You might be asking: Do we really need all these Trump coup cases? Yes, and here are four major reasons:
Anyone who participated in a scheme to thwart an election and deprive a state’s voters of their choice must be held responsible to the full extent of the law. Whatever the state, such characters should not serve in positions of trust.
The Post reports, for example, that Kelli Ward, Arizona’s state GOP chair — along with two state senators — is accused of being instrumental in sowing doubt about the election and organizing a plot to create a false slate of electors:
The indictment said that the pro-Trump electors “made statements directly contradicting any intention that their votes would only be used if they succeeded in legal challenge that changed the outcome of Arizona’s election.” The indictment included an image of a social media post from Ward that prosecutors said demonstrates that “her goal was to have the Arizona Legislature certify the fake Republican electors’ votes.”
Leading up to Jan. 6, 2021, the indictment said, Ward continued calling for the state legislature to change the election outcome while [Tyler] Bowyer made public statements “demonstrating that the contingency plan was cover for his attempt to change the outcome of the election.” And other electors either sought to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to delay certification, the indictment said, or recertify Biden’s electors.
Anyone involved in such skullduggery must be held responsible.
Laurie Roberts, in an column for the Arizona Republic, makes the persuasive case that the facts outlined in the indictment amount to “a carefully planned scheme — from the seeds of doubt deeply planted to erode trust in our elections to the fake electors who were part of a plot to steal the vote in Arizona and other swing states to the storming of the nation’s Capitol to stop Joe Biden from becoming president.” The electors made no pretense that they were “backups” in case the vote was overturned. “They signed documents simply declaring themselves ‘duly elected and qualified electors’ and casting their votes for the guy who didn’t win,” Roberts writes. “It’s about time they had to answer for that.” The indictment amply serves that purpose.
Legal analysts have pointed out that Kenneth Chesebro, who pleaded guilty in Georgia and cooperated with investigators in Nevada and Michigan (although doubts about his veracity came to light in a suit brought in Wisconsin) was not named in the Arizona case. They surmise that he might once again be cooperating. As the charges pile up against him and Trump associates and lawyers, the pressure to cooperate with information about Trump and his inner circle (e.g., Mark Meadows, John Eastman) will build. With the first indictments for figures such as Boris Epshteyn and Christina Bobb, prosecutors might find new cooperators.
State cases are not subject to a presidential pardon. Therefore, a deal with prosecutors might be the only surefire way to avoid prosecution and conviction with the risk of serious jail time. Many Trump loyalists seem to be holding out for a presidential pardon in federal cases, but Trump will be of no help if they are convicted of state crimes. The Arizona and other state indictments, therefore, might prove to be the most useful means to uncover evidence of Trump’s guilt.
If we have learned anything from the four criminal cases against Trump, as well as the other indictments brought against state officials, it is that criminal prosecution can be slow, complicated and fraught with unexpected developments. Georgia, once seen as the ideal case to backstop special counsel Jack Smith’s federal prosecution, has ground to a halt under the weight of the huge number of defendants, the complex racketeering charges and controversies involving Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. That case might not get to trial for years. One can never have enough insurance against well-funded, defiant defendants bent on delay, obfuscation and delegitimization of the judicial system.
The Arizona case likely will not go to trial until 2025. But by the same token, even a Trump victory in November would not stop the case’s progress against the named defendants. One way or another, the public will get a compelling picture of the attempt to overturn the 2020 election results.
Writing in the Atlantic shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, Grant Tudor and Ian Bassin warned against allowing the perpetrators to go unpunished. “Wrongdoers maintain or regain positions of power, repeating past offenses. An emboldened culture of impunity encourages would-be lawbreakers to follow suit,” they argued. “And public trust in democratic institutions further erodes, priming the public for more authoritarian alternatives.”
That is all the more true now that Trump is the presumptive nominee, and the 2024 presidential election is only months away. Trump is already laying the groundwork to claim the election was illegitimate. (He and his surrogates falsely claim that illegal immigrants are registering to vote.) However, as in 2020, Trump cannot mount an attempt to overturn an election without the aid of scores of helpers at the state and local level, plus a team of lawyers. That makes it critical to take out of circulation anyone found guilty of illegally helping him in the past and to convince other would-be conspirators not to try a new scheme. Without such enablers, Trump would be powerless to do more than squawk about another election loss.
One indicator that an authoritarian coup might succeed is a prior attempt, which in retrospect would look like a dress rehearsal for the main event. State and federal prosecutors therefore must take every opportunity to make sure 2020 is the last, not the first, attempted coup in U.S. history.
Credit: Source link
