By Kenneth Tiven

The Trump conspiracy indictment is a near perfect outline for a crime thriller movie as it details exactly what the former US president did trying to retain his office despite losing to Joe Biden in 2020. The federal indictment describes a massive amount of evidence—a debris field as radioactive as if it came from a nuclear explosion—that was created by Trump and his lawyers. The Justice Department team led by prosecutor Jack Smith has painstakingly reconstructed Trump’s every day and every conversation that relates to the case, material from every failed Trump lawsuit at state level and his excessive tweets are included along with sworn testimony from the people involved, all of whom are Republicans.

The six co-conspirators, especially Rudy Giuliani, figure prominently. They remain uncharged for now, having been left out to focus the case on Trump by avoiding complications from too many defendants at one time. Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows appears only twice, suggesting that he has become a cooperating witness for the government to save himself from possible prosecution. This indictment’s approach is enhanced by the enormous amount of electronic and digital information that can be pulled together, sifted and sorted into a database. It demonstrates how easily a conspiracy will go awry when hundreds of people with dishonest motives are ultimately involved.

EVIDENCE EXCERPTS

Paragraph 2: Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.

Para 3: The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

There are four counts of conspiracy:

Para 6: From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government.

Para 10e: After it became public on the afternoon of January 6 that the Vice President would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd—including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results—violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.

Para 11: The Defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents made knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election. These prolific lies about election fraud included dozens of specific claims that there had been substantial fraud in certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for the Defendant to votes for Biden. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts—and he deliberately disregarded the truth.

Para 11 f & g: Senior staffers on the Defendant’s 2020 re-election campaign (“Defendant’s Campaign” or “Campaign”)—whose sole mission was the Defendant’s re-election—told the Defendant on November 7, 2020, that he had only a five to ten percent chance of prevailing in the election, and that success was contingent on the Defendant winning ongoing vote counts or litigation in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Within a week of that assessment, the Defendant lost in Arizona—meaning he had lost the election.

Para 12: The Defendant’s knowingly false statements were integral to his criminal plans to defeat the federal government function, obstruct the certification, and interfere with others right to vote and have their votes counted. He made these knowingly false claims throughout the post-election time period, including those below that he made immediately before the attack on the Capitol on January 6.

12a: The Defendant insinuated that more than ten thousand dead voters had voted in Georgia. Just four days earlier, Georgia’s Secretary of State had explained to the Defendant that this was false.

12b. The Defendant asserted that there had been 205,000 more votes than voters in Pennsylvania. The Defendant’s Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General had explained to him that this was false.

12c. The Defendant said that there had been a suspicious vote dump in Detroit, Michigan. The Defendant’s Attorney General had explained to the Defendant that this was false, and the Defendant’s allies in the Michigan state legislature—the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Majority Leader of the Senate—had publicly announced that there was no evidence of substantial fraud in the state.

12d. The Defendant claimed that there had been tens of thousands of double votes and other fraud in Nevada. The Nevada Secretary of State had previously rebutted the Defendant’s fraud claims by publicly posting a “Facts vs. Myths” document explaining that Nevada judges had reviewed and rejected them, and the Nevada Supreme Court had rendered a decision denying such claims.

12e The Defendant said that more than 30,000 non-citizens had voted in Arizona. The Defendant’s own Campaign Manager had explained to him that such claims were false, and the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, who had supported the Defendant in the election, had issued a public statement that there was no evidence of substantial fraud in Arizona.

12f. The Defendant asserted that voting machines in various contested states had switched votes from the Defendant to Biden. The Defendant’s Attorney General, Acting Attorney General, and Acting Deputy Attorney General all had explained to him that this was false, and numerous recounts and audits had confirmed the accuracy of voting machines.

Para 15b The Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1 asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing based on their claims of election fraud. The Arizona House Speaker refused, stating that doing so would require a two-thirds vote of its members, and he would not allow it without actual evidence of fraud.

Para 16 Co-Conspirator 1 (Giuliani) responded with words to the effect of, “We don’t have the evidence, but we have lots of theories.”

In every state where he demanded changes, officials explained to him that there was proof of fraud. Trump sent Mark Meadows to Georgia to observe mail in ballot counting.

Para 28  (Meadows) notified the Defendant that state election officials were “conducting themselves in an exemplary fashion” and would find fraud if it existed, the Defendant tweeted that the Georgia officials administering the signature verification process were trying to hide evidence of election fraud and were “terrible people!”

Para 33 On January 6, the Defendant publicly repeated the knowingly false insinuation that more than 10,300 dead people had voted in Georgia.

Para 40 On December 14—the day that electors in states across the country were required to vote and submit their votes to Congress—the Michigan House Speaker and Michigan Senate Majority Leader announced that, contrary to the Defendant’s requests, they would not decertify the legitimate election results or electors in Michigan… The Michigan House Speaker’s public statement read, in part: “We’ve diligently examined these reports of fraud to the best of our ability… I fought hard for President Trump. Nobody wanted him to win more than me. I think he’s done an incredible job. But I love our republic, too. I can’t fathom risking our norms, traditions and institutions… And that’s why there is not enough support in the House to cast a new slate of electors. I fear we’d lose our country forever. This truly would bring mutually assured destruction for every future election in regards to the Electoral College. And I can’t stand for that. I won’t.”

Para 58 The next day, on December 8, Co-Conspirator 5 called the Arizona attorney on Co-Conspirator 6’s list. In an email after the call, the Arizona attorney recounted his conversation with Co-Conspirator 5 as follows: …His idea is basically that all of us have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren’t legal under federal law – because they’re not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6. (They could potentially argue that they’re not bound by federal law because they’re Congress and make the law, etc.) Kind of wild/creative – I’m happy to discuss. My comment to him was that I guess there’s no harm in it, (legally at least) – i.e. we would just be sending in “fake” electoral votes to Pence so that “someone” in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the “fake” votes should be counted.

Para 61 When the Defendant’s electors expressed concern about signing certificates representing themselves as legitimate electors, Co-Conspirator 1 falsely assured them that their certificates would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in litigation.

Para 66 On the same day, at the direction of the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1, fraudulent electors convened sham proceedings in the seven targeted states to cast fraudulent electoral ballots in favor of the Defendant. In some states, in order to satisfy legal requirements set forth for legitimate electors under state law, state officials were enlisted to provide the fraudulent electors access to state capitol buildings so that they could gather and vote there.

Para 72 On December 26, Co-Conspirator 4 spoke on the phone with the Acting Attorney General and lied about the circumstances of his meeting with the Defendant at the White House, falsely claiming that the meeting had been unplanned. The Acting Attorney General directed Co-Conspirator 4 not to have unauthorized contacts with the White House again, and Co-Conspirator 4 said he would not.

Para 74. When the Acting Attorney General told the Defendant that the Justice Department could not and would not change the outcome of the election, the Defendant responded, “Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

Para 90 On several private phone calls in late December and early January, the Defendant repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud and directly pressured the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the certification proceeding on January 6 to fraudulently overturn the results of the election, and the Vice President resisted, including: In response, the Defendant told the Vice President, “You’re too honest.” Within hours of the conversation, the Defendant reminded his supporters to meet in Washington before the certification proceeding, tweeting, “The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!”

Para 99. That night, the Defendant approved and caused the Defendant’s Campaign to issue a public statement that the Defendant knew, from his meeting with the Vice President only hours earlier, was false: “The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.”

Para 110 When advisors urged the Defendant to issue a calming message aimed at the rioters, the Defendant refused, instead repeatedly remarking that the people at the Capitol were angry because the election had been stolen.

Para 114 The Defendant repeatedly refused to approve a message directing rioters to leave the Capitol, as urged by his most senior advisors—including the White House Counsel, a Deputy White House Counsel, the Chief of Staff, a Deputy Chief of Staff, and a Senior Advisor. Instead, the Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including: At 2:38 p.m., “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

FATE OF CO-CONSPIRATORS

While six co-conspirators were named, they are not yet charged. Their names do not appear but five of the six descriptions match attorneys Rudolph Giuliani, John Eastman, Ms Sidney Powell, Kenneth Cheseboro, and Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark. The sixth is described as a political consultant. Conspiracy to defraud the US government is a catchall crime covering any scheme between two or more people to break federal law or defraud the federal government. Conspiracies don’t need to be successful to be criminal, and perpetrators can be held responsible if they join the conspiracy at any stage.

Justice Department special prosecutor Jack Smith says he wants a speedy trial in federal court in Washington. Combined with the other state and federal legal cases, this logically will hamper Trump’s re-election campaign. Or maybe not, as his hardcore supporters insist it’s an unfair prosecution, despite evidence that supports the charges.

Trump’s reaction

Trump, uncharacteristically, was not quick on his social network platform to condemn Smith with the claim this is just a witch-hunt by the Justice Department. His first post-indictment campaign email was moderate in tone. However, Steven Cheung, a Trump spokesman characterized the indictment as an attempt to interfere in the next presidential election, saying, “Why did they wait 21⁄2 years to bring these fake charges, right in the middle of President Trump’s winning campaign for 2024?”

Trump supporters will continue to rage, but will get out of hand? No one has a firm idea, but perhaps the severe sentences handed down to people convicted for the January 6 attack on the US Capitol may be a deterrent to mass street violence. Arguments that President Biden or Attorney General Garland pushed for this prosecution of Trump is a serious distortion of the public record. The two seemed reluctant for most of the first two years of the administration to investigate Trump.

It appears that the House Select Committee’s January 6 hearings earlier this year produced substantial credible evidence with this material given to the Justice Department to consider. Additionally public perceptions shifted, and this pushed the Department of Justice to bring in Jack Smith, a veteran prosecutor with a reputation for fast thorough work.

Court cases will be quite different from the two Congressional impeachment trials that failed to convict Trump for malfeasance as president. “For a former chief executive to be charged with a violation of not just a federal law, but a federal law about the exercise of federal rights, is astonishing,” said Frederick M Lawrence. He is a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan and the author of Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes Under American Law. He added that, “we can’t lose the ability to be shocked by this case.” For voters who found his rhetoric crude, there is “Trump Fatigue”. In contrast his most avid supporters are emboldened as Trump increases his lies, divisiveness, and dystopian rhetoric.

Journalist Dan Rather, who covered President Nixon’s 1974 resignation in the Watergate Burglary scandal, said this about Trump’s situation: “It is also part of a more sweeping historic and political indictment of our times. For Trump couldn’t have done this alone. Today represents an indictment of all who validated his vile indulgences, whitewashed his wantonness, disguised his depravity, legitimized his lawlessness, and acquiesced to his autocracy”

India Legal’s coverage of Trump’s election in 2016 pointed out the danger of a man with absolutely no experience of consensus management working in a leadership position in government, noting that his entire adult life was lived as the Bully Boss.

Rather adds that, “Trump is not the only one facing trial. We all are. What kind of country will we have? How much are we willing to fight for our ideals? Our future?” That could be in the hands of a man with a name as unthreatening as Jack Smith. 

—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington Post, NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian channels

By Kenneth Tiven

Donald Trump’s brief time in a Miami courthouse took place in a tightly guarded and restricted courthouse while outside demonstrators on both sides were kept apart by a heavy police presence. Trump entered the Courthouse complex through an underground parking lot and tunnel for intake processing leading to the brief arraignment hearing before a federal magistrate. The 37-count indictment is for possession of classified documents for more than a year, refusing to give them back when requested under the Presidential Records Act. (All official documents belong to the government not the president.) Trump, wearing a dark suit and a red tie, sat with his arms crossed while the magistrate judge described the indictment. Folded arms are Trump’s go-to pose when he is feeling defiant.

Before the court appearance, he had issued a steady stream of emails and social network statements defaming the Justice Department, President Biden and special prosecutor Jack Smith in the most personal of terms. We will learn if this continues given the formal indictment. His valet and co-defendant Walt Nauta was seated at the table as well with his attorney.

Jack Scott, Jay Bratt, David Harbach and Julie Edelstein were among the prosecutors present for the Justice Department. Todd Blanche defended Trump in New York State court in Manhattan last month and had previously defended Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. Concurrently, he represents Boris Epshteyn, a controversial legal adviser to the former president. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman conducted the arraignment quickly, with the intake process equally swift, including fingerprinting, forms filled out, but no mug shots.

An arraignment is a legal formality. A judge describes the charges, the defendant enters a plea, some scheduling issues are typically discussed. Things will heat up in the coming months as discovery goes forward, then comes a better sense of when a trial might take place, what Trump’s defense might be and which judge will handle the trial. The young federal district judge selected with a random system is the same judge who previously mishandled a Trump case and was resoundingly overruled and criticized by the 11 Circuit Court of Appeals. She could recuse herself as a recent Trump appointee, but if not, it is excepted the government will seek her replacement with a senior jurist.

The indictment specifies 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information, plus 1 count of false statements and representations, 1 count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, 1 count of withholding a document or record, 1 count of corruptly concealing a document or record, 1 count of concealing a document in a federal investigation, 1 count of scheme to conceal. An issue the prosecution faces is related to the reluctance to reveal the contents of classified secret documents involved. The government will likely argue that the mere fact of being classified makes it illegal to reveal the contents. It surprises no one that this indictment has ignited political partisanship based on unquestioning loyalty to Trump. Most Republican politicians so fear their voters that they willingly repeat claims this is a political attack by the Biden administration. One member of Congress has portrayed the indictment as an act of war. Other politicians have called for retribution, stressing that much of Trump’s MAGA base own weapons.

Jack Smith, special prosecutor, Department of Justice in announcing the indictment last week, said the classified documents case was not an error of record keeping. The 49-page indictment summarizes what Smith’s team discovered and presented to a “grand jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida”. Approval from the grand jury confirms, he said, the scope and the gravity of the crimes charged. Presenting the investigation to a Florida Grand Jury was a surprise. This indictment reads like a crime short story about a gang that couldn’t shoot straight. It uses Trump’s words to show he wanted everyone to know he had these classified documents. In two separate anecdotes, Trump boasts to random lay people that he has secret military information, then shares some of that information with them. Most likely evidence that is not in the arraignment will be used in court.

Smith, a veteran prosecutor, was not interested in repeating the mistakes of the Mueller Probe in 2016. That probe found connections between Russian agents and the Trump 2016 presidential campaign, but the report was shrouded in legal complexities. Refusing initially to release it, Trump’s attorney general William Barr defenestrated it in his redacted explanation of its conclusions. The facts presented in this Trump indictment consist of information obtained almost entirely from Republican politicians, staff and lawyers who worked with Trump. Yet, his supporters believe that any action against Trump is, by extension, an attack on their belief system. Many former Trump associates will be called to testify against the president.

Notwithstanding any conviction on the 31 counts listed, and any possible prison sentence, Trump will remain eligible for MAGA Republicans to support if he is the GOP nominee in the 2024 election. The reality is anyone can try to be president of the USA if they were born in USA, are older than 35 and have lived in the USA for the past 14 years. Competence and experience are not prerequisites. At his first political rally after the indictment announcement, a defiant Trump told the crowd: “I shall never be detained”. Bravado is never in short supply with Trump and likely to continue as this is the first of several legal cases against Trump for:

• His demands to change vote totals in Georgia.
• His participation in organizing an insurrection on January 6.
• His role in attempting to create fake electoral college results.

Trump has flooded the internet with outrage on social media because the indictment rests on espionage act violations, which could involve prison time. Republicans are now screaming to not lock him up. I remember Trump at a campaign rally in 2016 in Charlotte, North Carolina, saying: “In my administration, I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.” A month earlier, he tweeted this: “@realDonald­Trump—Crooked Hillary Clinton and her team were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Not fit!” Examples of Trump with his “Lock her up” chants in 2016 reinforce that candidate Trump knew how classified documents had to be handled.

Trump was not surprised on June 8 by the indictment. He received a “target letter” from Special Counsel Smith three weeks earlier on May 19, and raged on his Truth Social website the next day. “TRUMP Hating Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, whose family and friends are Big Time Haters also, will be working overtime on this treasonous quest,” he said, referring to Democrats supposedly stepping up their “fake investigations”. 

In lockstep, Republicans in political positions are now “shocked” at a government response to Trump stealing and then refusing to return classified documents. Partisanship demands a suspension of intellectual honesty and decency. Considering the public nature of Mar-a-Lago, leaving classified documents stored in unlocked spaces is indefensible. Trump’s year of stonewalling requests for the return led the FBI to search Mar-a-Lago, discovering classified documents, including those in Trump’s office. A court ruling that negated client-lawyer privilege, meant several of his lawyers had to testify to the grand jury. They related how Trump asked them to conspire with him to deceive the government. Then they wisely quit working for Trump since lawyers can lose their license for criminal conspiracy with clients.

Winning re-election in 2024 is vital as it will provide two essentials Trump needs—a “get out of jail” card as president and the ability to use the US government for retribution against those who recognized him for what he most certainly is: An angry 77-year-old duffer who lies about his golf scores and who has led a charmed life claiming success while deceiving banks and governments for decades. His supporters claim that it’s a witch-hunt staged by the Biden administration to keep him from running in 2024. They believe the 45th president of the USA is a hero fighting for them. Few have read the indictment, while most will ignore it. Trump’s rage aims at harvesting millions of dollars from small donors since federally required fundraising data indicates that big businesses and rich donors are, for the most part, sitting on their wallets. 

Has Trump finally run out of escapes after a lifetime of breaking the rules and flaunting the law? His lack of honesty has never been in question. He comes across as an insecure braggart in the indictment, a man desperate to cling to his status after an embarrassing fall from power. Six business bankruptcies should have prepared him for this. But his cavalier attitude about taking classified material will play a decisive role in the outcome of this case. A conviction based on harsh facts will be unacceptable to his political supporters. A six-year political nightmare is not over. 

—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington Post, NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian channels

By Kenneth Tiven

The indictment may have surprised ex-president Donald Trump, but only because he expected it towards the end of April. Trump escaped two impeachment trials as president when the necessary two-thirds majority of 100 US senators wouldn’t convict him.

What might happen in a New York court room will depend on a 12 person jury in
a New York criminal trial. March was already a difficult month for Trump as several federal district court rulings forced close associates to answer subpoenas and appear before investigators looking at the cause of the January 6, 2021, insurrection incited by Trump and his team.

Arraignment for the as yet unrevealed indictment is forthcoming, the result of a New York Grand Jury probing an improper $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in the weeks before the 2016 election. The prosecution claims it was an unreported campaign contribution additionally hidden unlawfully as a business expense.

Republican political leaders reacted with the expected outrage at the case, whose facts previously sent former Trump Layer Michael Cohen to jail for nearly two years.
The New York City prosecution is one of multiple criminal investigations that have engulfed Trump’s post-presidency.

He is also the focus of investigations in Georgia and Washington related to his
efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s election, plus Trump’s handling of classified material at Mar-a-Lago after leaving office. Trump denies any wrongdoing, preferring to claim political witch hunts by Democrats.

Thursday evening, he claimed they have lied, cheated and stolen in their obsession with trying to “Get Trump.” Two federal district court judges dealt serious blows to Trump’s desire to avoid responsibility for the January 6, 2021, insurrection he encouraged.

A ruling that no immunity exists for high officials in behaviour involving possible criminal liability means former vice-president Mike Pence must testify to a federal grand jury about his communications with Trump around the election efforts.

Judge James E Boasberg, just named as chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, dismissed separate legal efforts by Pence and Trump lawyers to limit any testimony regarding Trump repeatedly urging Pence to use his ceremonial role in the Congressional certification of Electoral College votes to block Biden’s victory.

Judge Boasberg’s immediate predecessor was Beryl A Howell, who a few days earlier had rejected Trump’s claim of executive privilege to stop his former chief of staff Mark Meadows and other top aides from testifying in the Justice Department probe led by special counsel Jack Smith into classified documents found at Trump’s home in Florida.

In the golfing terms Trump loves to use, these rulings were a triple bogey that may cost him his political quest for the Republican nomination in 2024.

Within 24 hours of the news of impending arraignment, even Trump’s most ardent detractors acknowledged how little ground could be gained by siding against the party’s embattled former president.

“As bad as it was for Trump, it was worse for DeSantis and everyone else,” said Mike Madrid, the Republican strategist and co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project.

“It rallies the base—there’s this rally around the flag effect for Trump. Second, probably most importantly, it just completely sucks the oxygen out of the room.”

Republican leadership insists any indictments will rally supporters for a 2024 election. Democrats suggest a majority of Americans are tired of Trump’s victimization rhetoric. A criminal conviction would not disqualify Trump from running for president or holding the office.

But campaign optics and logistics while navigating a legal case could get complicated. Trump and his advisers are ramping up their fundraising efforts and making the rounds of GOP lawmakers and party leaders, leaving his lawyers to negotiate his surrender to law enforcement and his security detail to coordinate logistics with police. This brings unusual security challenges to the courthouse complex in Lower Manhattan, even as it continues to dominate the political landscape.

Meadows is tangled in multiple other legal issues, but his testimony matters enormously as he was in continuous contact with Trump at the White House as the Capitol siege unfolded. Meadows was at the very centre of Trump’s plans to overturn his presidential election loss, including arranging Trump’s call to the Georgia state voting executive. He threatened him if he could not find the 11,799 votes Trump needed to win Georgia. Concurrently, the special grand jury probe led by the Atlanta area district attorney Fani Willis is expected to request judges to indict Trump.

The House January 6 committee evidence showed that Meadows had advance intelligence about the coming violence. Cassidy Hutchinson, Meadows “aide”, testified in Congress that Meadows told her that Trump, hearing that the insurrectionists were screaming “Hang Mike Pence”, replied that Pence “deserved it”.

Meadows has serious criminal exposure of his own. If he invokes his right to remain silent, the DOJ can decide whether to compel his testimony by granting him immunity. Such grants eliminate a witness’ criminal exposure and therefore his right to remain silent.

We don’t know Judge Howell’s reasoning for compelling Trump advisers to appear before Congressional hearings because her ruling is under seal. But we do know its basis: In two Supreme Court decisions involving Nixon’s 1974’s celebrated “White House tapes” case, the Court held that “the President’s generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”

In a 1977 case involving Nixon after he’d left the White House, the Supreme Court said the incumbent president who succeeded him was “in the best position to assess the present and future needs of the Executive Branch” in deciding whether the privilege applies. Trump’s successor, President Joe Biden, has consistently declined to support Trump’s privilege claims around January 6.

Trump has not been silent on these matters. Last week, a rally in Waco, Texas drew 25,000 people, about half of those turning out two years ago. They heard Trump say: “You put me back in the White House and America will be a free nation once again.” Much of what he said was extremely impolite measured against the nasty language of politics in 2023.

Columnist Charles Blow in The New York Times said: “It’s a formula, and among die-hard Trump fans, it works. But as the charm of the formula fades, it may also prove to be Trump’s Achilles heel. He’s stuck in a backward-facing posture when the country is moving forward. Instead of vision, Trump offers revision… Trump is still exaggerating old accomplishments, re-litigating a lost election and marking enemies for retribution.”

—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington
Post, NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian
channels.