Hutchinson Testimony Jolts Justice Dept. to Discuss Trump's Conduct More Openly

[swag]

(subscriber gift link below - no paywall)

By Katie Benner and Glenn Thrush

Excerpt:

. . .

In conversations at the department the day after Ms. Hutchinson’s appearance, some of which included Ms. Monaco, officials talked about the pressure that the testimony created to scrutinize Mr. Trump’s potential criminal culpability and whether he intended to break the law.

Ms. Hutchinson’s disclosures seemed to have opened a path to broaching the most sensitive topic of all: Mr. Trump’s own actions ahead of the attack.

Department officials have said Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony did not alter their investigative strategy to methodically work their way from lower-level actors up to higher rungs of power. “The only pressure I feel, and the only pressure that our line prosecutors feel, is to do the right thing,” Mr. Garland said this spring.

But some of her explosive assertions — that Mr. Trump knew some of his supporters at a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, were armed, that he desperately wanted to join them as they marched to the Capitol and that the White House’s top lawyer feared Mr. Trump’s conduct could lead to criminal charges — were largely new to them and grabbed their attention.

. . . more

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/11/us/politics/jan-6-trump-cassidy-hutchinson-justice.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DKDm8biPkORJCH_0bRZKF4INk62XHFAcNbLbo3Afd71fReM10oSxS0qZuFno8CJWA3tJmvX2g7mZLRWLRyuRnbUl6EEsYtjruuo0DBdzGqHfyOjCE8Iwo188Qzcwq13XxfxLPCQeMhxoF83Pk-AJ95TTsGY3KJvvntGAw-bIvdFmzU7wc0WuxdWT7Bz5XLu_9bLlIkWR-RR2h_4G089NpZJNsXWa__JBcjc8H_6q4DXi0qdMz6Qs1sGPWH0uliorXPqheTycupx_1QFa5cvbvMsWzSJ0-xt3fZDOgw2ZTS9ythlfOU&smid=url-share

[SunSeeker]

1. How could any rational person think Trump is not guilty?

I mean, even before Hutchinson's testimony, it was obvious that Trump instigated the insurrection.

[pazzyanne]

2. TFG's suporters don't care.

Brain washed people can't handle critical thinking. They just want to be told what to do.

[SunSeeker]

3. I'm talking about DOJ.

I mean, yes, there are some new details, but the overall picture has not changed. If the latest info has the DOJ affecting their decision to prosecute Trump, that means they weren't going to prosecute before. And that blows my mind. And not in a good way.

[Beastly Boy]

4. Because "How could any rational person think Trump is not guilty" doesn't get juries to convict?

Just a wild guess. Than again, what do I know about due process of law, beyond reasonable doubt or unanimous verdicts?

[SunSeeker]

5. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. People get convicted on it all the time.

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2022, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)

DOJ had more than circumstantial evidence by the end of January 2021.

The evidence presented at the 2nd impeachment hearing (regarding January 6) was more than enough to convict.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate voted 57–43 to convict Trump of inciting insurrection, falling 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution, and Trump was therefore acquitted. Seven Republican senators joined all Democratic and independent senators in voting to convict Trump, the largest bipartisan vote for an impeachment conviction of a U.S. president or former U.S. president. After the vote on the acquittal, Mitch McConnell said it is no doubt that Trump is practically and morally responsible for inciting the events at the Capitol but he voted against conviction due to his interpretation of the United States Constitution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump


And what is DOJ doing about Trump's witness tampering? He just called a fucking 1/6 Committee witness! If Trump was anyone else, DOJ would have gotten a warrant and the FBI would be seizing Trump's cell phones on probable cause for witness tampering, right now.

[Beastly Boy]

6. "How could any rational person think Trump is not guilty" is not circumstantial evidence.

It's not any kind of evidence. It's an opinion, and it will not stand up to the scrutiny of reasonable doubt. Hell, it wouldn't even stand up to cross-examination from a half-ass competent defense lawyer.

Furthermore, comparing how evidence is treated during impeachment to how the same evidence is presented in a court of law is ridiculous. The former is a process of firing a president, and the latter is a process of establishing criminal liability on the part of the president. The former requires 60% of the senators to convict, and the latter requires 100% of jurors to convict. The former has precedents, and the latter is unprecedented. Garland has no standing in Congress, and McConnel has no standing in a court of law.

Finally, neither I nor you know anything about Trump's witness tampering. So anything being said on this subject, including what DOJ would have done or not done if Trump was anyone else, is pure speculation. Not only because we don't know, but also because Trump's prosecution would be without precedent.

[SunSeeker]

7. No rational person would think Trump is not guilty based on what we KNOW..

I didn't say my opinion was evidence for fuck's sake. My point was based on what we know, both circumstantial, and now direct evidence from Trump world witnesses, no rational person could think Trump did not foment this insurrection.

We do know plenty about Trump's witness tampering and obstruction of justice. It is well laid out in Mueller's report and now the 1/6 hearings.

Do you think the 1/6 committee lied today about Trump calling a 1/6 witness? Do you think they had no basis to alert DOJ about it?

Jurors are not corrupt Republican Senators. But if even a Republican as biased and corrupt as McConnell would acknowledge that Trump is responsible, don't you think a neutral juror would?

Don't YOU think Trump is guilty?

[Beastly Boy]

8. How much do you know about due process of law?

How much do you know about DOJ's long established standards for bringing a case to prosecution?

How much do you lnow about empaneling a grand jury, or who empanels it (hint: it's not DOJ)?

How much do you know about prosecuting a suspect in a court of law?

How much do you know about evidence admissible in a court of law (Hint: the J6 committee is not bound by these standards)?

How much do you know about what it takes to get a guilty verdict in a court of law?

If you are not an accomplished prosecutor, you likely don't know much about any of it. And you know absolutely nothing about what is happening within DOJ. Yet, you presume to assign guilt to Trump based on what little you know. and presume that DOJ ought to act on it. Your conclusion is an opinion, and it is definitely not evidence. Duh.

Do I think Trump is guilty? Yes, I think Trump is guilty. But that's my OPINION, for fuck's sake. It doesn't matter how much you think you know: unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, even Trump is presumed innocent, and your presumption of his guilt remains an opinion.

[SunSeeker]

9. A juror's decision is an opinion too. Like yours and mine, it is based on facts.

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2022, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

We know a lot more than just "a little." We know Trump explicitly summoned his supporters to the Capitol, we know he refused to call them off for hours. We know he wanted to stop the electoral count. Those are undisputed facts. This is not rocket science. Everyone who knows the most basic facts of this believes he is guilty, like you and I do. I have full confidence that any rational juror (and grand jury) would too.

I know quite a bit about federal law, trial procedure, admissibility of evidence, as well as how DOJ works. DOJ prosecutors are a conservative bunch, both politically and in terms of how they handle their cases.

I know how a federal grand jury works, please spare me the condescending remarks. The prosecutor decides whether to present the case to the grand jury. https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging I am also well aware that the J6 Committee is not operating under trial evidence rules. They don't need to. They are an investigatory body, not a trial court.

That said, I see no reason why DOJ couldn't admit the bulk of the evidence presented at the J6 hearings in criminal court, with proper authentication and percipient witness testimony.

Also, a federal grand jury may begin an investigation even in the absence of probable cause or any suspicion that a crime has been committed. Further, its investigation may be triggered by information received from any source, including the personal knowledge of grand jurors themselves. In essence, the grand jury is left unrestrained to fully carry out its investigation and to look at all clues and evidence in determining whether or not a crime has been committed.

I cannot imagine how an unbiased federal grand jury could not find Trump had committed a crime, just based on the facts and evidence that are publicly known.

[Beastly Boy]

10. With all due condescention warranted by the above, a juror's decision is NOT an opinion.

It's a verdict. It is endorsed by the court, and it is binding on all parties involved. And, unlike anyone else's opinion, it is based exclusively on the evidence presented during a trial, disregarding anything else that "we know". To reach a guilty verdict, a prosecutor must convince all jurors beyond reasonable doubt that the crime occurred. A defense lawyer, on the other hand, only needs to create doubt in a single juror to prevent a guilty verdict.

And, of course, this is the reason why DOJ cannot just take the J6 evidence and submit it at trial: as you keenly noted, the J6 committee is not operating under the trial rule. Much of their evidence is not admissible at trial, and even more can be successfully challenged by the defense under the trial rule. A good reason why DOJ couldn't admit the bulk of the evidence presented at the J6 hearings in criminal court, no?

As far as grand juries, they meet in secret. They also may issue indictments in secret. Or not, but the outcome stays secret either way. By definition, you are not encouraged to imagine how an unbiased federal grand jury could not find Trump had committed a crime, They, not "we", determine which facts are undisputed and which facts are. In fact. it's even useless to imagine whether they exist or not. That's the whole idea behind grand juries. Their existence or lack thereof is unaffected by anyone's imagination.

[SunSeeker]

11. No, a juror's opinion/decision becomes a verdict if shared by the rest of the jurors.

If all of the jurors are of the opinion, based on the evidence admitted at trial, that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged/indicted, then you have a guilty verdict. Of course it's based on the facts established in court. And of course DOJ can't just take the evidence in the same format as it was presented by the J6 Committee. The Committee was putting on a presentation for TV viewers.

But I see no reason why any of those texts and documents can't be authenticated and admitted as evidence at trial.

Same goes with percipient witness testimony. If those witnesses were willing to appear before the J6 Committee, they would certainly comply with a trial subpoena. DOJ should have absolutely no problem getting relevant authenticated documents and percipient witness testimony admitted into evidence. The DOJ prosecutors may be conservative, but they know how to admit evidence.