Los Angeles Times (Sunday)

TRUMP’S CRIMES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES

The former president must be held to account for leading the dangerous plot to thwart the peaceful transfer of power.

-

Charging a former president with crimes would be an extraordin­ary developmen­t in American history and carries the risk of forever reshaping our politics as well as the very future of the nation. It should not be undertaken lightly.

But former President Trump’s multifacet­ed attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election that culminated with him inciting violent mobs to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress was certifying Joe Biden’s victory, was also an extraordin­ary developmen­t in American history — one that nearly destroyed our democracy. The country is already in uncomforta­ble, uncharted waters navigating the wreckage Trump left in his wake.

What’s needed now is not genteel deference to political norms but an unflinchin­g pursuit of justice. Over the last two months the House select committee investigat­ing the Jan. 6 attack has meticulous­ly presented with video clips and firsthand testimony ample evidence that the former president led a dangerous, mendacious plot to block the peaceful transfer of power and hang on to the presidency despite being voted out of office. At a minimum, the Department of Justice should prosecute him for conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding, the electoral vote count. These crimes carry maximum sentences of five and 20 years in prison, respective­ly.

Of course, prosecutor­s may have evidence the public hasn’t seen that merits additional charges, and the House panel appears likely to reveal more over the coming months. But already the first eight hearings have shown that Trump was told many times, by several close and well-informed advisors, that there was no evidence of voter fraud or ballot irregulari­ties that would have altered the outcome of the election. “Bullshit” is what Atty. Gen. William Barr called Trump’s claim that the election was stolen.

And yet Trump perpetuate­d the lie, using the misplaced trust of many Americans to continue the con. He fleeced his followers for $250 million supposedly to fight his bogus lawsuits (but actually funneled to a political action committee). He invited them to come to Washington for a “wild” demonstrat­ion at which he gave an inflammato­ry speech to a crowd he knew was armed — and then directed them to march to the Capitol.

And then, for three hours after he left the rally, Trump refused to take steps to quell the violence as rioters battled with police, stormed into the Capitol and disrupted the electoral vote count. As the House panel demonstrat­ed in painstakin­g detail during Thursday’s hearing, Trump watched the rampage unfold on TV from the comfort of a White House dining room, rebuffing pleas from aides who wanted him to publicly condemn the violence and call off the mob. He never called for any law enforcemen­t or military support even as members of Congress feared for their lives. In the end, more than 100 police officers were injured, four people in the crowd died and five police officers who served at the Capitol Jan. 6 died in the days and weeks that followed.

“We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation,” committee Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said in her closing remarks Thursday.

Trump knew there was no legitimate reason to challenge the election results but pressured officials at many levels of government to take illegal actions to preserve his power. Thankfully, they didn’t acquiesce to his demands, but the testimony detailing how Trump bullied officials in the U.S. Department of Justice, state legislatur­es and local election offices was truly chilling.

An election worker described facing racist death threats after Trump baselessly accused her of processing fraudulent ballots. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensper­ger testified that Trump called him and said, “I need 11,000 votes, give me a break.”

And then there is the jaw-dropping evidence of Trump menacing his own vice president. As the violence mounted on Jan. 6, Trump lobbed a tweet saying Vice President Mike Pence “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done” by rejecting electoral votes for Biden. The tweet further inflamed the frothing crowd that chanted, “Hang Mike Pence.” Secret Service agents protecting Pence at the Capitol described being so afraid they called loved ones to say goodbye. Trump, though, thought Pence deserved it and didn’t think the rioters “were doing anything wrong,” White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that she heard Trump’s chief of staff say.

Altogether it demonstrat­es a tyrannical pattern in which Trump wielded the power of the presidency to work numerous channels to overthrow the will of the voters. That’s evidence of criminal behavior that must be evaluated in court.

One of the arguments against prosecutin­g Trump is that it violates American norms because impeachmen­t by Congress is the proper venue for holding a president accountabl­e, not a criminal courtroom, and the Senate failed to muster the two-thirds majority required to find him guilty of inciting an insurrecti­on. This is a flimsy argument. Trump’s misconduct took place in the period between losing the November election and inciting the riot on Jan. 6. By that point, only two weeks remained of his presidency, so Congress didn’t have time to mount a thorough impeachmen­t proceeding with the benefit of the evidence the House panel has gathered over the last year and a half. Besides, Trump’s entire political persona — from his campaign through his presidency — was about breaking norms. Why would it be taboo now to take an unpreceden­ted step in response to unpreceden­ted conduct? It’s not.

Another argument against prosecutio­n is that it could backfire and wind up empowering Trump instead of imprisonin­g him. Trump will be in the spotlight as the case drags on. He would likely cast it as political retributio­n by Biden’s Justice Department, and use the process to develop a new arsenal of conspiraci­es with which to stoke his fans’ grievances. Proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult. If the prosecutio­n is unsuccessf­ul and Trump is acquitted, he could gain more currency than he has now as a political loser.

This seems like a legitimate risk, but not a sufficient reason to back away from the pile of evidence that points toward Trump’s culpabilit­y. Justice is much larger than political considerat­ions, and extending this argument more broadly would be akin to saying it’s too risky to try someone who tells a lot of lies and has a solid fan base. That shouldn’t be how we determine which Americans are held to answer for potential crimes. Being famous or incendiary should not shield anyone from justice.

The lesser-known players in this horrid plot are already being held to account. Federal prosecutor­s have filed criminal charges against more than 850 people who participat­ed in the Jan. 6 mob, including charges for assaulting police officers with deadly weapons, entering a restricted building with deadly weapons, destroying and stealing government property, and obstructin­g an official preceding. Three participan­ts have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. Some 99 rioters have been incarcerat­ed.

Prosecutin­g the foot soldiers is only partial justice for this grave attack on American democracy. To restore the nation’s standing in the world, and among its citizens, it’s critical that the ringleader of this shameful chapter in history be held accountabl­e as well. Prosecutin­g Trump will demonstrat­e that the bedrock principles of the United States remain firm: The voters decide who holds power, and no one is above the law.

 ?? Illustrati­on by Jim Cooke Los Angeles Times; Photograph by Getty Images ??
Illustrati­on by Jim Cooke Los Angeles Times; Photograph by Getty Images

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States