January 6th Committee Refers Trump for Prosecution

Who has two thumbs and just got referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution?

As The New York Times reports:

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol accused former President Donald J. Trump on Monday of inciting insurrection, conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an act of Congress and one more federal crime as it referred him to the Justice Department for potential prosecution.

The action, the first time in American history that Congress has referred a former president for criminal prosecution, is the coda to the committee’s intense 18-month investigation into Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election that culminated in a violent mob of the former president’s supporters laying siege to the Capitol.

The criminal referrals were a major escalation for a congressional investigation that is the most significant in a generation. The panel referred five other Trump allies — Mark Meadows, his final chief of staff, and the lawyers Rudolph W. Giuliani, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark and Kenneth Chesebro — for potential prosecution for actions the committee said warranted Justice Department investigation. The charges would carry lengthy prison sentences if federal prosecutors chose to pursue them. [Pols emphasis]

The more local connection, of course, is former University of Colorado visiting scholar John Eastman being added to the list of Trump allies referred to the Justice Department for potential prosecution.

Longtime pals of former President Donald Trump, including Rep. Lauren “Q*Bert” Boebert, have been backing away from the Big Orange Guy in recent weeks. Trump has been a convenient source of blame for Republicans who were disappointed with their showing in 2022, and the launching of his 2024 Presidential campaign was met with more of a shrug than applause.

To what degree will Republicans defend Trump — now very much an albatross — once a new Congress convenes next month? If they go to the mat for Trump, it will signal that he still dominates the Republican Party. If they don’t, they risk alienating Trump acolytes who are still very vocal and very active in Republican politics — not to mention angering the pitiless former President who continues to show an inexplicable ability to raise large sums of money from his right-wing base of supporters

Republicans had an out here…but that passed after they refused to condemn Trump in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection. The GOP kicked the can down the road instead, and now they’ve run out of road.

5 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. spaceman2021 says:

    There's a pretty good chance a grand jury is already looking at indictments of some of these treacherous fools. 


  2. Dano says:

    The Jan. 6th in question was nearly 2 years ago. It is past time to stop "looking" and start indicting!

    • Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

      yes   Absolutely. And the media obsession with this ongoing soap opera is ridiculous. 

      They definitely should report on major events:  the 1/6 committee findings, when indictments are handed down, when defendants are being arraigned, motions hearings, trial dates, and PERHAPS most rewarding of all, SENTENCINGS.

      But this obsession with every minute detail of every aspect of these cases is ridiculous. I realize it has created a second career for Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Joyce Vance, Eli Honig, and the rest of them, but isn't there something else going on in the world for the rest of us to be up to date on …..

      • Washopingmylastpostwouldbemylast says:

        The first time in the history of the United States that congress has referred a former President for criminal prosecution kinda' seems maybe a little bit newsworthy?  (It may not be Harry and Meghan newsworthy, but still.)

  3. JohnInDenver says:

    Just a quick reminder before Jan. 3 rolls around and the House votes for a Speaker — today's UNANIMOUS votes authorizing criminal referrals on Trump and some advisors are a very direct descendant of Rep. Kevin McCarthy's unwillingess to name anyone to the committee if he couldn't have all five of those he recommended. 

    Pelosi set the Select committee as a near-EXACT clone of the Benghazi Select Committee.  Eight from the majority, five from the minority, all selected by the Speaker after recommendations from the Majority and Minority leaders.  McCarthy's strategic choice — offer seats to Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Jim Banks, "who [both] voted against certifying the 2020 Presidential election" and criticized the instructions proposed for the committee's focus. Pelosi objected to those two and McCarthy then refused to offer any and encouraged members of the Republican caucus to turn down any offer from Pelosi.

    McCarthy's choice means investigation proceded without any critical input from partisan opponents.  Presentations in the hearings happened as opponents to Trump's actions wished.  The report summarizing findings will have a single point of view — there will be NO minority report.

    That is the special outcome of the strategic choice of Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the man who may not have enough votes to be Speaker but has more than enough wearing OK ["Only Kevin"] buttons to insure no other Republican would be able to win, either.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.