|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
BY THE PROFESSOR
TRUENEWSBLOG – In an historic testimony, top Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson offered jaw-dropping new details about Donald Trump’s increasingly manic rage and chief of staff Mark Meadows’ inaction in the days and hours leading up to the violent Capitol attack.
The testimony painted the picture of “advanced awareness” inside the White House about what was to come on Jan. 6, according to Donald Ayer, who served as the No. 2 Justice Department official under President George H.W. Bush.
Today’s hearing, shows Trump running roughshod over his own people, his own appointees who are saying, “Don’t do this.”
All this stuff that Trump does, there’s no mistaking what he was trying to do, and there’s no mistaking that it was his intent.
He did it in the face of the fact that at least dozens of people in different ways and settings were saying, “Don’t do that. That’s a terrible thing. Don’t do it.”
The bottom line is the case for prosecution of Trump is getting stronger and stronger. It’s really extraordinary to think of this pattern of conduct that he engaged in and the persistence of it over an extended period.
That said, we all have to wait until the evidence is in, and respect the decision of the Justice Department based on the whole picture.
Another important contribution of today had to do with some pretty specific information about Meadows’ role.
According to Hutchinson, he was aware on Jan. 2 about what was going to happen on Jan. 6, since he said to her then that things could get “real, real bad.”
And so he was aware of it, and yet she describes all of these interactions as the date approaches, and on Jan. 6 — and as she is periodically raising concerns with him — he’s passive.
He’s not focused on the problem. He’s staring at his phone. He won’t look up. He slams the door of the car, so she can’t talk to him.
Meadows is someone who seems to have been close in on the planning. We don’t have evidence about exactly what he knew, but Giuliani’s reference on Jan. 2 that an incredible thing was going to happen on Jan. 6 suggests that there was awareness at that level of this whole plan. You’ve got to think Meadows could have been involved in it. So prosecution of him could be another real possibility.
Should Garland INDICT Trump?
That’s his job. He’s the one whose judgment we are entitled to have. And he’s an excellent prosecutor, who prosecuted the Oklahoma City bombing case. I trust his judgment.
But Departmental guidelines say don’t bring a case if you don’t think you can probably convict. And that’s especially true if you’re going to prosecute a former president.
But the guidelines are also
clear about how to assess the importance of going forward with a case.
First, the guidelines say to consider the nature of the conduct engaged in and how serious it is. You couldn’t have a more serious offense than someone trying in such a concerted way to overturn our democratic electoral process — it gets a 10 out of 10.
The second key point in the guidelines is whether and how much deterrence of such conduct matters. Here, we have people all over the country conspiring to do this again. If he just walks away after this behavior, after what he’s done, the message goes out to scoundrels all over America that we’re not really ready to stand up to this. Deterrence is critical to our future in the next few years.
The next key element in the guidelines looks at the culpability of the individual. So again, today, we are hearing that Trump was the active agent with regard to virtually everything that happened, so his culpability is just through the roof. I think all of those considerations will be very much on Garland’s mind when he has to make the judgment whether to file charges.
