It has been reported that the select committee that was established on January 6 intends to vote on at least three criminal referrals targeting former President Trump on Monday. This would be a significant step taken by the committee as it nears the end of its investigation, which has lasted for more than a year.
On Friday, multiple news agencies reported that the committee will vote on whether or not to recommend that the Justice Department prosecute Trump for rebellion, impeding an official action of Congress, and conspiracy to defraud the United States.
When contacted by The Hill, a spokeswoman for the select committee declined to comment on the matter. Before the end of this year, when Republicans are scheduled to gain control of the House and abolish the panel, the committee is aiming to bring its investigation to a successful conclusion and publish its findings.
Because the Justice Department is not compelled to take into consideration referrals that come from congressional committees, the referrals would be an important step, but they would also be essentially symbolic. In addition, the agency is carrying out its own independent inquiry of the incidents that occurred on January 6, 2021.
According to sources who spoke with Politico, the committee’s rationale for the referral concerning the insurrection allegation references a judgement that was delivered by U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta in February, which indicates that the words that Trump used incited the violence that took place on January 6.
According to the report, it also points to the 57 senators who voted to convict Trump of inciting rebellion following the incident that occurred in the Capitol. In a letter to The Hill, Trump spokeswoman Steven Cheung voiced his disapproval of the committee that met on January 6.
“The January 6th un-Select Committee held show trials by Never Trump partisans who are a stain on this country’s history,” he stated. “These show trials are a disgrace to this great nation.” This so-called kangaroo court was nothing more than a vanity documentary project for a Hollywood executive, which both belittles the intelligence of the American people and makes a mockery of our democracy.
Prior to this, the committee chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson (Democrat of Mississippi), stated that the panel will vote on referrals during its business meeting on Monday, which would also serve as the committee’s final public presentation. He informed the media that the committee was thinking about the proposals in “five or six categories.”
It’s possible that the Justice Department, the House Ethics Committee, and other professional groups, such bar associations, fall into this category. The committee has provided examples of behaviors that fall within the purview of those groups, and those examples have been pointed out.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), an expert in constitutional law who also serves on the select committee, stated on Monday that “We’re focused on key players and we’re focused on key players where there is sufficient evidence or abundant evidence that they committed crimes,” and “We’re focused on crimes that go right to the heart of the Constitutional order such that the Congress can’t remain silent,” he added. Raskin is a member of the select committee.
The five Republican members who disregarded subpoenas issued by the committee are potentially candidates for inclusion in that category of “important actors.” Raskin also previously indicated that five lawmakers who ignored subpoenas from the committee could be referred to the House Ethics Committee based on a constitutional statute.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Representative Scott Perry (Pa.), Representative Jim Jordan (Ohio), Representative Andy Biggs (Arizona), and Representative Mo Brooks (Ala.) all rejected requests they received from Raskin.
According to Raskin, “The Speech or Debate Clause makes it plain that members of Congress are not held accountable in the judiciary or other areas in the government.” “Members of Congress are solely held accountable for their conduct in their own chambers by virtue of Article One,” he continued. “For their activities.”
If you liked this article, tell us what you think in the comments section. And don’t forget to check our website Journalistpr.com. for the latest news.
Leave a Reply