Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg and special counsel Jack Smith have both indicted former president Donald Trump for serious felonies. The pro-Trump crowd at the Miami courthouse was small and peaceful.
Smith’s actions have demonstrated that the Justice Department is not averse to indicting a former president when it is warranted by the facts and the law. Prior to his appointment, there were concerns about the slow pace of the investigation into the January 6th insurrection. People wondered if Attorney General Merrick Garland was avoiding further political controversy or if he hesitated to jail a political opponent.
Although Garland made statements expressing his commitment to holding all January 6th perpetrators accountable, the question remained whether he would follow through. It is ironic that Trump’s decision to run for president, thinking it would protect him from prosecution, may have triggered his downfall. Without his declaration, Garland may not have appointed a special counsel. However, the special counsel proved to be relentless in their pursuit of justice.
While Smith has not yet made a recommendation on charges related to the January 6th attack, it is highly unlikely that he would decline to recommend an indictment. Garland, who has previously followed Smith’s recommendations, is unlikely to reject it either.
There are several factors that point towards a federal indictment on charges related to January 6th. First, the Justice Department has already secured convictions for seditious conspiracy and handed out lengthy prison sentences to members of militia groups. It would be unjust to impose heavy jail sentences on those who followed Trump’s instructions while allowing the man they believed was giving those orders to go free.
Second, a state filing in Georgia regarding election interference and attempts to manipulate the vote count could force Garland’s hand. If the facts are available to the state prosecution, they are certainly available to the Justice Department.
Third, Smith has strong evidence against Trump, including testimonies from key witnesses such as Mike Pence, Mark Meadows, and former White House lawyers. Attempts to invoke executive privilege and attorney-client privilege have been unsuccessful in protecting Trump. Furthermore, evidence from Trump’s own words, provided by those closest to him, can be highly damaging.
Fourth, a federal judge has already found that Trump attempted to obstruct an official proceeding on January 6th. While this would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, a grand jury only needs to find “probable cause” for an indictment. Smith should be able to convince a grand jury based on the existing evidence.
Finally, public sentiment has shifted regarding the indictment of a former president. Polling shows that a majority of Americans believe Trump did something illegal and should be indicted. This suggests that there would be no major public opposition to an indictment.
Considering the convictions of January 6th participants, the ongoing Georgia investigation, successful witness testimonies, the judge’s decision, and public sentiment, it would be unwise to bet against an indictment for Trump’s attempt to overthrow a presidential election. Holding him accountable for his attack on democracy is crucial for the integrity of our nation.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
