To accuse or not to accuse: the Donald Trump dilemma

The chilling portrait of a president who knew he had lost the election but was still trying to cling to power was painted in an avalanche of testimony brought before the Congress of the United States by US Congress figures in recent days United States were brought.furnishings Republican.

• Also read: Storming the Capitol: Commission targets Trump’s attempts to ‘corrupt’ the judiciary

• Also read: Storming the Capitol: Trump’s pressure on states on the commission’s menu

• Also read: YouTube removes Donald Trump investigation video

White House or Donald Trump campaign officials, attorneys and even members of his family have outlined possible lawsuits and highlighted several potential wrongdoings by the billionaire during his presidency, culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.

The filing compiled by elected officials on the commission of inquiry into the attack aims to show that the event was part of a broader attempt at a “coup d’état” led by the defeated President and his attorney, John Eastman.

Now a crucial question arises: Should federal prosecutors indict Donald Trump?

“There’s a good chance Mr. Trump will be indicted by the Justice Department,” former New York City Attorney Kevin O’Brien told AFP.

“The litigation is strong and would appear compelling to a jury provided prosecutors can tie Trump and John Eastman’s plans to roll back the vote count to the riot, on the one hand.” Capitol on the other hand,” he analyses.

The parliamentary committee has always maintained that it would leave the question of impeachment to the competent authorities.

But she strongly indicated that she would accuse Donald Trump of at least two crimes: obstructing voter counting and engaging in a criminal enterprise against the United States.

The established facts don’t really bode well for the former reality star.

Before the violence in Washington, Donald Trump led his supporters to believe his election had been stolen.

He encouraged them to go to the federal capital on January 6th. That day, he addressed thousands of those present, urging them to go to the Capitol, a few hundred yards away, as elected officials confirmed the election results.

The parliamentary inquiry also highlighted the intimidation of assessors, but also electoral officials and senior officials in the Ministry of Justice.

According to his supporters, Donald Trump was adamant that voter fraud existed and was making a good faith effort to protect voters.

But the hearings showed the 76-year-old tycoon knew full well he’d lost, given the number of times his closest aides had told him so.

One of the strongest testimonies came from retired Judge J. Michael Luttig, who is considered a star in conservative circles. He said Donald Trump posed “a clear and present danger” to American democracy.

Despite a fairly broad consensus outside of the billionaire’s supporters that he could reasonably be charged, Attorney General Merrick Garland is now wondering if he should.

“A poorly managed impeachment could empower Trump and even help him get re-elected,” said Edward Luce, columnist for the Financial Times in Washington. “If you attack a king, even a former king, you must strike him down.”

Merrick Garland can count on strong public support if he decides to impeach Donald Trump: nearly 60% of Americans believe the ex-president should be prosecuted, according to a new poll by ABC News – Ipsos.

But for Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor from San Diego, California, the Attorney General doesn’t have “the guts” to start this fight.

“The indictment of a former president would be unprecedented and it takes an aggressive prosecutor ready to tackle a difficult and politically charged case,” he told AFP. “I don’t think Merrick Garland is that prosecutor.”

According to Nicholas Creel, law professor at Georgia College and State University, not to worry about Donald Trump would be an affront to one of the fundamental principles of the American justice system: “No one is above the law.”

“An indictment would go against established norms of not prosecuting former presidents and would almost certainly spark a massive uprising from his supporters,” he told AFP. “But the alternative is to allow him to attempt a coup without consequences.”

Leave a Comment