In past columns, we have discussed how Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe seems intent upon running through the entire criminal code in declaring clear evidence of every federal crime by former President Donald Trump and/or his family. Just for the purposes of keeping score, Tribe declared evidence supporting criminal charges of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, criminal election violations, Logan Act violations, extortion, espionage, and treason by Trump or his family. He has now added attempted murder in an interview on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront.” In addition to declaring former President Donald Trump clearly guilty of the attempt to murder Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021, Tribe is again assuring viewers that “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt, and the crimes are obvious.” I guess there is no doubt. There is also no compelling legal basis for the claim. Nevertheless, Tribe is promising more if needed: “There are other crimes that have been proven. Those are plenty to start with.”
In light of Tribe’s prior declarations of the long litany of criminal acts by Trump, the opening question of Burnett seemed almost rhetorical bordering on the comical: “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?”
“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.
“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.”
It is a curious thing that these crimes “have been proven” but Trump has not been charged with them. After the riot, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging them with incitement. So what happened to that prosecution? The failure of Racine to charge Trump was not due to any affection or loyalty to the former president. It was due to the paucity of direct evidence of a crime that would hold up in court.
Tribe notably cuts directly to the punishment for attempted murder rather than the elements. The elements of attempted murder require specific intent to kill and the commission of some direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing.
Many of us criticized Trump for his insistence that Pence could effectively block certification of the election. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given and said that Pence was a profile of courage in resisting such calls. However, calling for protests to pressure Pence to reject the votes is no evidence of specific intent. The Select Committee has maintained that Trump also said that, when made aware of the rioters’ chants to ‘hang Mike Pence,’ the president responded that maybe they have the right idea since he “deserves it.” That statement after the start of the riot would again fall wildly short of any claim of specific intent.
Tribe could argue that a claim could be made under a “natural and probable consequences” argument, which has been curtailed in states like California. See People v. Gillespie, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 3055 *, 2022 WL 1564200. Indeed, in People v. Vallejo, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 1033 *, 2021 WL 633384, the court noted:
Attempted murder requires a finding of specific intent to kill such that implied malice is insufficient to support a conviction for that offense. (See People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593, 605, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 390, 909 P.2d 994 [“‘Specific intent to kill is a necessary element of attempted murder. It must be proved, and it cannot be inferred merely from the commission of another dangerous crime.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.]”.) In other words, the natural and probable consequences doctrine may apply to felony murder, but it is not properly applied to attempted murder.
There are cases in other states that apply the natural and probable consequences doctrine but it still requires substantial acts and intent on the part of the defendant. This is usually found in such acts like firing a weapon and missing.
Even then, it can be difficult since attempted murder requires proof that the defendant “must have taken a substantial step towards that crime, and must also have had the requisite mens rea.” Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344 (1991). In Braxton, the defendant was charged with attempted murder of a federal marshal after he fired two shots through his front door where marshals with an arrest warrant were standing. The Court wrote that “[s]ince the statute does not specify the elements of “attempt to kill,” they are those required for an “attempt” at common law, … which include a specific intent to commit the unlawful act. ‘Although a murder may be committed without an intent to kill, an attempt to commit murder requires a specific intent to kill.'”
I know of no case where a speech of this kind was treated as sufficient to establish attempted murder. Indeed, such a claim would contradict controlling Supreme Court precedent.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
It is common for political leaders to call for protests at the federal or state capitols when controversial legislation or actions are being taken. Indeed, in past elections, Democratic members also protested elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.
The problem for prosecutors is that Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”
Yet, Tribe declared “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.”
As a factual matter, it has not been suggested by the Committee that Trump knew that protesters brought that gallows to the scene. Most of us found about about the gallows and chant after the start of the riot.
Tribe further predicted that Attorney General Merrick Garland would criminally charge Donald Trump.
If so, Garland may want to consult with other experts before including this particular charge. Tribe’s suggestion that Trump could be prosecuted for attempted murder on this evidence is utter nonsense.
The Select Committee has not made such a claim but has promised that a criminal conspiracy will be established by the hearings. That evidence may still be forthcoming, but that case has not been made in my view in the last three hearings. There have been new videotapes and testimony supporting what we already knew: that Trump was told that the election fraud claims were unsupported and that he continued to assert a theory about Pence’s authority that most of us rejected as unfounded. The testimony has been powerful and gut-wrenching. Yet, there has to be more direct and substantial links to the violence to offer a compelling basis for prosecution.
Tribe has of course never lacked confidence that his lengthening list of crimes have been “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt.” Yet, if he is going to add attempted murder, he should have more than the repetition of conclusory statements to offer. “You don’t have to go to law school to know” that the law is based on evidence and elements. Indeed, students go to law school to learn the element of crimes, not just their punishment. Indeed, few of us would allow students to start a discussion of a possible crime by simply declaring the crime and stating the possible sentence. If Professor Tribe believes that a case for attempted murder is clearly established, he may want to start with the elements.
There will always be cranks, the sad part about this is how much deference this crank receives from so many unthinking people
From Proud Boy Dominic Pezzola’s original arrest affidavit (https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1355186/download):
“W-1 further stated that members of this group, which included “Spaz,” said that they would have killed [Vice President] Mike Pence if given the chance. According to W-1, the group said it would be returning on the “20th,” which your affiant takes to mean the Presidential Inauguration scheduled for January 20, 2021, and that they plan to kill every single “m-fer” they can.”
Here’s the current indictment against Pezzola and co-conspirators: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1510991/download
Marcy Wheeler: “DOJ may never show that Trump and the mob he sicced on his Vice President conspired to kill him, or even that Trump’s 2:24PM tweet aided and abetted the attempts to find and assassinate Pence — though the judge presiding over the Oath Keepers case has deemed the possibility Trump could be held accountable for aiding and abetting to be plausible, at least for a lower civil standard. But there’s little doubt that Trump, his lawyers, two militias, and the mob entered into a common effort to prevent Pence from doing his duty that day. And with the militias, you can draw a line between Trump, his rat-f–ker [Roger Stone], Alex Jones, and the men at the Capitol to the threat and intimidation Trump sicced on his Vice President.”
emptywheel.net/2022/06/17/forty-feet-trump-sicced-a-murder-weapon-on-mike-pence/
abetting to be plausible, at least for a lower civil standard.
WOW! That’s a massive deflation of the balloon. From aiding a abetting murder, to civil lawsuit.
But there’s little doubt that Trump, his lawyers, two militias, and the mob entered into a common effort to prevent Pence from doing his duty that day.
You may have “little doubt”. But you have zero evidence
She’s presented a great deal of evidence. Do you care to discuss any of it? Have you even read any of the evidence she’s discussed? (I’m not going to spoon feed it to you. Read it on her website.)
I’m just noting, the lead of the story is abetting murder, and it quickly deflates to a civil, not criminal case. That tells me, she knows elements are absent.
“District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging them with incitement.”
But he bailed.
Bloggers can claim anything. A prosecutor has a reputation to protect if he wants Judges to accept their fillings, with little examination. Tribe and Wheeler can spin all they want, but they don’t spend their working day relying on judges, trusting their legal acumen.
Amazing: she disagrees with Tribe and has no problem saying so.
I also disagree with Tribe.
Trump can be charged with other crimes, which I already identified for you elsewhere in this thread and you’ve ignored.
“She’s presented a great deal of evidence. Do you care to discuss any of it? Have you even read any of the evidence she’s discussed? (I’m not going to spoon feed it to you. Read it on her website.)”
***************************
Oh please. She presented a great deal of opinion bolstered by tortured facts and lots and lots of supposition. Oh and please don’t “spoonfeed” that proaganda. It’s useful only for fertilizing petunias not rational minds.
Do quote what you characterize as “tortured facts and lots and lots of supposition.” Let’s see if you can back up your opinion with evidence.
Trump can be charged with other crimes,
But that would be the end point. FULL STOP. Charges filed. The leaks stop, the news cycle dries up. no more 24/7 bashing Trump and all thing Republican. Replaced by written pleadings, appeals, decisions only specialty lawyers understand. But no TV trial, Not for years.
That does nothing to keep the hate alive. Does nothing to stop the bleeding of voters from the Democrat agenda. It leaves the news cycle to talk about inflation, the border, $billions to ukraine, while infants cant get the formula they need to survive. Soon we’ll have rolling brown outs, because we can build wind and solar, Democrats have ignored the electric grid cannot handle the new demand. Every week comes the results of Democrat policies, directly adversely affecting the people, Dems claim to want to help
One last thing
These gas prices are going higher. At least another dollar, maybe two. Because Democrats promised the people they were going to eliminate fossil fuels, and the high prices are the painful transition to assure that Promise. Why Democrats are not celebrating their success, is a mystery for all of us.
In more important news:
Biden’s latest brilliant idea of sending rebate cards to Americas for purchasing expensive gasoline that isnt his fault
Jeff Stein
@JStein_WaPo
White House officials exploring sending Americans rebates cards to offset gas costs ran into another problem — the chips shortage, which meant US couldn’t physically produce enough cards to make the plan work even if lawmakers tried to do it, per sources
washingtonpost.com
Soaring gas prices lead White House aides back to brainstorming
The Biden administration is bracing for further fuel spikes but sees little recourse.
7:12 AM · Jun 17, 2022·Twitter
FJB
Good thing we still have a semblance of due process. I remind you of Cicero of the Roman Republic. He was on the losing side in the Civil War between Octavian and Mark Anthony and subsequently executed. The main charge against Cicero was that, during a previous year of holding the Consulship, he ordered a mans execution and had it carried out. He did this without holding a trial and was actually guilty of that crime but had never been called to atone for it until the civil war was lost. No doubt he would have been executed anyway but he made it easier for Octavian.
Octavian learned from his adopted father. Julius Caesar had pardoned nearly all his opponents from his civil war and they rewarded him by joining together and stabbing him to death in the Senate Chamber. They, of course claimed to be the “defenders of the Republic” when in fact they were the richest and oldest families and were still trying to cling to power as Julius Caesar brought in new senators who were less wealthy and from other areas of the Republic instead of just Rome and Italy. The ‘defenders of the republic” had to flee the city. Strange because Caesar was the man of the people (or the mob) depending on your point of view. Octavian also issued virtually no pardons to the killers or their supporters. Several lessons there but I think due process is still very important. Also points of view vary by person, but generally seem to mimic your financial well being. A few exceptions are allowed on both sides.
Thanks GEB for the wonderful history lesson. You know I’ve always kinda thought that in a prior life I was there that day in the Theatre of Pompey. Don’t know why. Just do.
I’d like to see Tribe debate Turley or Dershowitz. I doubt that he would agree if he is still in full possession of his faculties.
ole:
Tribe doesn’t debate – he dons a double-sided sandwich board and walks around town ranting and raving. MSNBC then throws money at him for the spectacle.
Tribe said, “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.”
I don’t like Donald Trump one bit and I don’t want him as our President but I can’t sit by and watch these people continue to do what they’re doing.
I’m getting really sick and tired of all the partisan extrapolations to absurd lies. No Mr. Tribe you damn fool; President Trump did not request/demand that Vice-President Pence pick the next President that is a blatantly extrapolated falsehood, I think Tribe actually knows it’s a falsehood, therefore I think Tribe is a liar, yes a liar as in one who lies. The actual fact as I understand them is that President Trump requested/demanded that Vice-President Pence reject the electoral college votes from some contested states and send them back to those states for further review thus pushing the certification of the election to a date after that review was completed, that Mr. Tribe is NOT in any way, shape or form to be the equivalent or even a rhetorical equivalent to pickling the next President and I think you fully understand that fact. Personally I think President Trump and his advisors were wrong about this and I commend Vice-President Pence for his choice of action.
I live in one of the states that was being contested because of the blatantly extralegal (beyond the authority of the law; not regulated by the law) actions taken in the state that were not predefined in our existing election laws; they literally B-A-S-T-A-R-D-I-Z-E-D (lower in quality or value than the original form, typically as a result of the addition of new elements) state election laws and ignored some existing election laws and they tried to justify their actions with a COVID-19 rationalization. What happened in my state was very wrong and in my opinion might have been illegal but that doesn’t invalidate the legal votes that were cast in good faith with no intended fraud on the part of the individual voter; nothing can change those facts. The states in question need to properly address the extralegal or illegal actions taken in their respective states. In spite of the fact that there were extralegal actions taken by some states in the election I still think Vice-President Pence made the correct choice.
I understand that Tribe is a lawyer and he’s become partisan hack tool for the Democratic Party but now I think he has added a bald-faced liar and engaging in blatantly unethical ends justifies the means rhetoric to his list of partisan hack credentials.
Well said.
“The actual fact as I understand them is that President Trump requested/demanded that Vice-President Pence reject the electoral college votes from some contested states and send them back to those states for further review thus pushing the certification of the election to a date after that review was completed…”
Read more.
That’s 1 of 2 illegal strategies Trump pushed Pence to carry out — illegal, because the VP has no legal ability to reject a slate of electors or their votes when a state has certified them as that state’s electors. The second illegal strategy was for Pence to reject the electors from some states and say that “Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the ‘the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . . Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.” (here, I’m quoting from Eastman’s memo, ellipses in the original)
Now do quoting John Durham’s memo. Pick one, pick any, they all prove the 2020 elections were rigges
FJB
If you want that done, do it yourself. FDJT.
Well said!
Miss applied. My well said was to Steve Witherspoon.
The new CNN CEO, Chris Licht, reportedly is telling CNN staff to no long use the term “the big lie.”
Professor Tribes air time at CNN may be coming to an end, as the new CEO is going back to CNN just the news, not propaganda, roots.
Also CNN Reliable Sources (yes, I laughed too), Brian Stelter is down to weeks if not days being on CNN according to sources.
I quit watching or listening when they took the knee.
WOKE Communist USEFUL IDIOTS. GO BROKE!!!
This guy is completely Bonkers but then again the entire left is Bonkers, but they’re dangerous! No matter what color they are, they’re dangerous, especially the self hating,white,liberal,Democrat making every attempt to prove their woke. When Al Sharpton can pick them out “latte liberal”, “limousine liberal, “DC elites”, “beltway elitist” you know their scam might be up?
Tribe has an appropriate last name.
I wonder if Tribe is still all there? Some of his comments are so bizarre that it gives one pause. Or at least it should. Alas
This whole kangaroo farce court is the big lie , the big distraction of the apparatchik state. They know mid term elections are their doom and they are clutching at straws , anything to poison the environment around their deceit . The speaker of the house , the potus , both are senile corrupt grifters and are constantly calling for the apparatchiks to rise and smite the people , as if this will save their ship. The insanity unfolding in DC and the blue party is amazing and there for all to see.
Perhaps Professor Tribe should be appointed by the DOJ as special prosecutor. He might be a little more cautious in his analysis when faced with actually having to bring these charges forward in court.
Indeed, few of us would allow students to start a discussion of a possible crime but simply declaring the crime and stating the possible sentence.
That’s what happens in comments here, on a daily basis, I keep asking for a named crime. Then some low IQ commenter yells stooge, like that is supposed to sway opinion.
You know that I’ve repeatedly quoted Judge Carter to you, and he names two crimes: obstruction of Congress and conspiracy to defraud the US. You regularly ignore those two crimes.
Your paid handlers are not sending us their best
Nor are yours.
I don’t have handlers, paid or otherwise. You must be projecting.
You regularly ignore those two crimes.
Garland is ignoring them. Carter was shooting from the hip. Judges can say anything. Carter can make the claim, he does not have to present the elements of the crime. If the extremely weak evidence supports the charge, it becomes precedent, Precedent a different administration could base their prosecutions.
“Garland is ignoring them”
You’re assuming that, but we do not know that. Don’t confuse assumptions with knowledge.
“he does not have to present the elements of the crime.”
Actually, in concluding that the crime-fraud exception applies to the Chesebro memo, Judge Carter had to — and DID — present the elements of the crime, assessing it at a civil standard since he was ruling on a civil suit.
“Precedent a different administration could base their prosecutions.”
If other Presidents conspire to obstruct Congress and defraud the US, I want them prosecuted too. You apparently cannot understand this.
It is now apparent that the left, even in the courts, have no concern for the rule of law. On the left, a psychosis exists that mimics the Borg mentality, which shuts down all thought and replaces it with the Borg collective.
that he was ordering his vice-president to do what everyone in the room knew would be illegal,
I haven’t read the rest, I’m going back to it now.
But this is the actual “big lie”
It works because near as I can tell, almost all US citizens, and almost all lawyers that have graduated in the last 30 years, have no idea what the Constitution lays out.
The President has no power to order the Vice President. The Office of Vice President has almost no power. The few jobs are all in the legislative Branch. Pence has the power to count the EC votes. It can be argued, that power would extend to rejecting some of those votes. If you don’t believe that, then it is impossible to believe disrupting the counting of the EC votes collapses the Government of the United States.
Yep, people never act contrary to law.
I again encourage everyone to watch yesterday’s J6 Committee testimony and documentary evidence about Trump’s and Eastman’s attempt to get Pence to act unconstitutionally, as the testimony and documentary evidence are really significant.
Here’s the opening statement from conservative appellate judge Michael Luttig (appointed to the 4th Circuit by GHW Bush, now retired, apparently had a stroke not that long ago, so his speech is a bit slow in his testimony): https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22061497/jml-final.pdf
In one of the presidential debates, Ted Cruz said the following about Luttig and the Supreme Court: “I would not have nominated [Justice Roberts]. I would have nominated my former boss Mike Luttig, who was Justice Scalia’s first law clerk.”
Trumpists will likely denigrate him, but he is a highly regarded conservative legal scholar.
His closing words:
“I was honored on January 6th, 2021 — then also honored beyond words — to have been able to come to the aid of Vice President Mike Pence. I prayed that day just like the Vice President prayed that day. I believe we may have prayed the same prayer to the same God. I prayed that same prayer with my wife this morning before I came into these hearings. I have written — as you said, Chairman Thompson — that today, almost two years after that fateful day in January of 2021, that still Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy. That’s not because of what happened on January 6th. It’s because to this very day, the former President, his allies, and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former President or his anointed successor as the Republican party presidential candidate were to lose that election, that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election, but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020. I don’t speak those words lightly. I would have never spoken those words ever in my life, except that that’s what the former President and his allies are telling us, as I said in that New York Times op-ed [https://web.archive.org/web/20220310180140/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/opinion/electoral-count-act.html] wherein I was speaking about the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The former President and his allies are executing that blueprint for 2024 in open and plain view of the American public. I repeat, I would’ve never uttered one single one of those words unless the former President and his allies were candidly and proudly speaking those exact words to America. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today for these proceedings.”
Eastman in an email to Giuliani: “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works.”
Shame on Turley for focusing on Tribe instead of the much more significant content of the hearing.
Here’s video of the hearing:
Is that you liz cheney ?
I disagree with most of Cheney’s political views. This is one of our few areas of agreement.
The difference between CNN lawyers Lawrence Tribe and Jeffrey Toobin (CNN’s chief legal analyst):
Toobin wanks on Zoom while Tribe wanks before CNN cameras, with the CNN staff gushing, perverts and groomers all.
Tribe is the same legal “expert” who told Biden’s handlers it was perfectly legal to extend the CDC eviction moratorium. Tribe is a first rate Prima Donna.
FJB
Nice deflection.
Care to discuss Judge Luttig’s testimony?
What I found way more interesting was the graphics on screen during the entire hearing yesterday.
In a fairly large insert on the lower right screen was the stock ticker. IN RED, showing the tic by tic of the DOW, down ANOTHER ~800points
At the same time was committee members, with chewing lemon rinds faces, read from a script, overly emotive, declaring incomprehensible verbiage. about things average people can’t define.
Dems keep stepping on the rake.
Droning on about this nothing burger, while the stock market is stealing from the viewers retirement nest egg, now below 30k. Babies are starving, women are back to sewing their own period pads, the number of apprehended terrorist captured at the border is exploding. All of that wrapped up in Transportation fuel gobbling up all of their discretionary income, and they have yet to notice the explosion in Electricity cost, hidden by the turning on of air conditioners.
Dems are clueless about how the people are viewing them, fussing over nothing of note. Most have come to realize, if there was something, they would focus on, that something, and the topic would not be different every time they hear an updated news brief.
Has it occurred to you that a lot of people don’t agree with your opinion that this is “nothing of note”?
The committee has yet to land on a topic. After every single, make for TV moment(jan6 show), there is something different from the last time the subject was forced in front of viewer. In between the televised attempt at entertainment (a fail) are the breathless leaks of bits of out of context information, that the talkiing heads say, NO, THIS, IS FINALLY THE BIG THING!!!!. This, and only this, is the crime against humanity that you must act to correct.
So which is it. Impeach Thomas, giving Terrorist tours of the Capital offices?, Hannity texting Meadows? Bannon refusing a subpoena?, Trump emailing out fundraising requests? Guilfoyle paid to give a speech? Congressmen seeking a pardon?
Just a small smattering of events sure to collapse the Untied States. But not hint from the committee about what legislation, so critical to our survival, to warrant all this energy and attention, ever gets a small mention.
Don’t confuse your opinion with a fact.
The multi-faceted topic:
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
Consistent with the functions described in section 4, the purposes of the Select Committee are the following:
(1) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex (hereafter referred to as the “domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol”) and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region and other instrumentalities of government, as well as the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.
(2) To examine and evaluate evidence developed by relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist attack.
(3) To build upon the investigations of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts by reviewing the investigations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of other executive branch, congressional, or independent bipartisan or nonpartisan commission investigations into the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol, including investigations into influencing factors related to such attack.
SEC. 4. FUNCTIONS.
(a) Functions.—The functions of the Select Committee are to—
(1) investigate the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol, including facts and circumstances relating to—
(A) activities of intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, and the Armed Forces, including with respect to intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination and information sharing among the branches and other instrumentalities of government;
(B) influencing factors that contributed to the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and how technology, including online platforms, financing, and malign foreign influence operations and campaigns may have factored into the motivation, organization, and execution of the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol; and
(C) other entities of the public and private sector as determined relevant by the Select Committee for such investigation;
(2) identify, review, and evaluate the causes of and the lessons learned from the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol regarding—
(A) the command, control, and communications of the United States Capitol Police, the Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region on or before January 6, 2021;
(B) the structure, coordination, operational plans, policies, and procedures of the Federal Government, including as such relate to State and local governments and nongovernmental entities, and particularly with respect to detecting, preventing, preparing for, and responding to targeted violence and domestic terrorism;
(C) the structure, authorities, training, manpower utilization, equipment, operational planning, and use of force policies of the United States Capitol Police;
(D) the policies, protocols, processes, procedures, and systems for the sharing of intelligence and other information by Federal, State, and local agencies with the United States Capitol Police, the Sergeants at Arms of the House of Representatives and Senate, the Government of the District of Columbia, including the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, the National Guard, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region on or before January 6, 2021, and the related policies, protocols, processes, procedures, and systems for monitoring, assessing, disseminating, and acting on intelligence and other information, including elevating the security posture of the United States Capitol Complex, derived from instrumentalities of government, open sources, and online platforms; and
(E) the policies, protocols, processes, procedures, and systems for interoperability between the United States Capitol Police and the National Guard, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region on or before January 6, 2021; and
(3) issue a final report to the House containing such findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures described in subsection (c) as it may deem necessary.
(b) Reports.—
(1) INTERIM REPORTS.—In addition to the final report addressing the matters in subsection (a) and section 3, the Select Committee may report to the House or any committee of the House from time to time the results of its investigations, together with such detailed findings and legislative recommendations as it may deem advisable.
(2) TREATMENT OF CLASSIFIED OR LAW ENFORCEMENT-SENSITIVE MATTER.—Any report issued by the Select Committee shall be issued in unclassified form but may include a classified annex, a law enforcement-sensitive annex, or both.
(c) Corrective Measures Described.—The corrective measures described in this subsection may include changes in law, policy, procedures, rules, or regulations that could be taken—
(1) to prevent future acts of violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism, including acts targeted at American democratic institutions;
(2) to improve the security posture of the United States Capitol Complex while preserving accessibility of the Capitol Complex for all Americans; and
(3) to strengthen the security and resilience of the United States and American democratic institutions against violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism.
(d) No Markup Of Legislation Permitted.—The Select Committee may not hold a markup of legislation.
You should also learn the meaning of “leak.” That’s an illegal release of information. If the committee releases info, it’s not a leak.
“But not hint from the committee about what legislation”
Of course they have, such as the ECA. Apparently you’re not paying attention, which is totally unsurprising.
Leak has no legal definition. I never claimed it was illegal
The committee is leaking. The leaking of evidence does zero, to fulfill the lengthy justification of the select committee you posted
How do these carefully curated leaks of evidence advance the stated work of the Committee?
It does not. Proving the committee is nothing but Raw Electioneering.
The committee is none of those things they purport to be. They are a political group intent on investigating individuals without justification. They have perverted the authority granted to them by the Constitution. By doing so, they are destroying the American Republic. The committee’s design is to have all members entering the committee with the same mindset so that at its end, all members will draw the same conclusions they initially had.
Stalinists were good at copying and pasting the law but never did care for the rule of law.
Anomaly,
Now do Section 2, you know, the one that starts by stating that the speaker shall appoint thirteen members.
Famous attnrneys and especiall law professors, should be very careful about what they say. Lawrence Tribe has used his law license and his position as a law professor, to spew too many questionable legal theories that is not in keeping with what people in that position should be doing. Mr. Tribe is in the unusual position of being invited to make statements publicly and having many leaders and many Americans believe in what he is saying. His ability to make spurious and unsubstantiated charges, unlike some of our Congress members and the President, due to his profession and his stature, are dangerous to our legal system and thus to our country.
It is tme that he be brought before his legal brethren to determine whether he should retain a law licence and to be censured for what he is doing.
Nothing prevents you from filing a complaint with the state bar. If you want to accomplish what you say, that’s the way to do it.
I had an ancestor who lived during the American Revolution. He was heard by hundreds when he yelled: Kill the Redcoats. The Redcoats later caught him snd shot him dead by firing squad.
I would never say: Hang Pence.
I will say: Prosecute Trump.
I have no problem prosecuting anyone who violates a criminal statute – no one should get a free pass, not even POTUS. But what statute did he violate? Or do you just want to prosecute him because of who he is?
As Judge Carter pointed out in his Eastman ruling, both Trump and Eastman likely engaged in “the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.” (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62613089/260/john-c-eastman-v-bennie-g-thompson/)
There are a few relevant criminal statutes, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), as well as common law fraud.
Then it should be easy-peasy to convict on those charges, right? Where are the indictments and the evidence – beyond ‘Judge Carter says so’?
No, often conviction is not “easy-peasy.” Why don’t you already know that?
As for your second question, you’ll have to ask the DOJ, as I am not privy to their internal deliberations.
If you can’t convict Trump in DC, then you should resign you job as a proescutor
Considering Trump has been judged and convicted as guilty by Tribe, Carter, and yourself – without charges or trial, then it’s now just a matter of filing the paperwork, no? Similar to the border agents who are still falsely accused and been adjudicated as guilty of whipping Haitians on the US side of the river. Like I said, easy-peasy.
Carter and Anonymous are off in lala land.
They are fiddling while Rome burns.
Recent polling indicates that in addition to hemorrhaging Hispanics and even blacks, the Democratic party is alienating Asians faster than nearly any other group.
Atleast on poll had Biden’s favorability at 29% – Nixon’s was higher throughout his presidency – including when he resigned.
Others have him in the low 30’s – no president has ever had that poor favorability.
Nor can Democrats separate themselves From Biden. Biden is doing exactly what Elected Democrats wanted from him.
We keep hearing about the threat of White Supremecists – OMG the Proud Boys wanted to occupy the capital until congress conducted a new election. Those evil insurrectionists – how dare they demand a new election when we have a perfectly good election that the majority of people distrust.
Yet, every day – more political violence from the left.
The attempted assassination of supreme court justices.
The invasion of the Capital by Colbert producers – actually let in by a democratic congressmen, who then verbally harrassed republican congressmen in their offices, and refused REPEATEDLY to leave when asked by the Capital police.
Why aren’t they in solitary with J6 protestors ? The J6 protestors never harrassed a congressmen – while the Kavanaugh protestors and the Colbert producers did. The J6 protestors enter the capital while congress was in session – and should have been opened to the public. The Colbert producers came after hours and were ACTUALLY tresspassing. The Kavanaugh protestors actually brought and used an AXE on a senators door. Oh, and now we have a congressional aide – I beleive of the same congressmen who let the Colbert producers in – defacing the offices of a Republican congressment repeatedly and not being charged.
We have over 50 violent political attacks on pro-life clinics. With leftist groups claiming responsibility and promising more.
The “Night of Rage” is already in the planning.
I am sure that plenty of bricks and molotov cocktails have been ordered.
There are mass killings or attempted mass killings everyday – but if you can not blame them on faux white racists – they do not make the news.
The TX GOP has declared the election a fraud and Biden illegitimate.
Slowly more and more people are being arrested for Ballot Harvesting in 2020 – but mostly only in deep red states where election laws are actually enforced.
The Whitehouse is business trying to shift the blame for the disasters they spawned.
It is Putin’s fault, or Trump’s fault, or oil companies fault – everything is someone else’s fault – it need not make the slightest sense.
According to the Whitehouse – they inherited a mess – yet far more people died of Covid after Biden took office than before, and that despite having a vaccine – that they said did not work when Trump was president – but miraculously became effective and safe on Jan 20, 2021.
Biden was elected with a tail wind. He could have done NOTHING and been an incredibly successful president.
And on and on
They talked about legal strategies. NOT A CRIME
I talked to my tax attorney about deducting mileage and food a board while Checking the farm ground I own and rent out. In the summer we might average Twice a month for two or three nights. The farm is with in miles of the Mississippi River. The tax lawyer said as long as I could meet the requirements of the law I could, but the IRS might see things different.
So am I guilty of defrauding the Govt, because I talked to my lawyer about ways to maximize my expenses….even though I have not carried through with declaring the expenses?
“They talked about legal strategies”
Actually, they talked about illegal strategies. Which — had they not acted on their talk — would not be a crime. But they did act on the talk, unlike your claim “I have not carried through…”
No court has ruled them illegal
Judge Carter ruled them illegal when he ruled that the crime-fraud exception applied to the memo.
You’re simply too inattentive or too dishonest to admit it.
A judges ruling is strictly limited to the case he is ruling on
Thanks for showing that you cannot admit that your claim — “No court has ruled them illegal” — was false.
They talked about legal strategies.
It would be only natural in the course of their discussions to discuss all possible strategies and eliminate those that would be in violation of the law. No doubt Trump was receiving legal advice that led him to believe Pence had the power to stop the certification of the electors. Is ordering Pence to act on that a crime? Trump’s Jan 6th speech certainly had no elements of a crime. Given their history, obstruction of Congress should be an imperative, not a crime.
“No doubt Trump was receiving legal advice that led him to believe Pence had the power to stop the certification of the electors.”
There was testimony under oath that Trump was told that would be unconstitutional, and also that Eastman believed it to be unconstitutional (e.g., he said that SCOTUS would rule 9-0 against it, he asked to be added to the pardon list).
“Is ordering Pence to act on that a crime?”
Yes, ordering Pence to act unconstitutionally in this particular context may very well be a crime (e.g., the crimes identified by Judge Carter: obstruction of Congress and conspiracy to defraud the U.S.). We’ll have to wait and see whether the DOJ indicts Trump for any crimes.
“Given their history, obstruction of Congress should be an imperative, not a crime.”
Shame on you. There are legal ways to impact the actions of Congress. Obstruction of Congress isn’t one of them. If you care about the oath you took to uphold the Constitution, you should advocate for constitutional actions, not unconstitutional ones.
Yes, ordering Pence to act unconstitutionally in this particular context may very well be a crime…
You mean if a President orders something to be done that he has been advised is unconstitutional, that’s a crime? I thought that was why the House impeached him the 2nd time. He was tried in the Senate and acquitted, right? Wasn’t Biden advised that the CDC eviction moratorium was unconstitutional? SCOTUS had already ruled they could not extend it, and yet Biden was “double, triple and quadruple” checking for ways to do just that. SCOTUS allowed the unconstitutional moratorium to expire and Biden took that as a green light to spend more unconstitutional $$$. Was that a crime? Was that an impeachable offense?
It’s apparent to anyone that has a functional left-half of a brain that what is impeachable and/or a crime is highly dependent on the “offenders” affinity with those having the power to impeach and/or indict and prosecute.
“You mean if a President orders something to be done that he has been advised is unconstitutional, that’s a crime?”
If there’s legislation making it a crime (e.g., obstruction of Congress), yes; but if not, my impression is no. Either way, the Office of Legal Counsel has said that a sitting President cannot be indicted, so the issue is whether a former President can be charged once out of office.
“Was that an impeachable offense?”
That’s for the House to determine. I don’t think it rises to a high crime or misdemeanor, but that’s just my personal opinion and has no bearing on impeachment.
“what is impeachable and/or a crime [for a President] is highly dependent on the “offenders” affinity with those having the power to impeach”
Yes.
“and/or indict and prosecute”
That’s not so clear to me. Especially while in office, the OLC memo is clear about not prosecuting or even indicting while a President of any party is in office, no matter who the President is or what their relationship is with the AG. You seem to be conflating the situations of a sitting President and a former President, when they’re legally distinct.
You seem to be conflating the situations of a sitting President and a former President, when they’re legally distinct.
Not at all. You avoided addressing the following question. I thought that was why the House impeached him the 2nd time. He was tried in the Senate and acquitted, right?
Democrats in the House had their bite at this apple while Trump was in office. They put on their trial in the Senate and failed to convict. This is clearly a pathetic attempt to “impeach” Trump for a 3rd time in the hope it will rid the Democrats of an entire conservative movement rooted in an America First agenda. The problem for the Democrats is they’ve been forced to push an opposing agenda, which has resulted in a multitude of disastrous policy decisions for our country and most importantly, grown the base for the conservative movement. It no longer needs Trump to survive. Trump is to the Democratic party like the iceberg was to the Titanic.
“This is clearly a pathetic attempt to “impeach” Trump for a 3rd time”
No, it isn’t.
“This is clearly a pathetic attempt to “impeach” Trump for a 3rd time”
No, it isn’t.
Your economy of words reflects an economy of thought.
So what, it isn’t clearly, or pathetic, or an attempt? What? Since you’ve avoided addressing the question I posed, why is this Jan. 6th commission not a blatant attempt at getting Trump convicted as a citizen on something they failed to convict him on as a President?
LOL that you whine about my not having answered all of your questions when you regularly choose not to answer all of others’ questions to you.
It’s not an impeachment attempt. Now you’re saying that it’s an “attempt at getting Trump convicted as a citizen,” when that’s quite different from impeachment. It’s not up to the J6 Committee whether Trump is indicted. That’s up to the DOJ. The Committee absolutely should present evidence of what Trump did related to J6, including his attempts to get Pence to act unconstitutionally. According to the testimony, even Eastman admitted that it wasn’t constitutional. Everyone should understand that Trump tried that.
The Committee absolutely should present evidence of what Trump did related to J6, including his attempts to get Pence to act unconstitutionally.
Unconstitutionally? If that were an indictable standard, we’d very quickly gut the political establishment. Let’s do it. When anyone is proven to have voted in favor of a law, signed a law or issued an Executive Order or administrative order that is ruled unconstitutional; or willfully does not enforce laws ruled as constitutional, then they should be impeached, removed from office, then indicted and prosecuted.
That would have tremendous support in flyover country.
Shame on you. There are legal ways to impact the actions of Congress. Obstruction of Congress isn’t one of them. If you care about the oath you took to uphold the Constitution, you should advocate for constitutional actions, not unconstitutional ones.
🤣 No shame whatsoever. I took an oath and I’ve never been relieved of it. The entire federal government functions as an organized crime syndicate, with opposing families called political parties. The real tragedy is all the power to investigate, indict and prosecute them is under the control of one of the families. The best that a citizen can do is elect someone into one of these families that is not a made man and stays that way.
Olly actually said:
“The entire federal government functions as an organized crime syndicate, with opposing families called political parties.”
Spoken like a true Infowars believer. If Turley ever sounds like Alex Jones, you’ll hear no more from me. That’s the difference between a NeverTrumper like Turley and you, he rejects Infowars’ belief in the “Deep State.”
If you were not out of your mind nuts you’d have already seen that P. Turley/Jones & Infowars/other people are arguing for the same thing, Respect & Implementation of the USC Rights/Procedures.
I wish you could set it out in the DC Gulag with the J6 Hostages for a couple of weeks to sort out your “Feelings”
Oky1,
If you and Olly believe Alex Jones, good luck. Here is what Turley thinks of Jones:
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/07/01/martian-slave-babies-alex-jones-airs-theory-on-kidnapped-children-raised-on-mars/
Morons.
Oh, I should add that Trump went on Infowars to seek Jones’ followers during his run for president. Admittedly, this was after Turley pegged Trump as a “carnival snake charmer.”
And I wish you weren’t a conspiracy theorist and understood that Jones is a con artist. Alas.
Hey mor*n, the guy that said that cra*p on AJ’s Air was a former CIA agent that was using that cr*p as a disinfo agent to discredit AJ/Infowars.
Jones never let him back as a guest.
J*T should go on Infowars to clear up his seemly Slander & R*p, but he had the fear o*f God put into him after the Evil Globalist B*stards wh
*acked his kids music teacher.
I guess those type of people, fearful, would rather their kids deal with the Evil B*stards instead of facing those battles themselves.
In case JT just happened read this I’m being more then a bit harsh because now is’nt the time for people to be puzzies, we have to try to be men, not DC/Hollyweird Freaks.
Because if you don’t understand what happened of 11/3/2020 & 1/6/2021 you’re an idiot & should move out of the US Immediately as you’re not welcome here.
Edited
Jeff S,
After think about things a couple hours why don’t you get your azz down to the military recruiting early Monday morning like so many of us Did , Volunteer to Serve this Nation!!!
No Doubt you won’t as we see you for who you are, Enemy. of the US
Prove me a Liar, I’ll apologize! Man up Punk!
“Yes, ordering Pence to act unconstitutionally “
Think about it. When you order the policeman not to give you that speeding ticket, what does he do?
He gives the ticket. Is a crime involved? Time to add logic to your comments.
You do not understand – you are not guilty because you discussed minimizing your taxes.
You are guilty because you are not a woke leftist.
“both Trump and Eastman likely engaged in “the crimes of obstruction ”
Likely is a long haul from “has all the elements of ‘crimes of obstruction’
Who are you quoting in your second line?
In your second line, your opening double-quotation mark does not have a corresponding close-double-quotation mark. Did you mean to write “has all the elements of ‘crimes of obstruction’” with both opening and closing double-quotation marks, and if so, who are you quoting? Or did you instead mean to write has all the elements of ‘crimes of obstruction’ without the opening double-quotation mark?
Either way, “likely” is the correct standard for a civil case, which is what Carter was ruling on.
Even if this were a crime – it would NOT be obstruction.
Generally when left wing nuts bendy about “obstruction” – they really mean opposing our will.
Obstruction is very specific. The reading of those ont he left here would make all criminal defense lawyers guilty of obstruction.
There is no “likely” in rulings of this nature – Either Carter Can ACTUALLY find a clear violation of the law – or he has overstepped his judicial authority.
Which he self evidently has.
More idiotic left wing nut appeals to authority.
We have an actual constitutional.
We have real laws
And we have actual history.
Eastman’s brief was consistent with ALL of those.
You seem to think this “appeal to the authority of Carter” strengthens your argument – it not merely weakens it, but it reinforces the view that we have far to many lunatic leftists who would not know the rule of law if it slapped them in the face.
“Do your own research. Make up your own mind. Think for yourself.”
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
― Ayn Rand
If the plain text of the constitution – and the ruling of any judge or justice – left or right are at odds – the Judge is wrong.
Whig98 says:
“I have no problem prosecuting anyone who violates a criminal statute – no one should get a free pass”
I don’t recall you complaining about Trump giving a free pass by pardoning those Trumpists indicted for crimes…..
Is there any doubt that Tribe and Biden often meet up when they are away from here, and in their own little realities?
But what is scarier. The stuff uttered by Tibe and Biden, or the millions of people that think they are sentient?
Imagine that he has been indoctrinating law students for decades — and was on the perennial short list of Democratic Party Supreme Court Nominees. Wow!
Tribe makes stupid statements because he is a publicity whore and it gets him in front of the cameras.
Unfortunately, Tribe also feeds the neurosis of the lefties.
Watch our resident lefties go into a “What about?” frenzy.
(Except for Silberman, who will sonorously tell us how Turley could be both a better writer and a better human being.)
Monument,
I agree with Turley that Tribe is way off on this attempted murder charge. But unlike you and your ugly soulless Trumpists, Turley believes that Trump should have been censored by Congress for his disgraceful conduct on 1/6. You, on the other hand, were hoping the rioters would get their hands on the traitor Pence.