Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe: Donald Trump could be charged with attempted murder

[jserraglio]

The Miami Standard

News Staff

Laurence Tribe: Donald Trump Attempted to Murder Vice President Pence

Harvard Law professor emeritus Laurence Tribe said Thursday on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” that former President Donald Trump attempted to murder Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021.

Burnett asked, “From everything you have seen so far, including the hearing today that focused so much on Trump causing violence against Pence, do you believe the committee has proven that Trump himself knowingly committed crimes?”

Tribe said, “Without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt, and the crimes are obvious. The most obvious was that he was ordering his vice-president to do what everyone in the room knew would be illegal, namely, exercise power to pick the next president. It would be very convenient if Al Gore could have picked himself as the next president in 2000, very convenient if Richard Nixon could have done it in 1960.”

He continued, “Ordering your vice-president to violate the law in order to stay in power is a very serious federal crime, but there are other crimes as well. One that occurred to several people today is attempted murder. You know, under the criminal code of the United States, the attempted murder of the vice-president is punishable by life imprisonment. What we saw with the president egging the crowd on, telling them that, basically, his own vice-president was a traitor while he knew that the mob had gallows waiting for him, that’s pretty serious stuff. You don’t have to go to law school to know that there’s something seriously criminal about that. There are other crimes that have been proven. Those are plenty to start with.”

[maestrob]

LOCK HIM UP!

[jserraglio]

Prof. Larry Tribe has been the only one with the cojones to say it but it explains a lot.

If Pence could have been murdered or incapacitated, what benefit would’ve accrued to The Donald?

Here’s one. In that event, Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), the then president pro tempore of the Senate would’ve succeeded V.P. Pence as president of the Senate and could have done what Pence adamantly refused to do—rejected the vote count and thrown the election to The Donald.

So Donald had a clear motive to conspire to put Pence out of commission — for permanently.

I.E., conspiracy to commit murder. Of course, Trump, as an ex President, will never be charged with that crime even if there were enough evidence right now to support an indictment. Tribe said as much in his interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett which I watched. Burnett looked shocked by his accusing a former president of attempted murder and said so on air.

[maestrob]

Prof. Larry Tribe has been the only one with the cojones to say it but it explains a lot.

If Pence could have been murdered or incapacitated, what benefit would’ve accrued to The Donald?

Here’s one. In that event, Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), the then president pro tempore of the Senate would’ve succeeded V.P. Pence as president of the Senate and could have done what Pence adamantly refused to do—rejected the vote count and thrown the election to The Donald.

So Donald had a clear motive to conspire to put Pence out of commission — for permanently.

I.E., conspiracy to commit murder. Of course, Trump, as an ex President, will never be charged with that crime even if there were enough evidence right now to support an indictment. Tribe said as much in his interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett which I watched. Burnett looked shocked by his accusing a former president of attempted murder and said so on air.

Nevertheless, justice must be served.

I, for one, will not be fully satisfied until the former guy is behind bars.

While I am not a historian, I don't believe any other president in our history has even come close to this kind of criminality.

[barney]

Prof. Larry Tribe has been the only one with the cojones to say it but it explains a lot.

If Pence could have been murdered or incapacitated, what benefit would’ve accrued to The Donald?

Here’s one. In that event, Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), the then president pro tempore of the Senate would’ve succeeded V.P. Pence as president of the Senate and could have done what Pence adamantly refused to do—rejected the vote count and thrown the election to The Donald.

So Donald had a clear motive to conspire to put Pence out of commission — for permanently.

I.E., conspiracy to commit murder. Of course, Trump, as an ex President, will never be charged with that crime even if there were enough evidence right now to support an indictment. Tribe said as much in his interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett which I watched. Burnett looked shocked by his accusing a former president of attempted murder and said so on air.

Nevertheless, justice must be served.

I, for one, will not be fully satisfied until the former guy is behind bars.

While I am not a historian, I don't believe any other president in our history has even come close to this kind of criminality.

There's a couple of 19th century Democrats who were pretty appalling, but, Brian, I think you are 100 % correct.

[Rach3]

Here’s one. In that event, Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), the then president pro tempore of the Senate would’ve succeeded V.P. Pence as president of the Senate and could have done what Pence adamantly refused to do—rejected the vote count and thrown the election to The Donald.

And Trump-suckup,coward Grassley had commented before Jan.6 he was not sure how he felt about the electoral challenges or what Grassley as presiding officer might do if Pence were unavailable for some reason. The Secret Service ( perhaps at Trump's orders ? ) tried to take Pence away from the Capitol as the assault was occurring, but Pence refused to leave, why he refused I'm not sure ever reported, although perhaps because his family was still there (?).Let us recall Pence had to ask Dan Quayle (!) for advice what to do just prior to Jan.6, Pence still looking for a way to appease Trump.

[jserraglio]

If Pence were to testify, he could nail the Donald for permanently but it would cost him the 2024 nomination.

So he won’t.

It seems clear, though, why Pence refused to abandon his post in the Senate. Grassley would’ve been designated to replace him.

[Rach3]

https://www.businessinsider.com/photos- ... -results-5

[jserraglio]

Prosecuting Trump? Not an easy task for Merrick Garland
NYT Op-Ed
June 20
By Jack Goldsmith

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a co-author of “After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency.” Mr. Goldsmith served in the George W. Bush administration as an assistant attorney general, office of legal counsel, and as special counsel to the general counsel of the Department of Defense.

The evidence gathered by the Jan. 6 committee and in some of the federal cases against those involved in the Capitol attack pose for Attorney General Merrick Garland one of the most consequential questions that any attorney general has ever faced: Should the United States indict former President Donald Trump?

The basic allegations against Mr. Trump are well known. In disregard of advice by many of his closest aides, including Attorney General William Barr, he falsely claimed that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent and stolen; he pressured Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count certified electoral votes for Joe Biden during the electoral count in Congress on Jan. 6; and he riled up a mob, directed it to the Capitol and refused for a time to take steps to stop the ensuing violence.

To indict Mr. Trump for these and other acts, Mr. Garland must make three decisions, each more difficult than the previous, and none of which has an obvious answer.

First, he must determine whether the decision to indict Mr. Trump is his to make. If Mr. Garland decides that a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump is warranted, Justice Department regulations require him to appoint a special counsel if the investigation presents a conflict of interest for the department and if Mr. Garland believes such an appointment would be in the public interest.

The department arguably faces a conflict of interest. Mr. Trump is a political adversary of Mr. Garland’s boss, President Biden. Mr. Trump is also Mr. Biden’s likeliest political opponent in the 2024 presidential election. Mr. Garland’s judgments impact the political fate of Mr. Biden and his own possible tenure in office. The appearance of a conflict sharpened when Mr. Biden reportedly told his inner circle that Mr. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, and complained about Mr. Garland’s dawdling on the matter.

Even if conflicted, Mr. Garland could keep full control over Mr. Trump’s legal fate if he believes that a special counsel would not serve the public interest. Some will argue that the public interest in a fair-minded prosecution would best be served by appointment of a quasi-independent special counsel, perhaps one who is a member of Mr. Trump’s party.

But no matter who leads it, a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump would occur in a polarized political environment and overheated media environment. In this context, Mr. Garland could legitimately conclude that the public interest demands that the Trump matter be guided by the politically accountable person whom the Senate confirmed in 2021 by a vote of 70-30.

If Mr. Garland opens a Trump investigation and keeps the case — decisions he might already have made — the second issue is whether he has adequate evidence to indict Mr. Trump. The basic question here is whether, in the words of Justice Department guidelines, Mr. Trump’s acts constitute a federal offense and “the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”

These will be hard conclusions for Mr. Garland to reach. He would have to believe that the department could probably convince a unanimous jury that Mr. Trump committed crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Garland cannot rest this judgment on the Jan. 6 committee’s one-sided factual recitations or legal contentions. Nor can he put much stock in a ruling by a federal judge who, in a civil subpoena dispute — a process that requires a significantly lower standard of proof to prevail than in a criminal trial — concluded that Mr. Trump (who was not represented) “more likely than not” committed a crime related to Jan. 6.

Instead, Mr. Garland must assess how any charges against Mr. Trump would fare in an adversarial criminal proceeding administered by an independent judge, where Mr. Trump’s lawyers will contest the government’s factual and legal contentions, tell his side of events, raise many defenses and appeal every important adverse legal decision to the Supreme Court.

The two most frequently mentioned crimes Mr. Trump may have committed are the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding (the Jan. 6 vote count) and conspiracy to defraud the United States (in working to overturn election results). Many have noted that Mr. Trump can plausibly defend these charges by arguing that he lacked criminal intent because he truly believed that massive voter fraud had taken place.

Mr. Trump would also claim that key elements of his supposedly criminal actions — his interpretations of the law, his pressure on Mr. Pence, his delay in responding to the Capitol breach and more — were exercises of his constitutional prerogatives as chief executive. Mr. Garland would need to assess how these legally powerful claims inform the applicability of criminal laws to Mr. Trump’s actions in what would be the first criminal trial of a president. He would also consider the adverse implications of a Trump prosecution for more virtuous future presidents.

If Mr. Garland concludes that Mr. Trump has committed convictable crimes, he would face the third and hardest decision: whether the national interest would be served by prosecuting Mr. Trump. This is not a question that lawyerly analysis alone can resolve. It is a judgment call about the nature, and fate, of our democracy.

A failure to indict Mr. Trump in these circumstances would imply that a president — who cannot be indicted while in office — is literally above the law, in defiance of the very notion of constitutional government. It would encourage lawlessness by future presidents, none more so than Mr. Trump should he win the next election. By contrast, the rule of law would be vindicated by a Trump conviction. And it might be enhanced by a full judicial airing of Mr. Trump’s possible crimes in office, even if it ultimately fails.

And yet Mr. Garland cannot be sanguine that a Trump prosecution would promote national reconciliation or enhance confidence in American justice. Indicting a past and possible future political adversary of the current president would be a cataclysmic event from which the nation would not soon recover. It would be seen by many as politicized retribution. The prosecution would take many years to conclude; would last through, and deeply impact, the next election; and would leave Mr. Trump’s ultimate fate to the next administration, which could be headed by Mr. Trump.

Along the way, the prosecution would further enflame our already-blazing partisan acrimony; consume the rest of Mr. Biden’s term; embolden, and possibly politically enhance, Mr. Trump; and threaten to set off tit-for-tat recriminations across presidential administrations. The prosecution thus might jeopardize Mr. Garland’s cherished aim to restore norms of Justice Department “independence and integrity” even if he prosecutes Mr. Trump in the service of those norms. And if the prosecution fails, many will conclude that the country and the rule of law suffered tremendous pain for naught.

Mr. Garland’s decisions will be deeply controversial and have consequences beyond his lifetime. It is easy to understand, contrary to his many critics, why he is gathering as much information as possible — including what has emerged from the Jan. 6 committee and the prosecution of the higher-ups involved in the Capitol breach — before making these momentous judgments.

[Ricordanza]

Excellent Op-Ed by Jack Goldsmith. While I believe that Trump is guilty of crimes and, in an ideal world, should be punished for those crimes, my instincts tell me that a prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department would do more harm than good. Goldsmith's Op-Ed spells out those harms in a cogent and comprehensive manner:

And yet Mr. Garland cannot be sanguine that a Trump prosecution would promote national reconciliation or enhance confidence in American justice. Indicting a past and possible future political adversary of the current president would be a cataclysmic event from which the nation would not soon recover. It would be seen by many as politicized retribution. The prosecution would take many years to conclude; would last through, and deeply impact, the next election; and would leave Mr. Trump’s ultimate fate to the next administration, which could be headed by Mr. Trump.

Along the way, the prosecution would further enflame our already-blazing partisan acrimony; consume the rest of Mr. Biden’s term; embolden, and possibly politically enhance, Mr. Trump; and threaten to set off tit-for-tat recriminations across presidential administrations. The prosecution thus might jeopardize Mr. Garland’s cherished aim to restore norms of Justice Department “independence and integrity” even if he prosecutes Mr. Trump in the service of those norms. And if the prosecution fails, many will conclude that the country and the rule of law suffered tremendous pain for naught.

So what's the answer? A prosecution by the State of Georgia ("Find me 11,780 votes") would avoid some of those pitfalls. But the real answer is in the political arena, not the judicial arena: Defeat Trump AND Trumpism through the political process.

[maestrob]

So what's the answer? A prosecution by the State of Georgia ("Find me 11,780 votes") would avoid some of those pitfalls. But the real answer is in the political arena, not the judicial arena: Defeat Trump AND Trumpism through the political process.

Hank, I don't believe that it's an either/or situation. I hold the firm belief that both are possible at the same time.

The ramifications of not prosecuting the former guy send real chills up my spine. No one is above the law, and I believe this must be made clear. The reason that we are in this mess today starts with President Ford pardoning Nixon, an action that may have cost him re-election. Ever since, Republican presidents (Reagan, W. Bush and DJT) have challenged the law, with the only exception being H. W. Bush who presided over the economic mess created by Reagan's deregulation of savings banks.

I for one will not be satisfied until the former guy is behind bars. AT the moment, according to a recent poll from CNN, 58% of Americans agree with me, btw. Hell, he incited a mob to kill Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi! Can we really just sweep that under the carpet?

I think not.

Chill in spine begone!

<no response>

[Rach3]

So what's the answer? A prosecution by the State of Georgia ("Find me 11,780 votes") would avoid some of those pitfalls. But the real answer is in the political arena, not the judicial arena: Defeat Trump AND Trumpism through the political process.

Very good point.There will be armed violence if Trump is indicted, and the armed forces would have to protect the trial courthouse and families of judges and prosecutors.

Unfortunately, it is Trump and his crazies who have brought us to this reality, and there appear no cooler heads among the GOP or Right or among much of the electorate interested in doing anything in opposition or accountability.Not to prosecute at this point may be akin to deciding not to declare independence in 1776,not to oppose secession in 1861, and not to enforce Brown and not pass the 1965 Civil Rights Act , all of which acts actually taken had serious consequences as well.

We invaded Iraq , a criminal act for which neither Cheney nor Bush were penalized.After the 2022 midterms, there may no remaining, workable political solutions, and emboldened Trumpists heading to 2024.

If the forces of evil now running rampant in the Country are likely to prevail in the face of inaction , an argument can be made the forces of good should not go down without a fight,damning the torpedos.

[barney]

I don't see how you can possibly trust political forces. You may well end up with a fascist form of government. Of course, I am utterly even-handed in my political appreciation, which is precisely why I can say categorically that Trump supporters are vile (joke!).

But I suggest this has to be a legal process, and if it is a drawn out process I don't see how Trump can run in 2024. So Garland has to stand up. Not at all confident he will.

[jserraglio]

Much as I would like to see Donald consigned to ADX Florence for the rest of his days to think on his sins, I predict the DOJ will not indict him, at least not before the 2024 elections are over. And if he (or his designee) runs and wins, he will never be held accountable.

[Rach3]

I don't see how you can possibly trust political forces.

From NYT today ( part of article):

" The Republican Party in Texas made a series of far-right declarations as part of its official party platform over the weekend, claiming that President Biden was not legitimately elected, issuing a “rebuke” to Senator John Cornyn for his work on bipartisan gun legislation and referring to homosexuality as “an abnormal lifestyle choice."

https://tinyurl.com/4f6sr6pb

( There is no reasoning with these Fascists,anymore than there was at Munich in 1938.)

[Ricordanza]

But I suggest this has to be a legal process, and if it is a drawn out process I don't see how Trump can run in 2024.

If Trump is indicted and awaiting trial, there is nothing legally OR POLITICALLY preventing him from running in 2024. Remember his famous comment in 2016 about shooting someone on 5th Avenue and still receiving support. That was and is an accurate statement about his own outlook and his supporters' blind loyalty.

[jserraglio]

But I suggest this has to be a legal process, and if it is a drawn out process I don't see how Trump can run in 2024.

If Trump is indicted and awaiting trial, there is nothing legally OR POLITICALLY preventing him from running in 2024. Remember his famous comment in 2016 about shooting someone on 5th Avenue and still receiving support. That was and is an accurate statement about his own outlook and his supporters' blind loyalty.

Right, and in advance of his reelection, Donald is already issuing pardons to the Deplorables of Jan 6.

[maestrob]

But I suggest this has to be a legal process, and if it is a drawn out process I don't see how Trump can run in 2024.

If Trump is indicted and awaiting trial, there is nothing legally OR POLITICALLY preventing him from running in 2024. Remember his famous comment in 2016 about shooting someone on 5th Avenue and still receiving support. That was and is an accurate statement about his own outlook and his supporters' blind loyalty.

Right, and in advance of his reelection, Donald is already issuing pardons to the Deplorables of Jan 6.

And by doing so is working to end the rule of law in the USA.

[Rach3]

Or manslaughter:

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi ... d-n1297314