Mediaboss Marketing

The lawyer who advised former President Donald Trump on how to overturn the 2020 election requested a pardon from him in the days after Jan. 6, the committee investigating the Capitol attack revealed on Thursday.

At the committees third public hearing on June 16, law professor John Eastman emailed Trumps personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, asking for executive clemency. Ive decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works, he wrote, according to an email obtained by the House panel.

The revelation came a week after Rep. Liz Cheney, the vice chair of the panel, alleged that multiple Republicans in Congress had also requested pardons from Trump before he left office for their roles in trying to block the transfer of power to Joe Biden. She only mentioned one lawmaker by name: Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.

As you will see, Rep. Perry contacted the White House in the weeks after Jan. 6 to seek a presidential pardon, said Cheney, a Wyoming Republican. Multiple other Republican congressmen also sought presidential pardons for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. (Perry quickly denied ever seeking a pardon, calling it an absolute, shameful, and soulless lie.)

The mentions of presidential pardons have set off a whirlwind of speculation on Capitol Hill about which members of Congress might have sought pardons and why. Committee members plan to flesh out what they have learned about the pardon requests in an upcoming hearing. Legal experts say such pardon requests could be construed as demonstrating a consciousness of guilt or recognition that they might have committed a crime by the members who sought them. Less damningly, their entreaties could also reflect concern that they feared unfairly becoming targets of investigation or prosecution.

The disclosure of multiple Trump allies seeking pardons in the wake of the attack on the Capitol has also raised questions about the extent of a presidents pardoning authority, including whether Trump may have issued secret presidential pardons that have yet to come to light. (Answer: maybe.)

Here is what you need to know.

According to one former prosecutor, the reason is simple. It tells us that they fear theyre going to be charged, or more generally, that theyve engaged in conduct thats a federal crime, Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney, tells TIME.

Since Jan. 6, 2021, the Department of Justice has been conducting its own investigation of the attack. Thus far, more than 800 people have been charged for storming the Capitol, and nearly 300 have entered guilty pleas on charges ranging from civil disorder and theft of government property to obstruction of an official congressional proceeding and seditious conspiracy.

President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani speaks to supporters from The Ellipse near the White House, in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021.

Brendan SmialowskiAPF/Getty Images

So far, no lawmakers or government officials have been charged, nor is there evidence that any are targets of the DOJ investigation.

One of the challenges prosecutors face is untangling criminal behavior from constitutionally protected political protests.

If the speech is likely and intended to incite imminent criminal action, then its not protected, says Elie Honig, a former federal and New Jersey state prosecutor. But, he notes, theres a difference between someone saying We need to throw these bums out and Lets go in there, smash up the windows, and beat the crap out of the first representative we see.

So its a spectrum between those two poles, he adds. Theres no automatic formula for that. It ultimately comes down to the prosecutors judgment and what the prosecutor believes would be convincing to the jury.

Several right-wing Republican lawmakers were reportedly involved in the planning of Jan. 6 protests. Several also vociferously challenged the certification of Biden as president on the House floor. Others cheered the crowd that day. On Wednesday, the Jan. 6 committee released surveillance footage of Rep. Barry Loudermilk, Republican of Georgia, giving a tour of the building to people later spotted in videos breaching the Capitol. None of those actions is a crime. (Loudermillk criticized the committee for what he called a smear campaign, adding that the Capitol Police already put this false accusation to bed.)

If a member of Congress did knowingly commit a crime like those the Justice Department is prosecuting related to the Capitol attack, they would of course have a reason to ask for a pardon. But from a practical standpoint, if any lawmakers thought they could be at risk of criminal prosecution, requesting a pardon from a sympathetic president is not necessarily unreasonable, says Margaret Love, former U.S. Pardon Attorney from 1990 to 1997 under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Why not? Love says of members of Congress seeking clemency. A little insurance policy? Theres no reason why they shouldnt have asked.

In his final days in office, Trump did pardon many people close to him, such as Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law and special adviser Jared Kushner. But in all of those cases, Trump pardoned individuals who had already been charged with or convicted of crimes. If any members of Congress asked Trump for a presidential pardon, they were presumably asking for a preemptive one.

The short answer is yes. Generally speaking, the president can pardon federal crimes and people can request clemency, Jeffrey Crouch, a government professor at American University and an expert on presidential pardon power, wrote in an email to TIME. Even though a pardon usually comes at the end of the legal process, the president can short-circuit that process if he wants.

Past presidents have issued blanket pardons, such as Jimmy Carter who exonerated everyone who dodged the Vietnam draft. Its much rarer, though, for presidents to pardon individuals who have not yet been charged with a crime or not knowing the precise charge, if any, they were expected to face. A rare exception was when former President Gerald Ford pardoned his predecessor, Richard Nixon, in 1974 for whatever crimes he may have committed against the United States as president.

Trump himself waded into similar territory with his former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, whom he pardoned in 2020 for lying to federal investigators but also for any and all possible offenses he may have committed related to Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigation.

For the most part, however, pardons are issued for specific offenses, Litman argues. In theory, its well understood that a pardon is for specified conduct, he said. Its not just a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Nonetheless, Trump had the authority to issue very broad pardons to some of his allies in Congress, Crouch says. President Trump could have pardoned people without spelling out exactly what offenses he was pardoning, he says. The president has leeway to fashion the type of mercy he is offering and how broad it can be, but recent presidents are usually specific about pardons.

There are two glaring exceptions, though, to that power: if the pardon itself was part of a criminal act or the cover up of one. Most scholars would agree that even though the presidents pardon power is broad, it cant be used as part of a crime, Litman says. So its possible to grant a pardon in a way that is an obstruction of justice, for example.

Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California, from right, Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming, and chairman Representative Bernie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, exit following a hearing of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol in Washington, D.C., US, on Thursday, June 16, 2022.

Tom BrennerBloomberg/Getty Images

In the June 9 primetime hearing, Cheney suggested that the committee had evidence that GOP members of Congress requested pardons from Trump. Yet some veteran prosecutors and pardon lawyers say that has left them wondering whether the president might have issued any in secret.

The Justice Department has a page on its website listing every pardon it knows of that was issued by Trump. When asked by TIME whether Trump may have issued pardons not on the list, Dena Iverson, a DOJ spokesperson responded, All of the pardons are on the website.

Love, however, says Trump still could have granted additional pardons and never informed the Justice Department about them.

The president could have signed a cocktail napkin and put it away in a bottom drawer only to be revealed after he left office, Love says. Its just that this has never before happened, at least since the Civil War. And after January 20, he could have called up and said, Oh, by the way, Joe, look in the bottom drawer there. Youll find a bunch of paper there. He could have given them to the beneficiaries of these acts of grace. A pardon doesnt have to be published right away to be valid, or even published at all.

Its not the first time the prospect of Trump issuing secret pardons has come up. In September 2017, a Democratic congressman introduced a bill that would have forced the White House to publicly announce any presidential pardons within three days of their being granted. With Republicans then in control of both houses of Congress, the legislation went nowhere. But it underscored the reality that theres nothing forcing a president to publicly disclose every pardon they issue.

The Jan. 6 committee appears to be preparing to show the public how Perry and other members of Congress at the very least sought pardons from Trump. Everything were doing is documented by evidence, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, recently told CNN regarding the pardon requests. Everything that we are doing is based on facts.

When asked by TIME on Thursday about the possibility that Trump may have issued pardons in secret, Raskin said the committee had not considered it.

The question prompted Raskin to think back to when the committee deposed Eastman. He was not particularly forthcoming, pleading his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 100 times. But the committee had focused on the paper trail showing Eastman seeking a pardon, and not the possibility that Trump may have agreed to the request without ever formally announcing it.

We should have asked him, Raskin says, Do you have a pardon?

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

The rest is here:
Could Donald Trump Have Issued Jan. 6 Pardons to Allies? - TIME

The House select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, has begun to hold public hearings, laying out, in explicit detail, how Donald Trump was repeatedly told by key advisers that he fairly lost the 2020 election, among other revelations. Nevertheless, Trump continued to encourage protests against the elections certification, and expressed sympathy for the view that Vice-President Mike Pence deserved to be killed. The biggest question hanging over the hearings is whether they will contribute to a criminal case against the former President. The Justice Department is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into January 6th, but this is not the first time that Trump has appeared to be in the crosshairs of prosecutors.

If the former President is charged, what exactly would the charges be, and how tough would the case be to prosecute? To talk about this, I recently spoke by phone with Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. (She resigned from her position, which shed held since 2010, in the early days of the Trump Administration.) During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why Trumps mind-set is so important to any criminal case, the arguments he might make to defend himself, and whether the Justice Department is too concerned about the optics of charging a former President.

If a case is made against Trump, what precisely would it be for?

It would require a full investigation to see if you can mount sufficient evidence. And the Justice Department will be the first to tell you that it investigates crimes and not people. But, with that in mind, it seems to me that some potential crimes here are: first, conspiracy to defraud the United States; and, second, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. The first one is more broad. The second one is more specific.

What does that mean, conspiracy to defraud the United States?

The statutory citation is Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 371. It is sometimes referred to as the Klein Conspiracy, after a case named United States v. Klein. It is frequently used in cases of tax violations, but what it means is that someone with a fraudulent intent did something to obstruct or impede the official functioning of government. And so, in this instance, it would be something like, Trump and others conspired to defraud the American people and interfere with the proper transfer of Presidential power. And it could be as simple as getting Mike Pence to refuse to certify the vote when he had a duty to do so. Sometimes people think about the big picture, that you have to tie Trump to the physical attack on the Capitol. And that could do it, because that was one way that the certification was obstructed. But it could also simply be his efforts to pressure Mike Pence to refuse to certify the vote. And that would be an obstruction of an official proceeding.

Liz Cheney said there are seven different schemes that theyre going to try to prove in the next few weeks. It could be that theyve got seven different ways that theyre going to try to show conspiracy to defraud the United States, but any one of them is enough to obtain a conviction. Alternate slates of electors, or trying to persuade Georgia to change the outcome in that one state. Any of those things could suffice for conspiracy to defraud the United States.

And what about a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding?

That would relate specifically to the certification effort on January 6th. Again, it could be proved by a number of different methods. It could be proved by inciting the mob. That would be one way, but I think thats much harder than you need. It could be proved, again, just by pressuring Mike Pence to refuse to certify. That could be an obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress. And, by interfering with that in a way that is fraudulent, that could be a violation of that obstruction statute.

There are two connected but separate things. The first is Trump trying to obstruct the certification of Biden as the next President. And the second is the law-breaking that occurred from the mob on January 6th. The mob may have been a tool to put the first scheme into effect, but there were also laws broken by the mob itself, such as invading the Capitol and assaulting police officers. Is your sense that the crimes we would likely see regarding Trump would be more related to the certification than the actual physical destruction of property and assault of police?

Yes. I suppose the committee has dangled the latter a little bit. I still havent seen any evidence of it, but if they could prove that someone close to Trump met with the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys on January 5th and said, Tomorrow, I want you to breach that Capital and whatever happens, come hell or high water. You must make sure that their proceeding does not continue, then you could link up the two as a conspiracy. It would still be to obstruct an official proceeding, not for the actual violence, unless you had a specific agreement: I want you to beat up cops. Youd have to show an agreement between those specific groups. And I dont think weve seen that yet. We may never get there, but I dont think we need to, because you can just show that he was trying to get alternate slates of electors, or that he was pressuring Pence to refuse to certify, or that he was pressuring Georgias secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to find him eleven thousand votes.

Is there any precedent for going after politicians or officeholders for these types of acts?

Im not familiar with any. The one thing that comes closest, but is probably not even the same, is a guy who was a county auditor in Cleveland who paid his opponent to run against him and deliberately lose. Thats corruption in an election, but a little different from what were talking about here.

That makes me wonder whether it is actually hard to prove that these laws were broken.

Well, I dont know that we have anybody whos ever tried who has this much power, the way a President does. Maybe it has been attempted at lower levels and Im just not aware of it. I think part of it is that this is an incredibly audacious scheme, if it is proven. And it requires someone who can marshal the resources and control the levers of government to be able to pull it off the way Trump may have.

But a prosecution would be for violating these broader laws rather than laws related to the functioning of elections specifically?

Yes. The problem is that we get statutes on the books based on what Congress can envision. And I dont think Congress ever imagined that a President would try to do what Trump is accused of doing. And so we dont have a specific statute on the books that says, You cant pressure the Vice-President to abuse his authority to throw out the electors and substitute false ones, because I think no one ever imagined that would happen. So, instead, you have things like obstructing an official proceeding or defrauding the United States out of the proper functioning of government. Those would be the closest things that would fit here. And they get used for lots of different things, but nothing like this that Ive ever heard of.

Visit link:
The Two-Pronged Test That Could Put Trump in Prison - The New Yorker

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Joe on Thursday revelations: Trump on Jan. 6 was working to cause harm or death to Pence07:40

There has to be further investigation into Jan. 5 tour, says former CIA officer11:35

Search continues for missing Americans in Ukraine04:30

'Approach life like a game': Son details the life of his 'World's Greatest Negotiator' father05:55

Michael Beschloss: Watergate hearings led to a number of indictments07:23

FDA authorizes Pfizer and Moderna vaccine for kids as young as six months00:36

Fathers of Jacob Blake, Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin sit down for Father's Day special08:08

Joe: Eastman clearly working with Trump to try and commit sedition against the U.S.03:12

Rev. Al: Chairman Thompson, Rep. Cheney have risen to real heights03:22

Historian traces the historical significance of Juneteenth07:28

USAFacts releases its America in Facts report for 202209:21

Brand Up, Brand Down: Shrinkflation, tipping, delivery workers eating your food06:19

Joe: The burden of proof appears to be on Rep. Loudermilk10:16

How election conspiracies have taken hold in Colorado05:16

New Jersey and New York make bid to host 2026 World Cup09:52

Sen. Durbin: The Jan. 6 Committee is historic; we should pay close attention to it10:38

Now Playing

Joe: There has to be consequences for Donald Trump for Jan. 607:24

UP NEXT

Ginni Thomas' efforts to overturn election more extensive than previously known: WaPo08:09

Capitol officer: Jan. 6 rioters called us traitors because we did our job05:39

Inside the DOJ clash over Trump's election claims07:13

The Morning Joe panel discusses the findings and footage from the January 6 Committee hearings, including new footage of a tour led by a GOP lawmaker the day before the Capitol attack.June 16, 2022

UP NEXT

Joe on Thursday revelations: Trump on Jan. 6 was working to cause harm or death to Pence07:40

There has to be further investigation into Jan. 5 tour, says former CIA officer11:35

Search continues for missing Americans in Ukraine04:30

'Approach life like a game': Son details the life of his 'World's Greatest Negotiator' father05:55

Michael Beschloss: Watergate hearings led to a number of indictments07:23

FDA authorizes Pfizer and Moderna vaccine for kids as young as six months00:36

Follow this link:
Joe: There has to be consequences for Donald Trump for Jan. 6 - MSNBC

This year, Pence has taken on a new persona among the crowda Trump era castoff who is probably better off not showing his face. And he seems to know it. The former veep was invited to the conference but decided not to attend. It was the first time Pence had missed the conference in five years.

I was such a big fan of his but that part of the Republican Party is the educational elites the old horses are on their way out, said Mary Obersteadt, the immediate past president of Nashville Republican Women. She wore rhinestone Trump and DeSantis pins on her conference lanyard. I respect him for what he did and how he served this nation but hes so disappointing when he - he should have communicated and stayed with Trump with Jan. 6, they should have been on the same level.

Pences absence from this years conference was due to a scheduling conflict, according to the conference organizers and Pences team. On Thursday, he attended a roundtable with Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine.

But while he still is rooted in the Christian conservative community, having attended an event with the Coalition in North Carolina to engage Chrisitan voters in the Charlotte area, his decision to skip the Faith & Freedom gathering underscores the crossroads he currently finds himself in politically.

I think hes seeking Gods direction for his decision on what to do next, said Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor at First Baptist Dallas, who is close to both Pence and Trump, and sits on the advisory board for Pences political group, Advancing American Freedom.

At a time when Pences main ideological causes are on the cusp of historic successwith the Supreme Court set to overturn the landmark abortion rights case, Roe v. Wade he finds himself in the thick of intra-party drama. This week, the House select committee investigating the riots on Capitol Hill zeroed in on Pences decision to resist Donald Trumps pressure for him to block certification of the Electoral College vote count.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump points to the crowd after giving the keynote address at the Faith & Freedom Coalition during their annual "Road To Majority Policy Conference" on June 17, 2022 in Nashville, Tennessee.|Seth Herald/Getty Images

While Pence has, so far, dodged discussing the committees proceedings, Trump used his own appearance at the Faith & Freedom conference to attack his veep.

Mike Pence had a chance to be great, he had a chance to be frankly historic, Trump said. But Mike did not have the courage to act.

It was a remarkable moment for a conference that in past years served as a celebration for the former vice president as a top conservative Christian leader. But things have changed since Trump left office. Last year, in the shadow of Jan. 6, Pence was jeered by the crowd and called a traitor while on stage. Now, when asked about what they think of Pence or how they view his political future, attendees sighed or visibly shrugged.

Thats a good question, said Sandi McGuire, a Christian minister from Raleigh, North Carolina. I havent seen him much. I dont like speaking adverse toward anyone, he did great work. He came here last year and a percentage booed him. Im not sure in fairness where he is. I wish him the best but he hasnt been anywhere to be found.

Its kind of hard, its a hard one, said Emily Hinojos from Rutherford, N.C. when asked about Pences political future. I dont know where hes at since Jan 6. Its hard to tell youre not in their shoes but we would have liked him to support Trump better.

The mood of the crowd at Faith & Freedom reflected the degree to which Republican politicians are judged not so much by their ideologies but by their relationship to Trump. Ralph Reed, a Republican strategist and founder of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, is close with both Trump and Pence. But when asked if he was surprised by Trumps attacks, he would only say he consulted with Trumps speechwriters yesterday.

If Mike Pence wanted to come and wanted to offer a rejoinder to these folks, he could have done it. Im not saying he should have done it. I told him when I saw him a couple weeks ago, no harm no foul, but I said I want you here next year and hell be there, Reed said to a small group of reporters after Trumps speech.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump exits the stage after giving the keynote address at the Faith & Freedom Coalition during their annual "Road To Majority Policy Conference" on June 17, 2022 in Nashville, Tennessee.|Seth Herald/Getty Images

Pences own relationship with Trump is deeply complicated. For a few months after leaving the White House, the two would occasionally speak. But they havent talked for a year now even though their paths have occasionally crossed, including when both men addressed top Republican donors at a retreat in New Orleans in March. Trump continues to admonish his former vice president in public, while Pence has remained firm in his decision to certify the election.

In recent months, Pence has turned his focus to the midterms. Hes offered endorsements in key midterm races like Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and held a fundraiser for incumbent Rep. Steve Chabot on Thursday. On Monday, he is set to deliver a speech on the economy at the University Club of Chicago.

Our path is a little bit different than everybody else is at this point, said a person close to Pences political operation, who defended Pences decision to not go to the Nashville cattle call. And whether he decided to do this thing or not, he doesnt have to go there to get coverage.

But its unclear how Pence can build up a national profile if he were to lose the full support of his bedrock constituency: Evangelicals. Not everyone in his camp is worried. Aides to Pence say he holds appeal across the Republican party.

Vice President Pence checks the hawk lane. He checks the traditional GOP lane. And obviously probably the biggest one is the Evangelical lane, said the Pence ally.

And Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of The Family Leader, a conservative Christian parent organization for the Iowa Family Policy Center, said Pences support remains strong among social conservatives and Evangelicals in Iowa, especially as support of Trump wanes.

Not to play Bob Seger on you, but I think theyre looking to turn the page, Vander Plaats said of Iowa voters he talks to. Take the best of Trump, and lets see if Ron DeSantis can carry on that fightor Mike Pence or Mike Pompeo or Ted Cruz or whoever you throw into that match.

But among those in Nashville this weekend, Pence seemed more a relic of the past than an element of the future. None of the merchandise stalls that lined the entrance to the conference ballroom featured Pences name, while there were piles of red, white, and blue Trump and Trump 2024 t-shirts and hats for sale.

I feel like he was mistreated so long he wanted to give his soul a break and his family. I dont think its political, its personal he doesnt want to get attacked right now, said Krista Kiepke from Clarksville, Tenn. Jesus himself removed from the disciples to refresh so he could do his job so I look at it as that.

More:
Pence skips Faith & Freedom conference. Is attacked by Trump anyways. - POLITICO

Mick Foley believes former United States President Donald Trump should be removed from the WWE Hall of Fame.

Today seems like a good day to remove Donald Trump from the#WWEHOF

Foley was seemingly reacting to Thursdays hearing on the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol, which focused on then-Vice President Mike Pences refusal to comply with Trumps scheme to overturn the 2020 United States elections. During the hearing, Pences aides testified that his refusal never wavered under immense pressure from Trump and that he was targeted during the January 6 riots. Following the hearing, the congressional panel led by Bennie Thompson accused Trump of an attempted coup to remain in power.

Former WWE Superstar Tatanka, meanwhile, disagreed with Foleys take, as seen below.

This isnt the first instance of Foley imploring WWE to remove Trump from its Hall of Fame. Soon after pro-Trump protestors stormed the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021, Foley sent out the following tweet directed at WWE Chairman & CEO Vince McMahon.

Incidentally, Foley and Trump were both inducted together into the WWE Hall of Fame, as part of the class of 2013. While Foley was inducted by longtime rival and friend Terry Funk, Trump was inducted into the celebrity wing by Vince McMahon.

Have a news tip or correction? Send it to [emailprotected]

Go here to see the original:
Mick Foley Calls For Donald Trump To Be Removed From WWE Hall Of Fame - Wrestling Inc.