Excerpted from
The Economist,... The insurrection, Ms Cheney suggested, was not an unfortunate culmination of his lies; rather it represented his last throw of the dice in a “sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power”. They are,
first, Mr Trump’s effort to spread misinformation about an election he had lost;
second, his scheme to replace the acting attorney-general and suborn the Justice Department;
third, his leaning on the vice-president, Mike Pence, to illegally refuse to certify the electoral vote;
fourth, his effort to make state election officials and legislators change their vote-counts;
fifth, a scheme executed by his lawyers to persuade Republican state legislators to create false electoral slates and report them to Congress; and
sixth and seventh, his summoning of the maga mob and refusal to act as it tore up the Capitol.
Though each part is familiar (and, arguably, proven), Ms Cheney’s confidence in asserting that they add up to a meticulously planned and perhaps criminal conspiracy was striking.
[Re Judge Carter]
He considered that by leaning on Mr Pence, Mr Trump had “more likely than not” broken federal laws against “[conspiring] to defraud the United States” and corruptly obstructing government business. Though not a criminal verdict, which would require a heavier burden of proof, this was a dramatic moment in presidential history. If convicted of the crimes Judge Carter says he probably committed, Mr Trump could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Probably the biggest legal impediment to that would be the difficulty of establishing criminal intent. It would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Trump secretly knew that he had lost the election, so acted not merely inappropriately but corruptly. This is where the high quality of the testimonies and other evidence the committee has gathered could be telling.
[Merrick’s dilemma]
Whether Merrick Garland might charge him is another matter. While prosecuting hundreds of foot-soldiers of the Capitol riot, Joe Biden’s attorney-general has given no indication that he intends to pursue Mr Trump. A cautious institutionalist, Mr Garland is intent on removing Mr Barr’s taint of politicisation from his department. Arresting the previous president would make that hard.
As Ms Cheney knows, the prospects of blocking Mr Trump electorally are receding. Most Republicans say he won the election and hardly any Republican politician dares say otherwise. On June 14th a Trump-backed primary challenger defeated Tom Rice of South Carolina, making him the fifth of the ten Republican House members who voted to impeach Mr Trump to be pushed out. Mr Trump is the clear favourite to be the Republican nominee in 2024.
It is why Mr Garland’s decision looks so important. Yet that will perhaps make him even more reluctant to act.
