The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
I see no reference to any federal code in that story. I see the words "dereliction of duty" used, but that's not a specific law in the federal code. It's a common concept within the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but even as the commander in chief, the president is a civilian, and the UCMJ doesn't apply to civilians. So as a legal matter Cheney cannot be referring to the UCMJ. So what's this specific law you're referring to?
Click to expand...

Paul2 said:
I did not see any reference to a specific law in the Federal code at your link. Can you clarify what law in the code Cheney was referring to?
Click to expand...


By failing to take any action to stop the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, may have violated 18 USC § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

18 USC § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

This is the exact law that most of the 1/6 insurrectionists themselves have been charged with. Their lawyers have repeatedly challenged the application of this law to their clients, but so far, five separate federal judges have ruled that those charges are viable.

By failing to take action when he had the power to do so, Trump violated both this law, and his Oath of Office, which means he also violated the US Constitution.

While there is no Federal code or punishment for the latter, it is subject to the 14th Amendment, and someone who has failed to uphold their Oath of Office could be disqualified from ever holding office again.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
First off, I wasn't the one who established prosecutions/convictions as the standard. The Great Zaganza did. And you were on board.

Second, if Trump ever does get prosecuted, you can be damn sure the prosecutors are going to pick a venue where the jury pool won't be inclined in his favor.
Click to expand...

Well it was a ****** standard then and it's a ****** standard now. Trump did a crime. If he isn't held accountable, that means the system for holding people accountable isn't working.
 
Trump's voice is on record asking an election official to find votes for him. It's cut and dry. Everything else is pettifogging. The only thing that needs clarification is why people are defending him.
 
digger said:
Trump's voice is on record asking an election official to find votes for him. It's cut and dry. Everything else is pettifogging. The only thing that needs clarification is why people are defending him.
Click to expand...

He is likely allowed to ask them to do that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
He is likely allowed to ask them to do that.
Click to expand...

Just like he's allowed to withhold military aid from Ukraine until they dug up dirt on Biden. Just like he's allowed to ask the director of the FBI for personal loyalty and then fire him when he refuses. Just like he's allowed to incite a riot at the Capital building. Just like he's allowed to disrupt our peaceful transfer of power.

The question is, why is he allowed to, and how do we stop it from happening again?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
By failing to take any action to stop the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, may have violated 18 USC § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

18 USC § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

This is the exact law that most of the 1/6 insurrectionists themselves have been charged with. Their lawyers have repeatedly challenged the application of this law to their clients, but so far, five separate federal judges have ruled that those charges are viable.

By failing to take action when he had the power to do so, Trump violated both this law, and his Oath of Office, which means he also violated the US Constitution.

While there is no Federal code or punishment for the latter, it is subject to the 14th Amendment, and someone who has failed to uphold their Oath of Office could be disqualified from ever holding office again.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that law does not apply to failing to do something, as the verbs highlighted above are all about doing something. IANAL.
 
Crossbow said:
As for me (and I expect many, many, many other people), would absolutely LOVE it if that stupid, idiotic, lying POS Trump with the orange hair and orange skin would spend at least some time in prison wearing an orange jumpsuit for what he did on January 6.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see him go to jail for his tax fraud in new york, or his attempts to influence the vote in Georgia.

Heck, at this point I'd be happy to see him go to jail for Sharpiegate.
However, one must face reality, and desires do not automatically become realities.

After all, it does not appear that Trump actually did anything illegal himself during January 6. And while it is clearly true that Trump behaved in a quite reprehensible way on January 6, that is not the same thing as performing an illegal act, or acts, on January 6.
Click to expand...
True... his efforts to rile up the crowd might be covered under "free speech". And his failure to call off the rioters might be considered incompetence, which is not technically illegal.

I guess the big question is... are there things that we DON'T know about Trump's actions? Did he (for example) personally interact with any of the terrorist groups spearheading the riot, or did he know anything about their plans ahead of time (which would make him part of a "conspiracy")? What influence did he have regarding things like the alternate electors?

There are things that he might have done that indeed were illegal (although the DoJ might still decline to proceed with charges, even if some illegality were found.)
 
digger said:
Just like he's allowed to withhold military aid from Ukraine until they dug up dirt on Biden. Just like he's allowed to ask the director of the FBI for personal loyalty and then fire him when he refuses. Just like he's allowed to incite a riot at the Capital building. Just like he's allowed to disrupt our peaceful transfer of power.

The question is, why is he allowed to, and how do we stop it from happening again?
Click to expand...

The reason in Georgia is he was not speaking in an official capacity. It was a meeting of lawyers and parties.
 
BobTheCoward said:
He is likely allowed to ask them to do that.
Click to expand...

As has been explained multiple times, no, under Georgia law he is not allowed to ask an official to keep counting until he gets a majority for Trump.
Trump asked to get just enough votes to win, which he in the phone call said where fewer than what he had won by. So Trump asked for something he knew was not correct, thereby proving his intend.
Trump is guilty of attempting coercion of an election offical to submit false voting results.
It doesn't get clearer than this.
 
digger said:
Trump's voice is on record asking an election official to find votes for him. It's cut and dry. Everything else is pettifogging. The only thing that needs clarification is why people are defending him.
Click to expand...
Part of this thread is discussing whether trump's actions (or lack thereof) on Jan. 6 broke some law. I think the Georgia call is pretty cut and dry, but that wasn't on Jan. 6, although it is part of Trump's entire effort, which includes Jan. 6.
 
Some commentators have suggested that the Georgia Grand Jury is just a fig leaf for Republicans to go on the record against Trump only because they got a subpoena.
The prosecutor is probably already done with the investigation.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
As has been explained multiple times, no, under Georgia law he is not allowed to ask an official to keep counting until he gets a majority for Trump.
Trump asked to get just enough votes to win, which he in the phone call said where fewer than what he had won by. So Trump asked for something he knew was not correct, thereby proving his intend.
Trump is guilty of attempting coercion of an election offical to submit false voting results.
It doesn't get clearer than this.
Click to expand...

You can absolutely ask that. These mid terms, if I see the guy out in Atlanta, I can absolutely walk up and say stop counting once there is enough votes for so-and-so.
 
Paul2 said:
It seems to me that law does not apply to failing to do something, as the verbs highlighted above are all about doing something. IANAL.
Click to expand...

Lying about the election, lying to the crowd about the administration of the election and how it could change, and then failing to act when he had a duty to, could all arguably be 'corruptly obstructing' through the plain reading of the statute, but I'm not comprehensively familiar with the case law that could impact the legal meaning.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Some commentators have suggested that the Georgia Grand Jury is just a fig leaf for Republicans to go on the record against Trump only because they got a subpoena.
The prosecutor is probably already done with the investigation.
Click to expand...

Not what I have read.

AIUI, she asked for the SGJ because she has witnesses she want to question who are refusing to co-operate with her investigation - getting the SGJ means she can subpoena those witnesses and question them under oath and penalty of perjury.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/20/georgia-da-seeks-special-grand-jury-trump/
"In a letter Thursday [13 January], Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) told the chief judge of Fulton County’s Superior Court that the move was needed because a “significant number of witnesses and prospective witnesses have refused to cooperate with the investigation absent a subpoena requiring their testimony.”

Willis cited Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) as an example. Willis has previously confirmed that part of her probe centers on the Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Raffensperger in which Trump asked Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn Joe Biden’s win in the state’s presidential election."​
The Special Grand Jury has been approved.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The reason in Georgia is he was not speaking in an official capacity. It was a meeting of lawyers and parties.
Click to expand...
You can absolutely ask that. These mid terms, if I see the guy out in Atlanta, I can absolutely walk up and say stop counting once there is enough votes for so-and-so.
Click to expand...
Trump was the president of the United States. As such, ANY statements he make should be viewed in a different context than if just a random guy who walks up to an election official and says "stop counting".

In fact, Trump actually threatened Raffensperger with a "criminal investigation" if he did not comply. The fact that Trump was president suggests that Raffensperger should have taken the threat seriously.

You cannot both speak in a non-official capacity, and in the same conversation invoke the authority of your position.
Click to expand...
 
Paul2 said:
It seems to me that law does not apply to failing to do something, as the verbs highlighted above are all about doing something. IANAL.
Click to expand...

"Actus Reus as omission" can and does often apply to criminal proceedings. A failure to act is when a person or party has a duty to perform a certain act but does not end up doing so. Failure to act under those circumstances can make a person criminally liable for whatever happens due to their failure to act.

Trump was implored by his advisors and by his own sons and daughter to make an announcement to get those insurrectionists to leave the Capitol... he failed to do so for over three and a half hours (and when he finally did so, it was too little and too late... and pretty weak sauce anyway.
 
Segnosaur said:
BobTheCoward said:
Trump was the president of the United States. As such, ANY statements he make should be viewed in a different context than if just a random guy who walks up to an election official and says "stop counting".

In fact, Trump actually threatened Raffensperger with a "criminal investigation" if he did not comply. The fact that Trump was president suggests that Raffensperger should have taken the threat seriously.

You cannot both speak in a non-official capacity, and in the same conversation invoke the authority of your position.
Click to expand...

I'm not finding the criminal investigation in the transcript.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom