Skip to content
Search AI Powered

Latest Stories

The Jan. 6 Committee Has the Goods on Trump To Make a Criminal Referral–So Why Is It Hesitating?

The Jan. 6 Committee Has the Goods on Trump To Make a Criminal Referral–So Why Is It Hesitating?
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), the vice-chair of the House Select Committee on January 6, expressed confidence that the former president and his associates committed crimes in connection with January 6. “It’s absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing, what a number of people around him were doing, that they knew it was unlawful. They did it anyway,” Cheney told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” Based on this, she confirmed that the Committee does indeed have enough evidence to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department.

And yet. The New York Times also reported that the Committee at this point is uncertain—in its words, “split”—on whether they should go ahead with the referral. The idea that no criminal referral might be forthcoming set off howls among some critics of the former president. But a few complex considerations are likely guiding this curious hesitation, so let’s delve a bit deeper.


The Committee May Not Want to Politicize Its Findings

While the Committee’s primary task has been investigatory, it certainly has the power at the conclusion of its hearings, findings, and report to include a criminal referral of any number of people, including the former president, to the Justice Department. But that move could in theory undermine any case brought by the Department by giving opponents an easy way to label it a partisan prosecution.

While the Committee is technically bipartisan, within the House GOP its work only has the support of the two Republicans who already serve on it, Rep. Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), who are both staunch critics of the former president. Further, the move to criminally refer Trump may bear symbolic significance, but it carries no actual weight. The Justice Department is going to make up its own mind anyway based on the facts and evidence. So skeptics of the criminal referral wonder if it may wind up doing more harm than good.

Nonsense, say its proponents. The job of the Committee is to arrive at the truth, and if the truth is that the former president and his associates committed crimes, then the Committee has an obligation to make the referral, without regard to the political effect it might have. Besides, they argue, no matter what the Committee does, if the Justice Department brings charges it will be labeled by Trump and his allies as a partisan attack. Worse, if no criminal referral is made, the GOP may cite that as evidence that their case is weak.

There are merits to both sides of this argument, which makes the Committee’s decision both more difficult and more consequential.

A Federal Judge Has Already Found that Crimes Likely Were Committed

Weighing against referral, say some Committee members, is the fact that a federal judge already has ruled against Trump on the matter. That opinion will carry far more sway with the Justice Department than any referral from the Committee could, some argue, making such any referral just so much extra political baggage on an otherwise solid and tidy case.

Judge David Carter of the Central District of California ruled in a civil matter, based on the evidence presented by the January 6 Committee, that Trump and his erstwhile attorney John Eastman—the author of the infamous coup memo—likely committed two federal felonies in their attempt to overturn the results of the November 2020 election. While that ruling was made in connection to a dispute over whether claims of attorney-client privilege could be overcome under the “crime-fraud” exception to the privilege, it gave the Committee a unique opportunity to lay out its case, as best as it presently could, to show a neutral third party judge that there was fire behind the smoke after all.

The ruling of a federal judge is far more likely to be taken seriously by the public than a criminal referral by the Committee. Imagine, for example, Attorney General Garland giving a press conference and citing not the findings of the January 6 Committee but the ruling of a federal judge as grounds to launch a criminal case against the former president. The media take on such a pronouncement likely would be decidedly different.

Further, as I wrote about earlier, it appears that the Justice Department already is investigating members of Trump’s inner circle with respect to how the rally before the insurrection was funded and organized, and importantly how much they knew about plans to attempt to use violence. As the Justice Department makes its way up the ladder, albeit very slowly and methodically, it may not make sense to throw a bomb into that process by way of a criminal referral. Rep. Cheney directly referenced the continuing work of the Department in this regard, citing a recent plea agreement by Charles Donohoe of the Proud Boys, who admitted to conspiring to help organize a Trump supporter attack on Congress with the intention of stopping the electoral count proceedings. Rep. Cheney remarked that the evidence showed event organizers and planners “knew that they were going to attempt to use violence to stop the transfer of power.” If true, there would exist a direct connection between the Trump White House and the weaponization of the mob through knowing incitement of those assembled, followed by corrupt inaction to put a stop to them.

Moreover, the Justice Department has already signaled that it does not jump on command with respect to criminal referrals from Congress. To date, it has only moved forward with one referred case by charging former Trump aide Steve Bannon with criminal contempt of Congress. With respect to others who have been referred, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and now former aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino, the Department has remained silent. Indeed, it has been well over two months since it received the referral on Meadows. The Department’s reasons for slow walking or ignoring the contempt referrals remain a mystery, but they could have to do with a strong desire not to be seen as beholden to Democrats in Congress.

Ultimately, the Committee will act based on how its chair, vice-chair and the majority of its members, who have the closest eye on the facts and the investigation, wish to proceed. Rep. Cheney pushed back on the idea that the Committee was at all “split” over the issue. “There’s not really a dispute on the Committee,” she said. “The Committee is working in a really collaborative way to discuss these issues, as we are with all of the issues we’re addressing, and we’ll continue to work together to do so.”

For more political analysis, check out the Status Kuo newsletter.

More from News

Donald Trump
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Trump Blasted For Announcing New Additions To The White House Lawn As Global Tensions Escalate

President Donald Trump was criticized after announcing that two new flagpoles would be added to the North and South Lawns of the White House—not the greatest look amid heightened global unease as tensions between Israel and Iran ramp up.

According to the Associated Press, Trump watched as a crane installed the newest flagpole on the South Lawn, remarking, “It’s such a beautiful pole.” He later returned to the site to salute as the American flag was raised for the first time.

Keep ReadingShow less
Screenshots of Donald Trump from CNN supercut
CNN

Trump Mocked For 'Two Weeks' Iran Deadline With Supercut Of All His 'Two Weeks' Promises

President Donald Trump has a history of promising to resolve problems within "two weeks," and a new viral supercut mocks him for all the times he's said as much—including right now with tensions in the Middle East higher than ever.

Trump said Thursday he will decide within two weeks whether to involve U.S. forces directly in the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, citing what he called a “substantial chance” for renewed nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

Keep ReadingShow less
red flag with pole on seashore
Seoyeon Choi on Unsplash

People Break Down The 'Silent Red Flags' Folks Tend To Ignore In Relationships

A red flag has come to mean any warning sign in life, in addition to the literal red flags that are placed on beaches or industrial sites to warn people of danger.

People will respond to situations by saying, "That’s a red flag." But before that language evolved, they'd just call them "warning signs."

Keep ReadingShow less
Ted Cruz; Tucker Carlson
The Tucker Carlson Show

Tucker Carlson And Ted Cruz Get Into Shouting Match Over Iran In Bonkers Interview Clip

Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz—a harsh Donald Trump critic-turned-MAGA minion—sat down with fired Fox News personality Tucker Carlson for the conservative influencer's self-produced online content,The Tucker Carlson Show, for the Tucker Carlson Network.

On Tuesday, Carlson shared a 1.5-minute clip revealing that things got contentious when the pair touched on the Trump administration's escalating tensions with Iran.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump; Barack Obama
Suzanne Plunkett-Pool/Getty Images; Scott Olson/Getty Images

Resurfaced Trump Tweet Criticizing Obama Over Iran Comes Back To Bite Him

Amid tensions with Iran, President Donald Trump was criticized for hypocrisy after social media users resurfaced a 2013 tweet in which he accused former President Barack Obama of planning an attack on Iran because of his "inability to negotiate properly."

Trump has declined to clarify whether the U.S. is edging closer to launching strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, following a warning from Iran’s supreme leader against any attack and a rejection of Trump’s demand for surrender.

Keep ReadingShow less