Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Opinion Why we should care about the 187 minutes
TFG refused to fulfill his duty to faithfully execute the laws of the US and to protect the US
Link to tweet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/19/jan-6-committee-final-hearing-what-trump-inaction-means/
The House Jan. 6 select committee on Thursday will provide a blow-by-blow account of the 187 minutes that passed during the Capitol siege in which Donald Trump did nothing to rescue lawmakers and his own vice president from the mob he unleashed. It’s critical to understand what purpose this evidence will — and will not — serve......
As for the legal significance of the 187 minutes, the public should understand that “dereliction of duty” under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to those in the military, not to civilians — including the civilian commander in chief. It may have been grounds for impeachment (which could have resulted in removal from office and a bar against holding future office). And it might be grounds for civil liability (i.e., Trump had a legal obligation to act and failed to do so when others were in harm’s way). But there is no criminal theory against Trump based on that charge.
This does not mean the 187 minutes are without legal significance. To the contrary, the full telling of this part of the saga can shore up evidence (virtually all from Republicans) that Trump corruptly sought to defraud the United States and to corruptly obstruct congressional proceedings.
Norman Eisen, who served as co-counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment hearing, tells me, “The key thing to remember is that his inactions and actions during that 187 minutes are not an isolated crime by themselves but rather the culmination of his alleged criminal conspiracies to defraud and to obstruct.” He adds that evidence about that period of time could “illuminate” Trump’s criminal intent, which would be critical to any prosecution of the former president, including by the prosecutor investigating Trump’s pressure campaign on Georgia’s election officials.
As Eisen and a group of Brookings Institution scholars explain in their comprehensive guide to prosecuting Trump, “Even if they had sincerely believed the election was stolen, frustration with the courts would not have entitled Trump and his allies to deploy dishonest and illegal means to overturn the outcome.” The statute concerning fraud upon the United States requires proof of specific intent to short-circuit a lawful function of the government and proof it was carried out by “deceitful or dishonest means.”
As for the legal significance of the 187 minutes, the public should understand that “dereliction of duty” under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to those in the military, not to civilians — including the civilian commander in chief. It may have been grounds for impeachment (which could have resulted in removal from office and a bar against holding future office). And it might be grounds for civil liability (i.e., Trump had a legal obligation to act and failed to do so when others were in harm’s way). But there is no criminal theory against Trump based on that charge.
This does not mean the 187 minutes are without legal significance. To the contrary, the full telling of this part of the saga can shore up evidence (virtually all from Republicans) that Trump corruptly sought to defraud the United States and to corruptly obstruct congressional proceedings.
Norman Eisen, who served as co-counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment hearing, tells me, “The key thing to remember is that his inactions and actions during that 187 minutes are not an isolated crime by themselves but rather the culmination of his alleged criminal conspiracies to defraud and to obstruct.” He adds that evidence about that period of time could “illuminate” Trump’s criminal intent, which would be critical to any prosecution of the former president, including by the prosecutor investigating Trump’s pressure campaign on Georgia’s election officials.
As Eisen and a group of Brookings Institution scholars explain in their comprehensive guide to prosecuting Trump, “Even if they had sincerely believed the election was stolen, frustration with the courts would not have entitled Trump and his allies to deploy dishonest and illegal means to overturn the outcome.” The statute concerning fraud upon the United States requires proof of specific intent to short-circuit a lawful function of the government and proof it was carried out by “deceitful or dishonest means.”
