The Mercury News

Ultimately, only American people can repudiate Trump insurrecti­on

- By Harry Litman Harry Litman is the legal affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times. © 2022 Los Angeles Times. Distribute­d by Tribune Content Agency.

As the Jan. 6 committee continues to roll out an overwhelmi­ng case of corrupt conduct by Donald Trump, the calls grow louder for the Department of Justice to bring criminal charges against the former president.

Even if that happens, it would be a fundamenta­l mistake to view the department as the avenging angel that alone can restore accountabi­lity and truth to our deeply damaged politics. We are in a critical constituti­onal moment, and it is society as a whole that has to renounce Trump's lies and the democracy-destroying poison — and actions — that he and other Trumpists will inflict on the 2024 elections and have inflicted on state voting laws in the past year.

From everything we know, and especially from the evidence put on in the two hearings so far, the Justice Department appears to have the goods to indict Trump. As is widely recognized, the pivotal issue for criminal liability is Trump's state of mind: If he knew he lost the election, it would be straightfo­rward to show that several of his post-Election Day schemes were criminal.

At this point, there are several ways to focus a prosecutio­n.

First, with the mountainou­s evidence presented by the committee that Trump was told by nearly all the members of his circle that he had lost, a jury could simply choose not to believe his outlandish lie. For example, Trump began to propound the “big lie” before any votes actually came in. That suggests he was not deluded but rather determined to adopt a fantasy version that he knew was false from the beginning.

Second, prosecutor­s could rely on the legal concept of willful blindness, which is a form of knowledge under the law. If a jury were to find that Trump purposely hid his head in the sand in order not to know the truth, it could conclude that he had legally sufficient knowledge. And again, the evidence from several quarters, especially from the former Attorney General William Barr, that Trump did not want to hear any discussion of the facts of the election would support such a determinat­ion.

Finally, the intent issue doesn't turn in any way on Trump's belief, sincere or not, that he won the election. Even if Trump had so deeply drunk of his own KoolAid as to believe he won, the criminal intent in question is knowledge of the unlawful actions taken to stop Congress' electoral count on Jan. 6, 2021. He has not, nor has any ally, even attempted to suggest he was deluded there.

Just last week, before the first hearing, Trump called the attack on the Capitol by his supporters “the greatest movement” in U.S. history. If, as Rep. Liz Cheney argued at the hearing, he lit the flame of the insurrecti­on, he continues to this day to fan the fire, with toxic consequenc­es to society.

So criminal prosecutio­n may well be possible. But it would be a cardinal error to rely on federal prosecutor­s to pull the country out of the danger Trump has created for American democracy.

More than 100 Republican primary winners for state or congressio­nal offices, so far, have repeated Trump's lies about the stolen 2020 election, according to The Washington Post.

If the Justice Department were to charge Trump while a big share of the country remained in his thrall, conviction or no conviction, the process could tear the country further apart. It's easy enough to imagine, for example, (though it would have been unimaginab­le six years ago) that Trump would run for president from prison and simply ignore any court ruling to stand down.

More generally, the idea that Attorney General Merrick Garland can end the national political nightmare through prosecutio­n asks too much of prosecutor­s. We need to defend the rule of law and ensure that no one is above the law, but repairing the political damage done will depend on other instrument­s of democracy.

We have a right to expect Garland to make an apolitical prosecutor­ial decision on the merits — which will need to include the complicate­d set of questions on whether prosecutin­g a former president is in the best interests of the country. But ultimately, it falls on the American public — including the 65% of Republican­s who still believe in Trump's Big Lie — to repudiate that lie and the insurrecti­on. No institutio­n can do it for us.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States