran-Contra investigation and was a former deputy attorney general.
Saltzburg is a law professor at George Washington University.
Salzburg said that Trump's defense attorneys could argue that the ads and emails did not say that his supporters would set up a separate account to fight the elections.
A lawyer close to Trump told Insider that most of the emails could be evidence of a campaign finance violation.
There's a lot of things to think about. Robert Ray is a former prosecutor who defended Trump in his first Senate trial.
The Federal Election Commission is a regulatory agency that enforces campaign finance law. Legal defense funds are not limited because they fall outside of typical campaign finance.
It is not likely that the former president will be charged with fraud even if his campaign sent misleading emails. According to legal experts, there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the Trump campaign's donations.
Adav Noti, vice president and legal director at the Campaign Legal Center, previously served as the Federal Election Commission's associate general counsel. It wouldn't be enough for criminal purposes to say 'Here's what happened.'
According to Insider, Trump could claim that he is not guilty of attempting to obstruct or impede a US official proceeding and was just following the advice of his legal adviser John Eastman.
He said it was difficult to convince a jury that someone was acting corruptly.
Legal experts think that Trump could plead not guilty by reason of insanity in order to avoid prosecution. William Barr testified that Trump had become detached from reality because of his belief that there was voter fraud. Other legal experts don't think this will happen.
"I don't think that assuming an indictment and a trial that Donald Trump would defend himself as insane or mentally deranged would be a good idea," he said. I think Trump would mostly defend himself. I won, he said. It was a good deal. Bad things can stop my inauguration.
Members of the Trump family have been interviewed by the House select committee. Several subpoenas have been issued, and thousands of documents have been reviewed. According to legal experts, the public hearings could put more pressure on the Justice Department to indict Trump.
Attorney General Garland told reporters earlier this week that he and the federal prosecutors were watching the congressional hearings.
Shannon Wu, a former federal prosecutor in Washington DC, told Insider that there are likely to be concerns within the Justice Department about charging the former president.
"He's worried that the case might open the DOJ to charges of being political, and I think that's what he's worried about."
If the former president is not charged, there could be worse consequences.
"If you don't try to hold Trump accountable, then you're really endangering the whole foundation of the country and the justice system, and that's why I'm against it," he said.
This report was contributed to by two people.
Business Insider has an article on it.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
