[ad_1]
The role members of Congress may have played in facilitating the deadly attack attracted intense attention this week after Democratic lawmakers alleged that some of their fellow Republicans facilitated visits to the Capitol on Jan.5 – one day before protesters launched an assault that terrorized lawmakers, ransacked congressional offices and left up to five dead.
Representative Mikie Sherrill (DN.J.) sent a letter on Wednesday formally asking Capitol Police and congressional officials to investigate the visits, which she said were unusual. In a Facebook video, she said the visits were “recognition for the next day.”
“The visits made on Tuesday, January 5 were a notable and concerning deviation from the procedures in place in March 2020 that limited the number of visitors to Capitol Hill,” wrote Sherrill and 33 colleagues. “Visitors some members of Congress met on this letter appear to be associated with the White House rally the next day.
Sherrill suggested that the access raised the possibility of visitors enveloping the building for the assault that unfolded the next day.
“The members of the group that attacked the Capitol appeared to have unusually detailed knowledge of the layout of the Capitol complex,” she wrote. “In view of the events of January 6, the links between these groups inside the Capitol complex and the attacks on the Capitol must be investigated.”
Justice Department officials said they were looking for “all actors” involved in the Capitol riot. The FBI also called on the public to provide evidence on those who “incited” the violence.
When asked if the investigation included potentially complicit lawmakers, a Justice Department spokesperson referred questions to the FBI, which did not respond to a request for comment.
The chief organizer of Stop the Steal, one of the groups behind the January 6 protests that ended in a violent assault on Capitol Hill, said he was working with several Republican members of the House to organize the event. But it remains to be seen whether coordination ahead of last week’s rally extends to complicity in the congressional storm.
Democrats have raised several potential avenues to punish GOP lawmakers who may have been involved in instigating or directing the riot – from Congressional investigation to criminal sanction.
“Hopefully we understand if there was any internal work – whether it was from members, staff or anyone working on Capitol Hill who helped these attackers better navigate Capitol Hill – that is going to be the subject of. an investigation, ”Representative Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said Wednesday on MSNBC. Swalwell also called specific GOP lawmakers on Twitter, such as Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Col.), For appearing to disclose the movements of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the attack.
“To hell with the ethics committee, these people should be criminally charged,” said representative Sean Patrick Maloney (DN.Y.) on the same network.
The issue was even raised during the historic impeachment debate in the House, where Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) Said some of his colleagues “may well be co-conspirators.”
Lawyers experienced in complex criminal prosecutions have said anyone who helps rioters investigate the Capitol could face serious charges.
“This is extremely serious,” former federal prosecutor Harry Litman said. “It’s a bit like giving troops movement to the enemy.”
Litman said he expects investigators to scan emails and text messages, looking for clues that anyone working on Capitol Hill was coordinating with the plotters. Under the principles of criminal law, even those in minor roles could be held responsible for the worst rioting offenses.
“Talking with them is really conspiratorial territory, it means you’re potentially addicted to anything that is reasonably foreseeable and knowing this cast of characters it seems to me that everything from trespassing to using weapons through incendiary devices is reasonably predictable. Litman said. “If the evidence proves it, they could be charged with anything up to the seditious plot.”
Machen said more evidence needed to be developed, but there were hints of a possible case to help and encourage the rioters.
“If a member of Congress was leading the insurgents around the Capitol the day before the attack and there was compelling evidence of complicity in the breach, if members of Congress were actively assisting and encouraging people who attempted to take storming the Capitol and disrupting voter certification, it’s really as close to being at the heart of a seditious conspiracy charge as you could hope to find, ”said the former US prosecutor.
Some lawyers have said the inflammatory speeches by President Donald Trump, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) To the crowd who joined the riot soon after could be protected by the First Amendment. Flaming speeches are not uncommon at political events and holding speakers accountable for any actions taken by members of the public could dampen public debate, academics say.
But former prosecutors say any criminal case against Trump or lawmakers would not be based solely on speeches, but on other public and private communications – emails and texts exchanged with organizers and supporters in the days leading up to the rally and the day of the shocking attack. Investigators will seek a discussion of a physical assault on the Capitol building and indications that individual members have been specifically targeted.
Several senior lawyers noted that any prosecution of political actors would be brought in Washington, and that a local jury would likely not be sympathetic to claims that the speakers were colorful and not criminal.
“I guess a jury wouldn’t find it very convincing. And these cases are going to be judged in DC and the jury is not going to buy that, ”Zeidenberg said.
Congressional inquiries face particular challenges. Lawmakers may try to use the Constitution’s speech or debate clause, which grants limited immunity to members of the House and senators, to prevent investigators from accessing their communications related to their official duties.
In 2007, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals sharply criticized prosecutors for their handling of a search of the office of Representative William Jefferson (D-La.) As part of a corruption investigation. Judges said members of Congress have the right to be notified in advance of such a search and to review any documents investigators seek to seize.
However, Zeidenberg said he is confident these obstacles can be overcome. “There is no speech or debate clause that covers text messages with voters about the Capitol break-in,” he said.
With the number of individuals facing charges now over 70 and still growing, investigators may also not need to get communications from lawmakers or their offices in the first place, but may get them from email accounts and suspected rioters.
“The first people to cooperate receive the best treatment,” said Joyce Vance, a former US lawyer in Alabama. “Once they identify the people who have come in, they will want to give back what they have either because they have nothing to hide or because they want a deal, so it doesn’t. shouldn’t be very difficult to get those communications. ”
Some lawyers have said the key question may not be whether a jury will convict, but whether Justice Department officials – including Biden’s attorney general candidate Merrick Garland – decide that evidence of the collaboration is strong enough to overcome concerns about intruding on the usual robust protections of free speech. .
“It’s a big buffer for political speech and that would be a big part of the stuff Garland will have to consider, but it’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen from a political leader,” Litman said of from Trump’s speech to the rally. “This is a stronger case than the classic cases where the courts have ruled on the political discourse side of the equation.”
In his speech just before the attack, Trump urged his supporters to “fight like hell.” However, Vance said charging the president or former president solely on the basis of his comments at the rally would be difficult.
“They are susceptible, alone, to an interpretation that they are hyperbolic,” she said. “This is really the driving course you would need to prove the intent to incite. … This is a difficult question and I am not sure it is a realistic expectation that the President of the United States will be charged with sedition in the absence of a real smoking gun.
[ad_2]
Source link