Capitol riot suspect’s court hearing turns to a potential criminal charge for Trump

Could former U.S. President Donald Trump be accused of denying then-Vice President Mike Pence a certificate of electoral vote count?

The question of legitimacy was raised and debated by Judge Carl Nichols, a district court judge in the USA, during the hearing of one of the hundreds facing trial in the Capital Riot case.

Lawyers for both parties and the presiding judge discussed the law used against defendants to determine who is responsible for their criminal offenses. “Corruptly” interfere With the action of a federal government official, and the sentence for this crime extends to up to 20 years in prison.

It is a standing principle that this special law, as stated above, generally applies to matters relating to the court, such as intimidation of witnesses, judges or judges in a case. In the Capitol Violence case, the charges under the law have been leveled against all defendants as Trump’s partisan mob broke through all the lines of defense organized by the police and entered the Capitol building. Election vote count. The applicable question relates to the above point.

At one hearing, defendant’s attorney, Richardson, of Texas, Garrett Miller of Nichols, was the first person to ask the plaintiff the same thing as Trump – whether there could be an obstruction by someone who just “Vice President Pence was called in to decide on a specific certification?” One of the presiding judges also found this resemblance interesting and he asked the same question to the plaintiff again and asked him to assume that the person was trying to persuade Pence and so there was a consequence. “The reason for the right men,” Or the guilty mind, which may therefore be responsible for the crime.

Neither the judge nor the defendant’s attorney specifically mentioned Trump, noting that it was Trump who appointed Pence to the bench, and that the former president was pushing Pence both publicly and privately at the time, following the unfortunate incident at the Capitol. Date, i.e. January 6 – Pence is asked to refuse to issue a certificate of victory to Joe Biden. Trump left no stone unturned and recruited several allies, including attorney John Eastman, to make Pence a caveat.

However, Attorney James Pierce of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division initially dismissed the resemblance as “unreliable” and said, “I don’t see how he can get you that. “ To the judge. But what Pierce also said is that if the person pushing Pence knew that he had the responsibility to certify and validate the election result, according to the vice-president’s constitution, he would be eligible to be convicted. Pierce added: “If that person did it knowingly, it would not be an argument [and is] Asking the vice president to do something that someone knows is wrong … One of the definitions of ‘corrupt’ is trying to get someone to violate a legal duty.

At a later hearing, one of the defendants’ attorneys, Clinton Broaden, reiterated the same point, citing the example of the judge in the above case.

The judge and prosecutor were more cautious and did not use Trump’s name; Basically but the defense attorney was more explicit and open about using his name.

“It bothers me if that is the position of the government, that if former President Trump tried to persuade Vice President Pence not to certify the election, if there is evidence that he does not believe Vice President Pence has that power, “it could be a violation. Obstacle law, Broaden said. “It looks like a rabbit trail that we are going down under the government’s reading of the law.”

Trump has openly stated on several occasions that he is convinced that Pence has the power to deny the outcome of the election. Finally, the House of Representatives will have to intervene to determine the final outcome of the election. However, this claim is being ridiculed by intellectuals who know the law and have good political will. The Justice Department is also upset that it will have to investigate the former president and find out his alleged involvement in the events that unfolded. On January 6.

“We are,” US Attorney Michael Sherwin told reporters on the second day of the riots Seeing all the actors here, and who had the role, and if the evidence matches the elements of the crime, they will be charged. “.

The Justice Department is investigating Trump and those close to him for alleged involvement in the incident, including Miller.

Miller is one of half a dozen defendants in the Capitol riots challenging the use of restraining charges in their cases.

“There should be a limit. If a person comes to the court in preparation for marriage, is it an official proceeding? Broaden asked, requesting the court to grant the defendant the benefit of any doubt under a legal principle known as the “rule of generosity.”

Judge Nichols did not rule on the matter Monday, but he is undoubtedly interested in determining the outcome.