PAGING MERRICK GARLAND — No question about it, today’s surprise Jan. 6 hearing delivered. In historic testimony, top Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson offered jaw-dropping new details about Donald Trump’s increasingly manic rage and chief of staff Mark Meadows’ inaction in the days and hours leading up to the violent Capitol attack. And the bombshells might actually mean something. The testimony painted the picture of “advanced awareness” inside the White House about what was to come on Jan. 6, according to Donald Ayer, who served as the No. 2 Justice Department official under President George H.W. Bush. Today’s testimony didn’t completely shock the former deputy attorney general, not after what we’ve learned in previous hearings. But the case against Trump is getting “stronger and stronger,” says Ayer, who talked to Nightly about how today’s revelations will shape Attorney General Merrick Garland’s next steps as he weighs a Trump indictment. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What was the most important thing we learned today? Today’s testimony added substantial, specific evidence showing new ways that Trump was at the very center of the plot to overturn our democracy, and executed it personally in so many respects, over the fervent objections and opposition of so many of his own people. For example, the beginning of the evidence we heard today showed how there was real advanced planning of a major disruptive event on Jan. 6. Hutchinson talked about seeing Rudy Giuliani, on Jan. 2, and him saying to her that Jan. 6 was “going to be a great day” and that they’re going to the Capitol. Clearly the planning was going on a level that was known to leaders in the White House, including Giuliani and others. So that was one of the big pieces — that advanced awareness within the White House and a lot of people in the White House being worried. Another high point was the substantial evidence Hutchinson offered showing the degree of knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed. Tony Ornato mentioned the awareness that they had knives, guns, body armor, spears, and when she mentioned that to Meadows, he didn’t really look up. Then at the rally, when Trump was furious that the enclosure where people could come hear his speech wasn’t full. Trump said let’s get rid of the magnetometers because “they’re not here to hurt me.” He’s aware that they’ve got these weapons. And his reaction is, who cares? A third incredible spectacle, illustrating the intensity of what Trump was trying to do and his utter lack of concern for any reasonable course of action, was the whole episode that she described of Trump trying to go to the Capitol. He kept pushing. They finally get into “the Beast,” and Trump thinks they can go up there. Secret Service agent Bobby Engel, who’s the head of the detail, says they can’t do it because of security issues. Hutchinson describes what she heard — that Trump grabbed the steering wheel, and Engel put his hand on Trump’s arm. Then Trump lunged toward Engel. How do you think today’s hearing will affect the DOJ’s approach when it comes to a potential indictment of Trump? The ability to say, “Aha, here’s the smoking gun,” is really not the right way to look at it. It’s an accumulation of what we’ve learned from all the hearings. In today’s hearing, we once again see Trump running roughshod over his own people, his own appointees who are saying, “Don’t do this.” All this stuff that Trump does, there’s no mistaking what he was trying to do, and there’s no mistaking that it was his intent. He did it in the face of the fact that at least dozens of people in different ways and settings were saying, “Don’t do that. That’s a terrible thing. Don’t do it.” The bottom line is the case for prosecution of Trump is getting stronger and stronger. It’s really extraordinary to think of this pattern of conduct that he engaged in and the persistence of it over an extended period. That said, we all have to wait until the evidence is in, and respect the decision of the Justice Department based on the whole picture. Are other high-level Trump officials in legal danger? Another important contribution of today had to do with some pretty specific information about Meadows’ role. According to Hutchinson, he was aware on Jan. 2 about what was going to happen on Jan. 6, since he said to her then that things could get “real, real bad.” And so he was aware of it, and yet she describes all of these interactions as the date approaches, and on Jan. 6 — and as she is periodically raising concerns with him — he’s passive. He’s not focused on the problem. He’s staring at his phone. He won’t look up. He slams the door of the car, so she can’t talk to him. Meadows is someone who seems to have been close in on the planning. We don’t have evidence about exactly what he knew, but Giuliani’s reference on Jan. 2 that an incredible thing was going to happen on Jan. 6 suggests that there was awareness at that level of this whole plan. You’ve got to think Meadows could have been involved in it. So prosecution of him could be another real possibility. What would you say to Garland, as he decides whether to indict the former president? That’s his job. He’s the one whose judgment we are entitled to have. And he’s an excellent prosecutor, who prosecuted the Oklahoma City bombing case. I trust his judgment. Departmental guidelines say don’t bring a case if you don’t think you can probably convict. And that’s especially true if you’re going to prosecute a former president. But the guidelines are also clear about how to assess the importance of going forward with a case. First, the guidelines say to consider the nature of the conduct engaged in and how serious it is. You couldn’t have a more serious offense than someone trying in such a concerted way to overturn our democratic electoral process — it gets a 10 out of 10. The second key point in the guidelines is whether and how much deterrence of such conduct matters. Here, we have people all over the country conspiring to do this again. If he just walks away after this behavior, after what he’s done, the message goes out to scoundrels all over America that we’re not really ready to stand up to this. Deterrence is critical to our future in the next few years. The next key element in the guidelines looks at the culpability of the individual. So again, today, we are hearing that Trump was the active agent with regard to virtually everything that happened, so his culpability is just through the roof. I think all of those considerations will be very much on Garland’s mind when he has to make the judgment whether to file charges. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@politico.com. Or contact tonight’s author at mward@politico.com or on Twitter at @MyahWard.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.