The Jan. 6 transcripts show how Trump’s allies defended him

[ad_1]

The recently released transcripts from the House Jan. 6 Committee reveals a pattern of stonewalling and obfuscation by people in former President Donald Trumps orbit. Former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson told the panel that Stefan Passantino, one of the Trumps’ lawyers, instructed her to avoid giving relevant testimony.

And witnesses like Charlie Kirk and Jenna Ellis invoked their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in response to the most basic questions, such as their level of education or previous employment. This is related to the executive summary reports, released Monday, which include a section on Attempts to Avoid Testimony, Obstruction Evidence, and Tests of Witness Credibility, detailing witnesses who are not only taking the Fifth , but pretends not to remember the events and asks for forgiveness from the White House after the fact.

These findings are not as sexy or explosive as those that focus on Trump’s direct culpability. But in understanding how January 6th happened, and how to prevent it from happening again, the attempted obstruction of Trump’s cronies may be the most important revelation of all.

The attempted obstruction by Trump’s cronies may be the most important revelation of all.

Trumps actions are so extreme, and so dangerous, that it’s tempting to think that if we could just get him behind bars in an orange jumpsuit, everything would be fine. But the sheer breadth and scale of the interrelated prongs leading up to Jan. 6 made it clear that Trump could never undo his self-coup alone. Trumps lawyers, his chief of staff and members of Congress act in unison toward the same anti-democratic and illegal goal: They are what I like to call Trumps con infrastructure, giving his coup attempt its structure and provides support. This is, of course, a double-edged sword: When you have a lot of cooks in the kitchen, you have a lot of witnesses to your crime which, for the FBI, or a congressional committee, is an advantage.

Trump understands this, which is why obstructing investigations into his conduct has been his crime since he began his presidency. During the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Trump repeatedly attempted to discredit or outright fire the special counsel, offered pardons to those willing to lie for him, and intimidated others who cooperated with Law enforcement.

The second article of impeachment following Trump’s withholding of military aid from Ukraine is Obstruction of Congress (foreshadowing, anyone?). The article describes how Trump, without legal cause or reason, ordered Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with [congressional] subpoenas. One of the potential crimes that prompted the FBI’s search warrant at Mar-a-Lago was obstruction of justice, due to the failure to turn over all classified documents in response to a subpoena; the certification filed by his lawyers falsely asserted that no classified documents remained at the compound.

The range of crimes that comprise obstruction of justice which includes making false statements, witness tampering and concealment of evidence are often reduced to mere procedural crimes. The insinuation is that these aren’t real crimes, but what the FBI uses when they can’t get you for something else. It is true that these crimes exist independently of any other substantive criminal activity. As I liked to tell my interviewees when I was at the FBI, Martha Stewart was not imprisoned for insider trading, as many believed. He was imprisoned for lying to the FBI and obstruction of justice.

Trumps larger pattern is signaling to his supporters that they will be rewarded if they help him, especially by obstructing the investigative process.

But in many ways, procedural crimes are on an equal footing with substantive crimes: By ensuring that the investigative process operates without bias or interference, it ensures that we get to the truth. When the process fails, the truth can be blurred, as Trump knows all too well. Special counsel Robert Mueller noted in his final report that because of attempts by witnesses to hide and destroy evidence, his office cannot rule out the possibility that unavailable information will shed light on (or provide new light) in the events described in the report.

(It’s worth noting that despite pooh-poohing lying to the FBI as a criminal process, special counsel John Durham, widely hailed as a hero on the right for investigating investigators in Russia case, resulted in only three indictments for all. making false statements.)

The Jan. 6 committee revealed on Monday that it was aware of multiple efforts by President Trump to contact Select Committee witnesses, adding that the Justice Department was aware of at least one of those incidents. But Trumps larger pattern is signaling to his supporters that they will be rewarded if they help him, especially by obstructing the investigative process.

Throughout his presidency, Trump has used his pardon power to exonerate people who lied to the FBI, such as Scooter Libby and Rod Blagojevich, showing that he believes these criminal processes are the most deserving of pardons. At the end of his presidency, he pardoned those who actively lied to investigators or Congress on his behalf. Not surprisingly, several members of Congress all sought and hoped for a pardon for their January 6 complicity.

Many, if not most, of these instances of interception may not be criminally chargeable acts. After all, invoking the Fifth is a constitutional right, and it is not illegal to ask for forgiveness. But they point to a broader pattern of complicity by a large portion of the people who saw only upsides in enabling the misconduct of former presidents; we should not dismiss it in a frenzy to bring the hammer down on Trump. People like Trump can only succeed when there are enablers willing to do their bidding. We must focus on all forms of accountability including public exposure, ethics and disciplinary proceedings, and (most importantly) at the ballot box to deter these people in the future.

Asha Rangappa is a senior lecturer at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs and a former associate dean at Yale Law School. Before Yale, Asha served as a special agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. He has been a contributor to numerous television and radio outlets, and is now a legal and national security analyst.

[ad_2]