From conspiracy to “heroes”, all about the conclusions of the commission of inquiry

For nearly a year, a group of elected members of the United States Congress has been investigating Donald Trump’s responsibility for the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. On Thursday, this parliamentary committee began to present its first conclusions during the first public hearing out of six planned. These parliamentary hearings exposed, live on television, the most striking elements of the investigation carried out by elected officials from both sides. Here are the main points:

The Clear Account of a Seven-Step Conspiracy

Despite the mountain of documents to summarize and the details from more than 1,000 witnesses interviewed [dont deux enfants de Donald Trump]the so-called “January 6” commission, made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans, unfolded a clear narrative, portraying a Donald Trump unable to accept defeat and unafraid to resort to extreme measures in an attempt to cling on. in power.

Throughout the five hearings, elected officials shone the spotlight on what they described as a seven-step plot led by the former Republican president. These are the disinformation campaign alleging voter fraud, his attempts to bribe the Justice Department and his intense pressure on his Vice President Mike Pence. Elected officials also cite his harassment of state-level officials, his legal team’s efforts to create fake voter lists, his statements to the crowd on Jan. 6, and his refusal to call on insurgents to withdraw from the Capitol during hours.

Serial falls in the entourage of Donald Trump

In the circle of the former president, several personalities were overwhelmed. His lawyer Rudy Giuliani, once a respected mayor of New York, had previously been ridiculed for his attempts to promote his client’s theories of alleged voter fraud and after… fanciful media appearances.

Witnesses assured that Donald Trump had been persuaded by Rudy Giuliani to declare his victory on the evening of the presidential election, while the former mayor had spent the evening getting drunk. “The mayor was clearly intoxicated, but I’m not aware of his level of intoxication at the time he spoke with the president,” said Donald Trump campaign official Jason Miller.

Others have also seen their name associated with opprobrium, such as Jeffrey Clark, a mid-level official who embraced the theories pushed by the president about a rigged election and became a suspect for the FBI. The same goes for John Eastman, a lawyer close to Donald Trump, author of a plan to block Joe Biden’s accession to the White House, and six close to Trump in Congress who asked to be put on the list of pardons from the White House.

The improbable darling of the left

Liz Cheney, elected Republican from Wyoming and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, is now a pariah in her state and in her camp in Washington after having committed the unforgivable: having joined the head of the commission investigating Donald Trump. She has even become an unlikely darling for some Democrats.

Her conservative views have not changed, but she is courting Wyoming Democrats to temporarily switch sides and vote for her in the Republican primary in August.

The “heroes” of a day

With the exception of a handful of people, the witnesses who charged the ex-president with their testimony were all Republicans. Most were tapped for administration and campaign posts by Donald Trump himself, and some are still among his supporters, belying accusations that the investigation is a Democratic witch hunt.

Senior officials from the Justice Department, state governments, the White House, Donald Trump’s campaign team and the vice president’s office have been described as “heroes” for speaking out. Editorial writers, however, did not fail to point out that none had been willing to speak out and weigh in during the second impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump.

To indict or not to indict Trump

The portrait of a president who knew he had lost the election, but who was still trying to cling to power has been painted in an avalanche of testimony brought in recent days to the American Congress. A crucial question now arises: should federal prosecutors indict Donald Trump? The parliamentary committee has always said that it would leave the question of an indictment to the competent authorities, namely the Minister of Justice Merrick Garland. But she strongly implied that she would accuse Donald Trump of at least two crimes: obstruction of the counting of the votes of the electors, and participation in a criminal enterprise against the United States.

“Poorly conducted prosecutions could bolster Trump, and even help him win re-election,” said Edward Luce, editorial writer for the Financial Times. When you attack a king, even a former king, you have to put him down”. Merrick Garland can expect strong public support if he decides to indict Donald Trump: nearly 60% of Americans think the ex-president should face prosecution, according to a new ABC News poll -Ipsos.

And what’s next?

Last Thursday’s hearing on Donald Trump’s campaign to involve the entire Justice Department in his plan to stay in power will be the last until the second week of July at the earliest. Investigators say they have a wealth of new evidence to sift through, which arrived while the hearings were underway. Including hours of footage of Trump and his family filmed for a documentary.

The July hearings are expected to focus on the far-right groups instigating the violence on Capitol Hill and Donald Trump’s actions at the White House on January 6, 2021. The commission did not rule out further hearings later in the year. summer.