(The Conversation is an independent, nonprofit source of news, analysis, and commentary from academic experts.)
(THE CONVERSATION) With the news on July 18, 2023 that special counsel Jack Smith had informed former President Donald Trump that he was a target Following the federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the related January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, political analysts and pundits immediately began speculating about the charges that could confront the former president.
But criminal investigations are not public, so drawing conclusions about what charges Smith might bring would have to be based on indications from other sources.
One place to find some possible clues: Smith’s investigation into Trump came on the heels of the extensive public investigation of the Capitol insurrection by the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 attackknown colloquially as the House January 6 Committee.
The committee interviewed 1,200 people, including former Trump employees, state election officials and people who had been involved in the January 6 attack. Is final report was 845 pages and provided many previously unknown facts and details about what happened on January 6 and in the days and weeks leading up to it. The committee recommended that Trump be charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of official congressional proceedings, conspiracy to make a false statement and aiding insurrection.
Here are four of The Conversation’s stories about the committee’s work to help you understand what it did, what it found, and how its work may fit into what could be another landmark impeachment of a former US president. Three of all four were written by claire leavittA Smith College congressional oversight scholar whose analyzes are grounded in real-world experience: She spent a year working on the Democratic-majority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
1. What is an investigation and what is a hearing?
As the committee prepared for its first public hearing, Leavitt laid out the committee’s two functions: investigation first, public hearings second.
“Blockbuster audiences are fascinating and even funny.Leavitt wrote. “They dominate the political and cultural conversation and have movie stars appear in cold releases of ‘Saturday Night Live.’ But what do they really achieve?
Such high-profile hearings, Leavitt wrote, actually represent the end of the investigative process. “They tend to be choreographed affairs, presenting a tightly woven narrative to audiences. By now, most of the investigative work has already been done.”
The hearings “establish a shared foundation of facts that can inform short- and long-term debates, around the table, in the media, in Congress, and among scholars, about how important events should be interpreted,” Leavitt wrote. And they can also serve as “a kind of preemptive justification for specific legal and legislative actions that may follow the investigation.”
For example, Leavitt wrote, “if the committee ends up recommending criminal charges against Trump and his allies, the hearings will already have explained to the public the legitimacy of these charges.”
2. Historic event subjected to time-tested congressional scrutiny
Leavitt also placed the work of the January 6 committee, indeed, its very existence, in historical context. For all the complaints by Trump and his allies that the investigation was illegitimate and a “Witch hunt”, Leavitt wrote that the committee’s work fit perfectly into the US democratic tradition..
“The committee’s recommendation to impeach a former president is unprecedented. But his investigation of the events of January 6, 2021 fell squarely within the power of Congress and added a new chapter to a centuries-long history of congressional investigations into government scandals and failures,” he wrote.
Congress has the power to investigate. “Its standing and special committees,” Leavitt wrote, “known as select committees, regularly conduct both preventive supervision and retroactive investigations. Its objective: to identify specific cases of irregularities both inside and outside the government.
And it is the committee’s identification of wrongdoing that could have provided fodder for Jack Smith’s investigation of Trump.
3. Legitimize the drive for accountability
Did the January 6 committee pave the way for Jack Smith to impeach Trump in connection with the events to nullify the election?
With their decision to recommend charges against Trump, the members of the January 6 committee wrote a legal scholar at Santa Clara University. margaret russellhe had “reached the brink. This bipartisan committee, made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans, decided unanimously that withdrawing from the criminal charges would be a breach of his duty to recommend, based on what he has found.”
The magnitude of the charges the committee recommended, “particularly that of insurrection, is unprecedented,” Russell wrote.
And while the committee itself couldn’t force charges, Russell said its recommendation had “very strong teeth in the sense of urging the Justice Department to make sure there’s accountability.”
4. History takes time
Regardless of whether the work of the House Jan. 6 committee contributed to special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, its work must be considered historic, Leavitt wrote. But that will take time to become clear.
“Evaluation of the total impact of the investigation it requires patience, probably decades’ worth,” Leavitt wrote.
“The process by which events become part of public consciousness is slow and often imperceptible, but it is a legacy arguably as important as the discrete political or electoral results that do or do not emerge in the short term.”
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/targeting-trump-for-prosecution-4-essential-reads-on-how-the-jan-6-investigation-laid-the-groundwork-for-the-special-counsel-210026.
