House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Un juicio penal contra Donald Trump tendría desafíos para el Departamento de Justicia

      by

      Durante las audiencias del comité que investiga el asalto al Capitolio han surgido pruebas y testimonios que aumentan la presión para iniciar un proceso judicial contra el expresidente. Pero especialistas legales consideran que sería un caso difícil.Cuando durante la semana pasada surgieron nuevos cuestionamientos sobre un posible juicio penal contra el expresidente Donald Trump por tratar de anular las elecciones de 2020, este emitió un confuso comunicado de 12 páginas.Dicho comunicado contenía la habitual combinación de sus aseveraciones estrafalarias, exageraciones y rotundas mentiras, pero también algo que los aliados de Trump y los expertos jurídicos señalaron como llamativo y diferente: el inicio de una defensa jurídica.Casi en todas las páginas, Trump daba explicaciones de por qué estaba convencido de que le habían hecho trampa en las elecciones de 2020 y por qué tenía todo el derecho de cuestionar los resultados a través de cualquier medio disponible.Trump escribió que lo que ocurrió en el Capitolio el 6 de enero de 2021 fue resultado de un intento de los estadounidenses “de responsabilizar a las autoridades electorales por las claras señales de actividades delictivas a lo largo del proceso electoral”.Esta aseveración, aunque infundada, tenía especial significado debido al creciente interés acerca de si enfrentaría acciones penales. Si el Departamento de Justicia entablara un juicio en su contra, los fiscales tendrían que demostrar que él sabía —o debía haber sabido— que su postura se basaba en afirmaciones falsas sobre un fraude electoral generalizado o que su intento de impedir la certificación de los resultados por parte del Congreso era ilegal.Como una posible defensa, la táctica presente en el comunicado de Trump está lejos de ser una garantía para que no lo procesen y tiene problemas de credibilidad evidentes. Trump cuenta con un largo historial de que es capaz de decir lo que sea con tal de lograr sus objetivos, sin importar si es verdad o no. Y algunas de las medidas que tomó después de las elecciones de 2020, como presionar a las autoridades de Georgia para que encontraran los votos suficientes como para cambiar el resultado en ese estado a su favor, habla de un intento decidido de mantenerse en el poder y no de abordar algunos puntos débiles más generales percibidos en el sistema electoral.Pero su continua sarta de mentiras pone de manifiesto algunas de las dificultades para entablar cualquier proceso penal en su contra, a pesar de lo bien establecidos que están en este momento los hechos primordiales.Además, el comunicado también señala las medidas que Trump está tomando tras bambalinas para formar un nuevo equipo de abogados a fin de que hagan frente a una serie de investigaciones, como, por ejemplo, su campaña de presión con la que intentaba cambiar los resultados de las elecciones en Georgia y el hecho de que extrajera documentos clasificados cuando dejó el cargo.Según dos personas enteradas de este asunto, en la elaboración del borrador del documento participó Evan Corcoran, un abogado defensor para delitos de cuello blanco y exfiscal federal designado por Trump. Corcoran también ha representado a Steve Bannon, un aliado de Trump que el Departamento de Justica ha acusado de rehusarse a cooperar con el comité de la Cámara Baja que investiga los hechos del 6 de enero.Ni Corcoran ni la portavoz de Trump respondieron a la solicitud de ofrecer comentarios.El comunicado llegó en una semana en la que las audiencias del comité de la Cámara de Representantes dejaron clara la posibilidad de someter a Trump a procesos penales y civiles al enfatizar el testimonio de sus asesores y colaboradores que documentaron lo que le habían dicho, y cuándo, acerca de la validez de las acusaciones de fraude electoral y la legitimidad de su estrategia para mantenerse en el poder.En su tercera audiencia del jueves de la semana pasada, el comité argumentó que Trump había seguido adelante con el plan de hacer que el vicepresidente Mike Pence revocara de manera unilateral las elecciones de 2020 a pesar de que le habían dicho a Trump que no se contaba con bases legales para hacerlo.El Departamento de Justicia está investigando una serie de elementos relacionados con el asalto al Capitolio y con el intento más general de Trump y sus aliados para conservar la Casa Blanca pese al triunfo de Joe Biden. El fiscal general Merrick Garland no ha dado indicios de que el departamento esté armando un caso contra Trump, quien desde hace mucho tiempo ha sostenido que las investigaciones sobre el ataque del 6 de enero son partidistas e infundadas y cuya versión de los hechos no ha sido presentada en las audiencias del comité de la Cámara Baja.Pero las investigaciones del panel ya han arrojado pruebas que podrían aumentar la presión a Garland para que avance con mayor firmeza, plan de acción que conllevaría tremendas implicaciones legales y políticas. Después del acicate del Departamento de Justicia, en estos últimos días, el comité de la Cámara Baja dio señales de que ya el mes entrante comenzaría a compartir con los fiscales federales algunas transcripciones de sus entrevistas con los testigos.Greg Jacob, a la izquierda, quien fue abogado jefe del vicepresidente Mike Pence y J. Michael Luttig, un exjuez conservador, prestan su declaración en una audiencia del comité selecto de la Cámara de Representantes que investiga el asalto al Capitolio del 6 de enero.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesEn una demanda civil relacionada con el trabajo del comité, un juez federal concluyó en marzo que lo más probable era que Trump y un abogado que lo había asesorado, John Eastman, hubieran cometido un delito en su intento de anular las elecciones. “La ilegitimidad del plan era evidente”, concluyó en ese caso el juez David O. Carter del Tribunal de Distrito de Estados Unidos para el Distrito Central de California.Carter hizo referencia a dos delitos que, según él, era probable que estos hombres hubieran cometido: conspiración para cometer fraude contra Estados Unidos y obstruir los procedimientos del Congreso. Los miembros del comité de la Cámara Baja han hecho insinuaciones parecidas y algunos abogados han sostenido que hay probabilidades de que también acusen de sedición a Trump.No obstante, llevar a juicio con éxito las posibles acusaciones sugeridas por Carter y otras personas podría depender de establecer cuáles eran las intenciones de Trump, un asunto que, al parecer, abordó su comunicado de la semana pasada con el argumento de que él creía que su impugnación de los resultados se basaba en dudas legítimas sobre la realización de las elecciones.Daniel L. Zelenko, un abogado defensor para delitos de cuello blanco y exfiscal federal, señaló que en todos los posibles delitos que se estaban analizando relacionados con el comportamiento de Trump, el Departamento de Justicia tendría que demostrar que el expresidente tenía la intención de cometer un delito. Zelenko comentó que, aunque los nuevos detalles revelados por el comité ayudarían a los fiscales a probar sus intenciones, el gobierno seguía teniendo que afrontar una serie de otras dificultades para entablar cualquier juicio.“Lo fundamental es tener pruebas actuales de que él dijera que sabía que las elecciones no habían sido fraudulentas, pero que de todas maneras estaba tratando de mantenerse en el poder”, explicó Zelenko, copresidente del ejercicio de la defensa de delitos de cuello blanco en Crowell & Moring. “El problema con Trump es que tenemos que intentar meternos en su cabeza, y su historial de mentiras y embustes es tal, que resulta difícil determinar qué es lo que en realidad cree”.Aparte de las pruebas que el comité ya ha revelado, el panel ha recibido otros testimonios que socavan la afirmación de Trump de que pensaba que realmente había ganado las elecciones. Según dos personas informadas del asunto, Alyssa Farah Griffin, la directora de Comunicaciones de la Casa Blanca en los días posteriores a las elecciones, declaró recientemente al comité que Trump le dijo en noviembre de 2020 palabras del estilo de: ¿puedes creer que perdí contra Biden?En su audiencia del jueves de la semana pasada, el comité de la Cámara de Representantes armó un caso en el que Trump se lanzó de cabeza a un plan para que Pence anulara unilateralmente la elección a pesar de que se le había dicho a Trump que no tenía ninguna base legal.Doug Mills/The New York TimesEn una entrevista por televisión el otoño pasado, Griffin, que no respondió a una solicitud de comentarios, reconoció uno de los factores que complican establecer lo que Trump puede haber creído. Dijo que Trump podría haber cambiado de opinión después de las elecciones.“Me dijo poco después que sabía que había perdido, pero entonces, ya sabes, la gente que lo rodea…”, dijo Griffin en la CNN, refiriéndose a los asesores externos que impulsaron falsas afirmaciones de fraude electoral. “Consiguieron información delante de él, y pienso que su opinión realmente podría haber cambiado sobre eso, y eso da miedo, porque sí perdió, y los hechos están al alcance de todos”.Samuel W. Buell, profesor de Derecho en la Universidad Duke y exfiscal federal, mencionó que cualquier acción penal contra Trump tendría que comenzar por establecer que él sabía que lo que estaba haciendo no era correcto.“Hay que demostrar que sabía que lo que estaba haciendo no era correcto y que no tenía sustento legal para hacerlo”, comentó. “No digo que tenga que pensar: ‘Lo que estoy haciendo es un delito’. Se trata de probar que pensaba: ‘Sé que no tengo ningún argumento jurídico, sé que he perdido las elecciones, pero seguiré adelante con una afirmación que sé que es falsa y un plan que no tiene sustento legal’”.Las audiencias del comité de la Cámara Baja no son un juicio. El panel tiene la libertad de ser selectivo con respecto al testimonio que usa para plantear una acusación contra Trump y el expresidente no tiene aliados en el comité que puedan cuestionar a los testigos ni proporcionarle información que le sea de utilidad.Sin embargo, las audiencias han hecho hincapié en una serie de testigos que dijeron que antes del 6 de enero le habían dicho de manera directa y constante a Trump que sus aseveraciones de que un fraude electoral le hubiese costado la reelección no estaban fundamentadas.Además, el comité presentó un testimonio corto, pero posiblemente muy crucial del abogado jefe de Pence, Greg Jacob. En una declaración, Jacob le dijo al panel que, el 4 de enero de 2021, Eastman —quien estaba urdiendo un plan para que Pence impidiera o retrasara la certificación del conteo del Colegio Electoral— le dijo a Trump que este plan transgrediría la ley de conteo electoral, la cual es la ley federal que rige el proceso.En las investigaciones que se centran casi exclusivamente en la acción física, como las agresiones, los asaltos y los asesinatos, los fiscales no necesitan centrarse en probar la intención, ya que el vínculo entre la acción y el daño suele ser claro.La cuestión de la intención, sin embargo, puede ser confusa cuando el delito investigado implica una acción en la que el estado mental del acusado puede ser difícil de establecer. Los delitos que, según los expertos jurídicos, puede haber cometido Trump —obstrucción al Congreso, defraudación al pueblo estadounidense y conspiración sediciosa— caen en esa categoría.En esos casos, el gobierno se enfrenta a una serie de obstáculos que debe superar para demostrar la intención. La forma más limpia es encontrar pruebas de que el acusado sabía que estaba haciendo algo malo.En el caso de Trump, dijeron los abogados, eso podría tomar la forma de pruebas directas de que él sabía que sus afirmaciones de fraude electoral generalizado eran infundadas o que sabía que la estrategia que estaba llevando a cabo era ilegal.Si el Departamento de Justicia no pudiera establecer ninguna prueba directa de lo que Trump sabía, los fiscales tendrían que recurrir a pruebas circunstanciales. Para hacerlo, por lo general dependerían de lo que los expertos y las personas con autoridad de su alrededor le estuvieran diciendo acerca de si las elecciones en realidad habían sido fraudulentas o si sería legal el tipo de estrategias para impugnar el resultado.Los abogados explicaron que las recomendaciones de un experto casi siempre son suficientes para demostrarle al jurado lo que sabía el acusado. Pero, según ellos, esto se podría dificultar en el caso de Trump porque se sabe que, desde hace mucho tiempo, no escucha ni a los expertos ni a sus propios asesores.Debido a las dificultades de demostrar lo que Trump sabía en realidad, hay otra manera en que los fiscales podrían demostrar que no tenía buenas intenciones: probar lo que a menudo se denomina “ignorancia deliberada”.Según ese principio, el gobierno tendría que demostrar que Trump creía que existía una alta probabilidad de que los expertos y sus asesores le estuvieran diciendo la verdad cuando dijeron que las elecciones no habían sido fraudulentas, pero que él tomó medidas deliberadas para no saber por qué ellos creían eso.Zelenko comentó que entendía por qué muchos estadounidenses que observaron las audiencias estarían convencidos de que había buenas posibilidades de entablar un juicio en contra del expresidente. Pero advirtió que los criterios para usar pruebas contra un acusado son más exigentes en el tribunal, donde casi siempre los jueces insisten en que los fiscales se basen en testimonios de primera mano, se puede contrainterrogar a los testigos y los fiscales tienen que probar sus argumentos más allá de una duda razonable.Michael S. Schmidt es corresponsal en Washington y cubre investigaciones federales y de seguridad nacional. Formó parte de dos equipos que ganaron el Pulitzer en 2018: uno por informar sobre acoso sexual en el trabajo y el otro por la cobertura del presidente Trump y los vínculos de su campaña con Rusia. @NYTMikeMaggie Haberman es corresponsal de la Casa Blanca. Se unió al Times en 2015 como corresponsal de campaña y formó parte de un equipo que ganó un Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores de Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. @maggieNYT More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Jan. 6 Hearing Will Highlight Trump’s Pressure Campaign on State Officials

      by

      The House committee investigating the Capitol attack will also underscore the vitriol and suffering that election workers endured because of President Donald J. Trump’s lies.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol on Tuesday plans to detail President Donald J. Trump’s personal involvement in a pressure campaign on state officials to subvert the will of the voters as well as an audacious scheme to put forward false slates of electors in seven states to keep him in power.At its fourth hearing this month, scheduled for 1 p.m., the committee will seek to demonstrate what has been a repeated point of emphasis for the panel: that Mr. Trump knew — or should have known — that his lies about a stolen election, and the plans he pursued to stay in office, were wrong, but that he pushed ahead with them anyway.The committee also plans to highlight, in potentially emotional testimony, the vitriol and the death threats that election workers endured because of Mr. Trump’s lies.“We will show evidence of the president’s involvement in this scheme,” Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and a member of the panel, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”“We will also again show evidence about what his own lawyers came to think about this scheme,” he continued. “And we will show courageous state officials who stood up and said they wouldn’t go along with this plan to either call legislatures back into session or decertify the results for Joe Biden.”Mr. Schiff, who will play a key role in Tuesday’s hearing, told The Los Angeles Times that the panel would release new information about the deep involvement of Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s final chief of staff. Among that evidence, Mr. Schiff said, will be text messages revealing that Mr. Meadows wanted to send autographed “Make America Great Again” hats to people conducting an audit of the Georgia election.The hearing’s first witness will be Rusty Bowers, a Republican who is the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. Mr. Bowers withstood pressure to overturn his state’s election from Mr. Trump; Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer; and even Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas.Mr. Bowers will describe the pressure campaign by Mr. Trump and his allies, according to a committee aide. He will also describe the harassment he endured before and after Jan. 6, and its impact on his family, the aide said.The Jan. 6 committee plans to release new information about Mr. Trump’s final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to a member of the panel.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe panel will then hear testimony from Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, and Gabriel Sterling, the chief operating officer for the secretary of state’s office, who were pressed to overturn their state’s election results. In a phone call, Mr. Trump pushed Mr. Raffensperger to “find” him enough votes to put the state in his column and vaguely threatened him with “a criminal offense.”Finally, the committee will hear from Shaye Moss, a Georgia election worker who was the target of a right-wing smear campaign.Ms. Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, both of whom processed ballots in Atlanta during the 2020 election for the Fulton County elections board, filed a defamation lawsuit against The Gateway Pundit, a right-wing conspiratorial website that published dozens of false stories about them. The stories described the two women as “crooked Democrats” and claimed that they “pulled out suitcases full of ballots and began counting those ballots without election monitors in the room.”Ms. Moss and Ms. Freeman also sued Mr. Giuliani, saying that he “bears substantial and outsized responsibility for the campaign of partisan character assassination” that they faced.Investigations conducted by the Georgia secretary of state’s office found no wrongdoing by the two women.Shaye Moss, a Fulton County election worker, scanned mail-in ballots in Atlanta during Georgia’s primary elections in June 2020. Ms. Moss and her mother later became targets of a right-wing smear campaign.Alyssa Pointer/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, via Associated PressThe pressure campaign on state officials came as the Trump campaign was organizing false slates of electors in seven swing states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. The committee and federal prosecutors have been investigating how those slates were used by Mr. Trump’s allies in an attempt to disrupt the normal workings of Congress’s certification of the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6.The fourth hearing comes as the committee continues to build its case against Mr. Trump, laying out evidence of how he spread lies about the election results, then raised hundreds of millions of dollars off those lies, and how he tried to stay in office by pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to reject legitimate electoral votes.A fifth hearing planned for Thursday will dig into Mr. Trump’s attempts to intervene into the workings of the Justice Department, including exploring the possibility of firing the acting attorney general for not going along with his plans.The committee is continuing to gather evidence as it holds its hearings. The panel recently sent a letter to Ms. Thomas, who goes by the nickname of Ginni, asking to interview her about her communications with John Eastman, a conservative lawyer who advised Mr. Trump on how to overturn the election, and later unsuccessfully sought a pardon.“We believe you may have information concerning John Eastman’s plans and activities relevant to our investigation,” the panel wrote to Ms. Thomas in a letter obtained by The New York Times.As the committee explores how Mr. Trump’s lies sparked death threats against election workers, one member of the panel revealed on Sunday some of the vitriol he had endured. The lawmaker, Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois, posted to Twitter a letter that threatened the murder of his family.“This threat that came in, it was mailed to my house,” Mr. Kinzinger said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding: “We got it a couple of days ago and it threatens to execute me, as well as my wife and 5-month-old child. We’ve never seen or had anything like that.” More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Prosecute Trump? Put Yourself in Merrick Garland’s Shoes

      by

      The evidence gathered by the Jan. 6 committee and in some of the federal cases against those involved in the Capitol attack pose for Attorney General Merrick Garland one of the most consequential questions that any attorney general has ever faced: Should the United States indict former President Donald Trump?The basic allegations against Mr. Trump are well known. In disregard of advice by many of his closest aides, including Attorney General William Barr, he falsely claimed that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent and stolen; he pressured Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count certified electoral votes for Joe Biden during the electoral count in Congress on Jan. 6; and he riled up a mob, directed it to the Capitol and refused for a time to take steps to stop the ensuing violence.To indict Mr. Trump for these and other acts, Mr. Garland must make three decisions, each more difficult than the previous, and none of which has an obvious answer.First, he must determine whether the decision to indict Mr. Trump is his to make. If Mr. Garland decides that a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump is warranted, Justice Department regulations require him to appoint a special counsel if the investigation presents a conflict of interest for the department and if Mr. Garland believes such an appointment would be in the public interest.The department arguably faces a conflict of interest. Mr. Trump is a political adversary of Mr. Garland’s boss, President Biden. Mr. Trump is also Mr. Biden’s likeliest political opponent in the 2024 presidential election. Mr. Garland’s judgments impact the political fate of Mr. Biden and his own possible tenure in office. The appearance of a conflict sharpened when Mr. Biden reportedly told his inner circle that Mr. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, and complained about Mr. Garland’s dawdling on the matter.Even if conflicted, Mr. Garland could keep full control over Mr. Trump’s legal fate if he believes that a special counsel would not serve the public interest. Some will argue that the public interest in a fair-minded prosecution would best be served by appointment of a quasi-independent special counsel, perhaps one who is a member of Mr. Trump’s party.But no matter who leads it, a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump would occur in a polarized political environment and overheated media environment. In this context, Mr. Garland could legitimately conclude that the public interest demands that the Trump matter be guided by the politically accountable person whom the Senate confirmed in 2021 by a vote of 70-30.If Mr. Garland opens a Trump investigation and keeps the case — decisions he might already have made — the second issue is whether he has adequate evidence to indict Mr. Trump. The basic question here is whether, in the words of Justice Department guidelines, Mr. Trump’s acts constitute a federal offense and “the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”These will be hard conclusions for Mr. Garland to reach. He would have to believe that the department could probably convince a unanimous jury that Mr. Trump committed crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Garland cannot rest this judgment on the Jan. 6 committee’s one-sided factual recitations or legal contentions. Nor can he put much stock in a ruling by a federal judge who, in a civil subpoena dispute — a process that requires a significantly lower standard of proof to prevail than in a criminal trial — concluded that Mr. Trump (who was not represented) “more likely than not” committed a crime related to Jan. 6.Instead, Mr. Garland must assess how any charges against Mr. Trump would fare in an adversarial criminal proceeding administered by an independent judge, where Mr. Trump’s lawyers will contest the government’s factual and legal contentions, tell his side of events, raise many defenses and appeal every important adverse legal decision to the Supreme Court.Attorney General Merrick Garland.Jacquelyn Martin/Associated PressThe two most frequently mentioned crimes Mr. Trump may have committed are the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding (the Jan. 6 vote count) and conspiracy to defraud the United States (in working to overturn election results). Many have noted that Mr. Trump can plausibly defend these charges by arguing that he lacked criminal intent because he truly believed that massive voter fraud had taken place.Mr. Trump would also claim that key elements of his supposedly criminal actions — his interpretations of the law, his pressure on Mr. Pence, his delay in responding to the Capitol breach and more — were exercises of his constitutional prerogatives as chief executive. Mr. Garland would need to assess how these legally powerful claims inform the applicability of criminal laws to Mr. Trump’s actions in what would be the first criminal trial of a president. He would also consider the adverse implications of a Trump prosecution for more virtuous future presidents.If Mr. Garland concludes that Mr. Trump has committed convictable crimes, he would face the third and hardest decision: whether the national interest would be served by prosecuting Mr. Trump. This is not a question that lawyerly analysis alone can resolve. It is a judgment call about the nature, and fate, of our democracy.A failure to indict Mr. Trump in these circumstances would imply that a president — who cannot be indicted while in office — is literally above the law, in defiance of the very notion of constitutional government. It would encourage lawlessness by future presidents, none more so than Mr. Trump should he win the next election. By contrast, the rule of law would be vindicated by a Trump conviction. And it might be enhanced by a full judicial airing of Mr. Trump’s possible crimes in office, even if it ultimately fails.And yet Mr. Garland cannot be sanguine that a Trump prosecution would promote national reconciliation or enhance confidence in American justice. Indicting a past and possible future political adversary of the current president would be a cataclysmic event from which the nation would not soon recover. It would be seen by many as politicized retribution. The prosecution would take many years to conclude; would last through, and deeply impact, the next election; and would leave Mr. Trump’s ultimate fate to the next administration, which could be headed by Mr. Trump.Along the way, the prosecution would further enflame our already-blazing partisan acrimony; consume the rest of Mr. Biden’s term; embolden, and possibly politically enhance, Mr. Trump; and threaten to set off tit-for-tat recriminations across presidential administrations. The prosecution thus might jeopardize Mr. Garland’s cherished aim to restore norms of Justice Department “independence and integrity” even if he prosecutes Mr. Trump in the service of those norms. And if the prosecution fails, many will conclude that the country and the rule of law suffered tremendous pain for naught.Mr. Garland’s decisions will be deeply controversial and have consequences beyond his lifetime. It is easy to understand, contrary to his many critics, why he is gathering as much information as possible — including what has emerged from the Jan. 6 committee and the prosecution of the higher-ups involved in the Capitol breach — before making these momentous judgments.Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a co-author of “After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 63 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      ‘The Senate Needs a Soul’

      by

      Raphael Warnock claims he’s not a politician, though he certainly sounds like one and serves as one. The U.S. senator from Georgia, who has long been the pastor at Martin Luther King Jr.’s former church, says that his “entry into politics is an extension” of his work on a range of what he sees as moral issues, such as health care, criminal-justice reform and voting rights.Warnock became Georgia’s first Black senator in January 2021, when he narrowly beat the Republican incumbent, Kelly Loeffler, in a special runoff election. And he is set for yet another tough political battle ahead, against Herschel Walker, the former N.F.L. player, who in addition to his celebrity status also has an endorsement from Donald Trump. The stakes are high: “God knows these days, the Senate needs a soul,” Warnock says.[You can listen to this episode of “Sway” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]In this conversation, Kara Swisher talks to Warnock about his path from the pulpit to the Senate and the religious journey he traces in his recent memoir, “A Way Out of No Way.” She presses him on whether he can beat his celebrity opponent and asks what shadow Trump casts on this election. And they discuss the contrast between the jubilation he felt on his history-making victory and the horror that unfolded less than 24 hours later, as a mob attacked his “new office,” the Capitol, on Jan. 6.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)Keven LoweryThoughts? Email us at sway@nytimes.com.“Sway” is produced by Nayeema Raza, Blakeney Schick, Caitlin O’Keefe and Wyatt Orme, and edited by Nayeema Raza; fact-checking by Kate Sinclair; music and sound design by Isaac Jones and Sonia Herrero; mixing by Carole Sabouraud and Sonia Herrero; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Despite Growing Evidence, a Prosecution of Trump Would Face Challenges

      by

      As House hearings highlighted testimony that could create more pressure to pursue a criminal case, the former president tried out a defense that strained credulity.As new questions swirled this past week about former President Donald J. Trump’s potential criminal exposure for seeking to overturn the 2020 election, Mr. Trump issued a rambling 12-page statement.It contained his usual mix of outlandish claims, hyperbole and outright falsehoods, but also something that Trump allies and legal experts said was notable and different: the beginnings of a legal defense.On nearly every page, Mr. Trump gave explanations for why he was convinced that the 2020 election had been stolen from him and why he was well within his rights to challenge the results by any means available.What happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Trump wrote, stemmed from an effort by Americans “to hold their elected officials accountable for the obvious signs of criminal activity throughout the election.”His statement, while unfounded, carried a particular significance given the intensifying focus on whether he could face criminal charges. If the Justice Department were to bring a case against him, prosecutors would face the challenge of showing that he knew — or should have known — that his position was based on assertions about widespread election fraud that were false or that his attempt to block the congressional certification of the outcome was illegal.As a potential defense, the tactic suggested by Mr. Trump’s statement is far from a guarantee against prosecution, and it presents obvious problems of credibility. Mr. Trump has a long history of saying whatever suits his purposes without regard for the truth. And some of the actions he took after the 2020 election, like pressing officials in Georgia to flip enough votes to swing the outcome in that state to his column, speak to a determined effort to hold on to power rather than to address some broader perceived vulnerability in the election system.But his continued stream of falsehoods highlights some of the complexities of pursuing any criminal case against him, despite how well established the key facts are at this point.And the statement also reflected steps Mr. Trump is taking behind the scenes to build a new legal team to deal with an array of investigations, including into his pressure campaign to change the outcome of the election in Georgia and his taking classified documents with him when he left office.M. Evan Corcoran, a white-collar defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor brought on by Mr. Trump, was involved in drafting the document, according to two people briefed on the matter. Mr. Corcoran has also represented Stephen K. Bannon, a Trump ally who has been indicted by the Justice Department for refusing to cooperate with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.Mr. Corcoran and a spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment.The statement came during a week in which the House committee’s hearings drove home Mr. Trump’s potential criminal and civil legal exposure by highlighting testimony from aides and advisers documenting what he had been told, and when, about the validity of his election fraud claims and the legality of his strategy for hanging on to power.The Themes of the Jan. 6 House Committee HearingsMaking a Case Against Trump: The committee appears to be laying out a road map for prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump. But the path to any trial is uncertain.Day One: During the first hearing, the panel presented a gripping story with a sprawling cast of characters, but only three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.Day Two: In its second hearing, the committee showed how Mr. Trump ignored aides and advisers in declaring victory prematurely and relentlessly pressing claims of fraud he was told were wrong.Day Three: Mr. Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to overturn his loss even after he was told it was illegal, according to testimony laid out by the panel during the third hearing.At its third hearing on Thursday, the committee built a case that Mr. Trump had plunged ahead with a scheme to have Vice President Mike Pence unilaterally overturn the 2020 election even though Mr. Trump had been told it had no legal basis.The Justice Department is investigating a number of elements of the Capitol riot and the broader effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to keep the White House despite Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has given no public indication that the department is building a case against Mr. Trump, who has long contended that the investigations into the Jan. 6 attack are partisan and unfounded and whose side of the story has not been presented in the House committee’s hearings.But the panel’s investigation has already generated evidence that could increase the pressure on Mr. Garland to move more aggressively, a course of action that would carry extraordinary legal and political implications. After prodding from the Justice Department, the House committee signaled in recent days that it would start sharing some transcripts of its witness interviews with federal prosecutors as early as next month.Greg Jacob, left, who had been chief counsel for Vice President Mike Pence, and J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former judge, at a hearing on Thursday held by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesIn a civil case related to the committee’s work, a federal judge concluded in March that Mr. Trump and a lawyer who had advised him, John Eastman, had most likely committed felonies in their effort to overturn the election. “The illegality of the plan was obvious,” Judge David O. Carter of Federal District Court for the Central District of California concluded in that case.Judge Carter cited two crimes that he said the two men were likely guilty of committing: conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstructing a congressional proceeding. Members of the House committee have made similar suggestions, and some lawyers have contended that Mr. Trump could also be vulnerable to a charge of seditious conspiracy.But successfully prosecuting the potential charges suggested by Judge Carter and others could depend on establishing Mr. Trump’s intent — an issue that his statement this past week appeared to address with the argument that he believed his challenges to the outcome were grounded in legitimate questions about the conduct of the election.Daniel L. Zelenko, a white-collar defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, said that in all of the potential crimes that were being looked at in connection with Mr. Trump’s conduct, the Justice Department would need to show that he had the intent to commit a crime. Mr. Zelenko said that while the new details revealed by the committee would help prosecutors in proving intent, the government still had a range of other issues to overcome in building any prosecution.“The key is having contemporaneous evidence that he was saying that he knew the election was not stolen but tried to stay in power anyway,” said Mr. Zelenko, a co-chair of the white-collar defense practice at Crowell & Moring. “The problem with Trump is that you have to try and get inside his mind, and he has such a history of lying and pushing falsehoods that it makes it difficult to determine what he really believes.”Aside from the evidence the committee has already revealed, the panel has received other testimony that undermines Mr. Trump’s claim that he thought he really won the election. According to two people briefed on the matter, Alyssa Farah Griffin, the White House communications director in the days after the election, recently testified to the committee that Mr. Trump said to her in November 2020 words along the lines of: Can you believe I lost to Mr. Biden?At its hearing on Thursday, the House committee built a case that Mr. Trump had plunged ahead with a scheme to have Mr. Pence unilaterally overturn the election even though Mr. Trump had been told it had no legal basis.Doug Mills/The New York TimesIn a television interview last fall, Ms. Griffin, who did not respond to a request for comment, acknowledged one of the complicating factors in determining what Mr. Trump may have believed. She said Mr. Trump might have changed his mind in the aftermath of the election.“He told me shortly after that he knew he lost, but then, you know, folks got around him,” Ms. Griffin said on CNN, referring to outside advisers who pushed false election-fraud claims. “They got information in front of him, and I think his mind genuinely might have been changed about that, and that’s scary, because he did lose, and the facts are out there.”Samuel W. Buell, a law professor at Duke University and former federal prosecutor, said any criminal case against Mr. Trump would have to start with establishing that he had been aware that what he was doing was improper.“You need to show that he knew what he was doing was wrongful and had no legal basis,” he said. “I’m not saying that he has to think: What I’m doing is a crime. It’s proving: I know I don’t have a legal argument, I know I’ve lost the election, but I’m going ahead with a known-to-be-false claim and a scheme that has no legal basis.”The House committee’s hearings are not a trial. The panel is free to be selective in what testimony it employs to build a case against Mr. Trump, and the former president has no allies on the committee who can question witnesses or provide information helpful to him.But the hearings have highlighted a series of witnesses who said that Mr. Trump had been told directly and repeatedly ahead of Jan. 6 that there was no basis to his claims that election fraud cost him re-election.And the committee presented brief but potentially crucial testimony from Mr. Pence’s chief counsel, Greg Jacob. In a deposition, Mr. Jacob told the panel that Mr. Trump had been told on Jan. 4, 2021, by Mr. Eastman — who was pushing a plan to have Mr. Pence block or delay certification of the Electoral College count — that the scheme would violate the Electoral Count Act, the federal law governing the process.In investigations that are focused almost exclusively on physical action, like assaults, muggings and murders, prosecutors do not need to focus on proving intent since the link between the action and the harm is typically clear.The question of intent, however, can be muddy when the crime under investigation involves an action in which the defendant’s state of mind can be hard to establish. The crimes that legal experts say Mr. Trump may have committed — obstructing Congress, defrauding the American people and seditious conspiracy — fall into that bucket.In those cases, the government faces a series of hurdles it needs to clear to prove intent. The cleanest way is finding evidence that the defendant knew he or she was doing something wrong.In Mr. Trump’s case, lawyers said, that could take the form of direct evidence that he knew his assertions of widespread election fraud were baseless or that he knew the strategy he was pursuing was illegal.If the Justice Department could not establish direct evidence of what Mr. Trump knew, prosecutors would need to turn to circumstantial evidence. To do that, they would typically rely on what experts and people of authority around him were telling him about whether the election had really been stolen or what kinds of strategies for fighting the outcome would be legal.Expert advice is often enough to show a jury what a defendant knew, lawyers said. But that may be more difficult with Mr. Trump because he has such a long history of disregarding experts and his own aides, they said.Given the challenge of showing what Mr. Trump actually knew, there is one other way prosecutors could show he had a corrupt intent: proving what is often called “willful blindness.”Under that principle, the government would need to show that Mr. Trump believed there was a high probability that the experts and his aides were telling him the truth when they said the election had not been stolen, but that he took deliberate actions to avoid learning more about why they believed that.Mr. Zelenko said he understood why many Americans watching the hearings would be convinced that building a criminal case against the former president was a strong possibility. But he cautioned that the standard for using evidence against a defendant is higher in court, where judges almost always insist that prosecutors rely on firsthand testimony, witnesses can be cross-examined and prosecutors need to prove their arguments beyond a reasonable doubt. More

    • 38 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Hence, Mike Pence

      by

      WASHINGTON — The fate of a sycophant is never a happy one.At first, you think that fawning over the boss is a good way to move forward. But when you are dealing with a narcissist — and narcissists are the ones who like to be surrounded by sycophants — you can never be unctuous enough.Narcissists are Grand Canyons of need. The more they are flattered, the more their appetite for flattery grows.That is the hard, almost fatal, lesson Pence learned on Jan. 6, when he finally stood up to Donald Trump after Trump asked for one teensy favor: Help destroy American democracy and all we stand for.Two new photos shown at a hearing of the House committee investigating Jan. 6 tell a shocking story — one of the most incredible in our nation’s history.In one, Karen Pence is protectively pulling a gold-fringed curtain shut in the vice president’s ceremonial office in the Capitol, off the Senate floor, as Pence — sitting beneath a large gilt mirror — stares off into space, probably wondering where it all went wrong.Mike Pence in his office in the Capitol on Jan. 6, as his wife, Karen, closes the curtains to keep the rioters from looking in. The Pences, including his brother Greg and his daughter Charlotte, awaited the securing of the building.White HouseWe learned this week that when the vice president fled down the stairs, followed by an Air Force officer carrying the nuclear launch codes, the marauding mob was a few feet from him.In a second picture, taken after Pence was brought to a secure location in an underground garage, his daughter Charlotte is anxiously watching him. He is holding a phone to his ear as he stares at another phone showing a video of Trump professing love for the crowd, which included some who carried baseball bats and zip ties and chanted “Hang Mike Pence!”In the early afternoon, as the crowd tore down barricades and fought police, White House staffers worried things were “getting out of hand,” as Sarah Matthews, a Trump aide, testified.They thought that the president needed to tweet something immediately. At 2:24 p.m., they got a notification that the president had indeed tweeted. But it was not the calming tweet they had hoped for; it was one designed to drive the rioters into a frenzy.“Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify,” Trump tweeted. “USA demands the truth!”As Matthews recalled in her deposition, “The situation was already bad, and so it felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire by tweeting that.”Trump was still steaming from the contentious morning phone call when he failed to persuade the vice president to reject some of the states’ electors so they could be replaced with fake electors who supported Trump. He had railed at Pence with emasculating epithets.As Trump recalled in a speech on Friday in Nashville, “I said to Mike, ‘If you do this, you can be Thomas Jefferson.’ And then, after it all went down, I looked at him one day and said, ‘I hate to say this, but you’re no Thomas Jefferson.’”In the same speech, Trump had another line that was strikingly delusional, even for him. “For the radical left,” he said, “politics has become their religion. It has warped their sense of right and wrong. They don’t have a sense of right and wrong, true and false, good and evil.”Trump sparked the mob to seek vengeance against Pence the same way Henry II sparked a crew to murder Thomas Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. According to legend, after Becket defied Henry by excommunicating bishops supportive of the king, Henry muttered something to the effect of, “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” Four knights immediately rode to Canterbury Cathedral and sliced up Becket.The line became a famous example of directing loyalists with indirection, cloaking an order as a wish. Who will rid me of this meddlesome vice president?A Times video, showing how the Proud Boys breached the Capitol, underscored that within the confederacy of dunces, there was an actual organized conspiracy. The group began plotting even before the election to take up arms for Trump. When Trump barked “Stand back and stand by” about the Proud Boys during his debate with Joe Biden, the Proud Boys felt as though they had received a directive, like Henry’s knights.With each hearing, it becomes clearer that Trump has no plausible deniability. He put the lives of the vice president and his family at risk, as well as the lives of lawmakers, by sending a crowd, stewing in lies, into a frenzy.Pence did not have the power to do what Trump wanted, and it’s good that he resisted the insane, illegal and unconstitutional plan of the narcissist in the Oval. But Pence still wants it both ways. He has steered clear of the committee. He wants to become president by staying on the good side of Trump supporters, but they’re never going to forgive him.At the end of the day of infamy, John Eastman, the nutty lawyer trying to help Trump overturn the election, sent an email imploring Pence to adjourn the congressional certification so sympathetic state legislators could help with Trump’s fairy tale of a rigged election.When Greg Jacob, Pence’s counsel, showed the email to the vice president, Pence said, “That’s rubber room stuff.”The fate of a sycophant is never a happy one.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      What Watergate Highlights About the Jan. 6 Hearings

      by

      On the anniversary of the June 17, 1972, break-in, alumni of the hearings gather for a reunion. They had it easier than the Jan. 6 committee, they say.WASHINGTON — In the grandly marbled space of the Russell Senate Office Building known as the Kennedy Caucus Room, where a bipartisan select committee held nationally televised hearings to investigate the burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate a half-century ago, alumni of that inquiry gathered Friday evening to reminisce — and issue warnings.Their remarks, somber and theatrical as the room itself, were pitched to a present-day investigative body: the House select committee probing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.“Some things change, and some things remain the same,” said a host of the gathering, Rufus L. Edmisten, the deputy chief counsel for the Senate select committee that investigated Watergate. “What hasn’t changed between Watergate and Jan. 6 is how money has stolen our democracy.”The Watergate inquiry, a more than two-year combined effort on the part of both Senate and House committees, the special prosecutor’s office, a federal grand jury and the media, has been widely hailed as an investigatory gold standard and potential model for the Jan. 6 committee.It is seen as a triumph of assiduous digging and partisan-free statesmanship with made-for-Hollywood heroes: There was the heavy-jowled Senate Watergate Committee chairman, Sam Ervin of North Carolina; John Dean, President Richard M. Nixon’s former counsel, an owlish figure whose riveting testimony thoroughly implicated the president in covering up the Watergate break-in that took place in the small hours of June 17, 1972; and Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the two Washington Post reporters who broke the story and became household names.But the committee’s work today faces hurdles that the Watergate investigators did not.The present-day panel is racing the clock, attempting to uncover all that it can with the recognition that Republicans may win back the House majority and pull the plug on the committee’s endeavors come January. Nixon was defiant, but not at the level of former President Donald J. Trump. And truth was not up for debate in 1973.A screen above the Jan. 6 committee showing former President Donald J. Trump and his family during Thursday’s hearing.Doug Mills/The New York Times“What we investigated was understood to be substantive and real,” said Gordon Freedman, who served as a staffer on Mr. Ervin’s committee. “We now live in an era where the truth has been eroded as a standard.”Watergate investigators also had the benefit of the secret recordings made by Nixon in the Oval Office. By contrast, Mr. Trump did not tape his private conversations and he shredded White House documents while in office. Several of his former aides have defied subpoenas issued by the Jan. 6 committee, some justifying their intransigence through “executive privilege,” a phrase that entered the lexicon in the Nixon era. But none of Nixon’s top advisers invoked it and instead elected to testify before Mr. Ervin’s committee — a reflection of a Republican Party far different from the one today.“It took a lot of guts for seven Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and three conservative Southern Democrats to do the right thing and vote to impeach Nixon,” said Elizabeth Holtzman, who 50 years after being elected to Congress and serving on the House Judiciary Committee is running for Congress again. “They didn’t do it to agree with me. They did it because they followed the truth. And they did it, really, because the American public forced them to.”The Themes of the Jan. 6 House Committee HearingsMaking a Case Against Trump: The committee appears to be laying out a road map for prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump. But the path to any trial is uncertain.Day One: During the first hearing, the panel presented a gripping story with a sprawling cast of characters, but only three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.Day Two: In its second hearing, the committee showed how Mr. Trump ignored aides and advisers in declaring victory prematurely and relentlessly pressing claims of fraud he was told were wrong.Day Three: Mr. Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to overturn his loss even after he was told it was illegal, according to testimony laid out by the panel during the third hearing.Nixon of course did use executive privilege to avoid handing over what would prove to be some of the most damning taped conversations. Only after Leon Jaworski, the Watergate special prosecutor, prevailed in the Supreme Court did Nixon acquiesce, resulting in his resignation on Aug. 9, 1974.Mr. Jaworski, I should note, was my grandfather. I was two weeks shy of 15 when he was appointed by Nixon on Nov. 1, 1973, after Archibald Cox was fired on Nixon’s orders in what became known as the Saturday Night Massacre.As my grandfather would later maintain in his Watergate memoir, Nixon’s resignation proved that “no one — absolutely no one — is above the law.” That assessment deserves some qualification, however.Nixon was never indicted or much less convicted of any Watergate-related crimes. Against the wishes of the federal grand jury empaneled in the wake of the burglary, my grandfather declined to bring criminal charges against the president, and later signaled to the Ford administration that he would not challenge a presidential pardon.Nixon’s fate was an ignominious one, my grandfather insisted, saying, “A pardon isn’t just a beautiful document to frame and hand-hang on the wall.”Still, Nixon was free to write a best-selling memoir and to remain something of a Republican grandee all the way up to his death nearly two decades after he resigned in disgrace. Mr. Trump, meanwhile, remains the most influential member of his party after two impeachments and an electoral defeat he contests to this day.Despite the efforts of my grandfather and his investigators, and those of the media and Watergate committees, basic questions about the scandal remain unanswered. It is still unclear what, if any, advance knowledge Nixon had of the break-in. Though the president is on tape approving hush money payments to the defendants, it remains unknown whether he personally played a role in raising the funds. For that matter, the degree to which H.R. Haldeman, the White House chief of staff, and Attorney General John Mitchell directed illegal activities on a day-to-day basis has not come to light.Such questions, of course, are analogous to those currently faced by the Jan. 6 committee.Richard Ben-Veniste, one of my grandfather’s top deputies who was at the reunion, said he was asked by the Jan. 6 committee to offer advice. “Jan. 6 was the Saturday Night Massacre on steroids,” he said. “It was far more dangerous than what we thought was unthinkable: the appearance of a coup d’état when raw power replaced the rule of law. Nixon, for all his criminality and authoritarian sensibilities, possessed a sense of shame.”The continuum that stretches from Watergate to the present features a few ironies. During and after the Nixon scandals, congressional checks on executive power were enacted, including the War Powers Act of 1973 and modifications to the Federal Election Campaign Act. Those legislative initiatives led to charges of overreach and a counter-movement by some Republicans who wanted to restore power to the executive branch.One of them, a former Nixon White House aide named Dick Cheney, was elected to Congress four years after Nixon’s resignation. Mr. Cheney, of course, was vice president during the George W. Bush administration and his daughter, Liz Cheney, is the vice chair of the Jan. 6 committee who has sharply criticized Mr. Trump as an abuser of executive power.An additional irony following Nixon’s secretive presidency was the push for greater transparency in government: more sunlight, less smoke-filled rooms. But that effort has not necessarily translated into more efficient governance. To take a recent example, House conservatives led by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the far-right Georgia freshman who was born three months before Nixon’s resignation, have used the virtue of legislative transparency as an argument for slowing the House Democrats’ agenda by insisting on roll call votes for everything on the legislative calendar.At the reunion, Representative Deborah Ross, a North Carolina Democrat, was mingling among the guests as she recalled listening to the Senate Watergate hearings at the age of 10 while driving cross-country in her family’s station wagon. Noting the coincidence of the Watergate anniversary taking place in the middle of the Jan. 6 committee hearings, Ms. Ross said that “the obvious thing the two scandals had in common was that we’re talking about two men who wanted to hang onto power no matter what. The irony is that Nixon would have won in 1972 anyway, if he hadn’t been so paranoid about the Democrats.”“And if not for the tapes!” chimed in Judi Dash, whose late father, Sam Dash, served as the chief counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee.Two former members of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, Jill Wine-Banks and George Frampton, were at the reunion discussing the work of the Jan. 6 committee over cocktails. “I was very skeptical at first about the committee only televising six or eight hearings,” Ms. Wine-Banks said. “But I think they’ve done an excellent job, even without having the narrator we had, John Dean.”Turning to Mr. Frampton, she said, “For all that Nixon did, I’m not sure I ever felt democracy was in danger like it is now. Did you?”“Oh, certainly a little bit,” Frampton said. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Attacks Mike Pence for Not Rejecting Electoral Votes in 2020

      by

      In a speech, Donald J. Trump was undeterred by the Jan. 6 House committee’s account of how his rioting supporters menaced the vice president, and the panel’s dismantling of many of his election lies.A day after the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault illustrated the serious danger that rioters posed to Mike Pence, former President Donald J. Trump unleashed a new attack on the man who had served him as vice president, criticizing him for refusing to interfere with the Electoral College certification of the 2020 presidential contest.Speaking on Friday afternoon before a faith-based group, Mr. Trump said that “Mike did not have the courage to act” in trying to unilaterally reject the Electoral College votes that were being cast for Joseph R. Biden Jr.On Thursday, the House panel demonstrated that Mr. Trump and his advisers were told repeatedly that Mr. Pence had no power to block the certification and that doing so would violate the law, but pressed him to try anyway.The committee also used witnesses to dismantle and debunk Mr. Trump’s false claims of widespread election fraud — arguments that he repeated in his keynote speech on Friday at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in Nashville.Mr. Trump has grown angry watching the hearings, knowing that he lacks a bully pulpit from which to respond, according to his advisers. He used much of his Friday address to repeat his false election claims and to denigrate Mr. Pence.The Themes of the Jan. 6 House Committee HearingsMaking a Case Against Trump: The committee appears to be laying out a road map for prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump. But the path to any trial is uncertain.Day One: During the first hearing, the panel presented a gripping story with a sprawling cast of characters, but only three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.Day Two: In its second hearing, the committee showed how Mr. Trump ignored aides and advisers in declaring victory prematurely and relentlessly pressing claims of fraud he was told were wrong.Day Three: Mr. Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to overturn his loss even after he was told it was illegal, according to testimony laid out by the panel during the third hearing.Most striking was the context for the attack on Mr. Pence, whose presence on the presidential ticket in 2016 was critical to reassuring evangelical voters that Mr. Trump, a thrice-married New York real estate developer whose first divorce was tabloid fodder for months and who had supported abortion rights, had become sufficiently conservative on social issues.Mr. Pence, who often talks about his religious faith, is a favorite among the kind of voters attending the conference. But that did not stop Mr. Trump from denouncing him from the stage on Friday.After repeating claims about election fraud that have been widely debunked, including by his former attorney general, William P. Barr, Mr. Trump turned his sights on Mr. Pence.First, he insisted that he had not called Mr. Pence a “wimp” in a phone call with the vice president on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021, even though Mr. Trump’s former aide Nick Luna had testified under penalty of perjury about such a comment. “I don’t even know who these people are,” Mr. Trump told the crowd.“I never called Mike Pence a wimp,” said Mr. Trump, whose daughter Ivanka was present for the call and later told her chief of staff that Mr. Trump had effectively called Mr. Pence a coward, using a vulgarity. Then, Mr. Trump went on to describe Mr. Pence as weak.“Mike Pence had a chance to be great. He had a chance to be, frankly, historic,” the former president said. “But just like Bill Barr and the rest of these weak people,” he said, Mr. Pence “did not have the courage to act.” The comment was met with applause.Mr. Trump continued to mock Mr. Pence, whose aides testified that he had told Mr. Trump repeatedly that he did not have the power to dismiss Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory or declare a 10-day recess in the congressional session to send the votes back to states to be re-examined.“Mike Pence had absolutely no choice but to be a human conveyor belt,” Mr. Trump said.Mr. Trump also mischaracterized the 1801 certification of Thomas Jefferson’s presidential victory — a process that Jefferson, then the vice president, oversaw — to argue that Mr. Pence should have used that model to keep Mr. Trump in office.“I said to Mike, ‘If you do this, you can be Thomas Jefferson,’” Mr. Trump said. “And then after it all went down, I looked at him one day and I said, ‘Mike, I hate to say this, but you’re not Thomas Jefferson.’”Marc Short, Mr. Pence’s former chief of staff, said this conversation never happened. Mr. Short did not comment more broadly on Mr. Trump’s speech.Mr. Trump also complained that the House committee had edited videos of his former aides’ testimony so that they were not played in full context. He appeared to be referring indirectly to testimony by his daughter Ivanka, whose remarks have been used against her father in two hearings.Speaking of the mob that left his speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6 and swarmed the Capitol, Mr. Trump remained defensive. “It was a simple protest,” he said. “It got out of hand.” More