Why a Ruling Declaring Trump 'Likely' Broke Laws May Not Mean He Will Be Prosecuted

[Celerity]

A high-profile ruling about a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack turned on a lower standard of proof than a criminal trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/us/politics/trump-jan-6-eastman.html

https://archive.ph/eFT9m



WASHINGTON — A federal judge’s conclusion this week that former President Donald J. Trump likely committed felonies related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election intensified scrutiny on the question of whether the Justice Department can, should or will try to charge him with the same crimes.

But the fact that a judge reached that conclusion does not necessarily mean that a prosecution would arrive at the same outcome. Here is an explanation.

What is the case?

It is a dispute over a subpoena issued by the House committee that is investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters who were seeking to stop Congress and the vice president at the time, Mike Pence, from certifying Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s Electoral College victory.

The subpoena instructs Chapman University to turn over emails from a former professor, John Eastman, who supplied legal arguments to Mr. Trump supporting his attempts to overturn the election. Mr. Eastman filed a lawsuit to block the subpoena, arguing that his messages were covered by attorney-client and attorney work-product privilege.

snip

[SoonerPride]

1. They could just say "because he is a former Pres and therefore immune from all laws."

But a 12 word article isn't nearly enough time to waste when 1000s of words will say the same thing.

[Effete Snob]

2. Not really

The decision has been oversold in many places.

Some people hear "COURT SAYS TRUMP LIKELY COMMITTED CRIMES" and think that some court has actually found Trump guilty of something.

Among other things, for a court to find someone guilty of a crime, that person needs to be before the court. This was a dispute involving the J6 committee, John Eastman, and the school where he works. So, it's not as if there was even a "defense" as to Trump's culpability for anything, let alone a trial.

[SoonerPride]

3. Of course there will never be a trial.

Ever.

And we all know that.

[SoCalDavidS]

5. The Most Truthful Thing TFG Ever Said

"I Could Shoot Someone On 5th Avenue, And Get Away With It"

[SoonerPride]

7. Yes indeed.

It is maddening.





But there we are.

[brooklynite]

4. How about the fact that there was no "ruling"?

There was an opinion by a Judge not related to a specific charge against Trump.

[Celerity]

6. How about the fact you are wrong?

In his ruling, Judge David O. Carter of the Federal District Court for the Central District of California said the Jan. 6 committee could get certain emails under an exception to attorney-client privilege for communications that sought to further a crime or fraud because it was “more likely than not” that Mr. Trump unlawfully sought to obstruct a government proceeding.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

[SoonerPride]

8. Sure looks like a "ruling" to me.

But I'm only 50% proficient with the English.

[brooklynite]

9. "more likely than not"

The RULING was on the emails. The OPINION was on Trump's POTENTIAL guilt.

[Celerity]

10. Sorry but I am immune to sophistry. Your original claim was and is false.