Here's why Trump's argument that he believed he won in 2020 fails: Ex-prosecutor
August 23, 2023
It might not be necessary for special counsel Jack Smith to prove Donald Trump's motives in the federal lawsuit for the 2020 election.
Speaking as part of a panel for the Brennen Center, "U.S. vs. Trump: The Big Lie on Trial," former senior prosecutor for special counsel Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, said that proving that Trump truly believed that he won might not be important when the trial is proving that he broke the law.
Among the arguments used by Trump and his allies is that they fought the 2020 election results because they believed the election was stolen. That, Weissmann explained, doesn't matter because legal options were available to fight any election disagreements.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
Trump and associates attempted over 60 legal cases, but some presented evidence that was unsubstantiated or hearsay.
The moderator asked whether the Supreme Court would get involved because there are unresolved issues. Weissmann said that it's possible that they might have to. One issue is whether Trump regains the presidency, what happens to the charges will not be dismissed, or whether there would be a stay of those cases.
Another question came about the recent column written by constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe and retired conservative Judge Michael Luttig arguing that the 14th Amendment could prevent Trump from taking office.
Weissmann explained that it's going to be another issue that will have to be decided in court because the Constitution doesn't define what an "insurrection" is. At the same time, it doesn't say how participation in the insurrection is decided. For example, does enforcing the 14th Amendment require someone to be convicted of insurrection, charge or merely observed?
The amendment was written after the Civil War, noted moderator Michael Waldman, and looking at those laws might be the means through which the laws are discussed.
Waldman then asked that given the only option of removing a president for something like this is impeachment, he questioned whether there must be further mechanisms in place beyond impeachment to hold a rogue leader accountable.
Gowri Ramachandran argued that the text does deal with it in the 14th Amendment and its impeachment.
Weissmann said that one thing that is in place is the Office of Legal Counsel decision saying that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Changing that decision or challenging it in court could be another way to challenge a president's behavior. The challenge, however, is that the president appoints the Justice Department leaders.
Toward the end, Weissmann pointed out the through-line of authoritarianism for Trump, pointing specifically to the obstruction charges. There are three different types of obstruction that Trump is charged with, lying to his lawyer, destroying evidence, and obstruction of an official proceeding. Those all indicate to him the dangers of Trump when it comes to adhering to the law.
Sean Morales-Doyle, director of voting rights at the Brennan Center closed by noting, they put our democracy to a test, and our democracy proved resilient to that test. But it isn't over, he explained. These trials will be another opportunity for them to skirt the law.
Ramachandran reinforced the danger the system faces as a result of the attacks on election workers that continues across the country.
Weissmann echoed Judge Luttig's words, saying that it isn't about politics anymore that it is about democracy and the rule of law.
See the panel discussion below or at the link.
Leave a Comment
Related Post