Ed asks if GOP Congress members helping Trump cover up an ongoing conspiracy with Russia are guilty of crimes.
Spoiler 1: Probably not.
Spoiler 2: The solution to the GOP shielding Trump (most likely) won't come through criminal justice. We have a political problem.
“Accessory after the fact” means you know a crime happened and you shield the person who committed the crime.
law.cornell.edu/wex/accessory_…
There are 3 elements to this crime:
💠Person A committed a crime
💠Person B knows A committed a crime
💠B assists A with the intent to help A get away with the crime.
To prove guilt, there must be evidence to support each element beyond reasonable doubt.
First, it’s possible that GOP members don’t believe Trump committed any crimes.
This guy argues that the Stone indictment “proves” there was no conspiracy👇
thehill.com/opinion/white-…
Ed mentioned the “ongoing conspiracy with Russia.”
Does that refer to Trump doing all he can to help Russia at the expense of our NATO allies?
That by itself isn’t a crime.
Maybe there was quid pro quo. If so, it’s unlikely GOP members know for sure.
Or maybe Trump thinks the US is better off aligned with Russia—a common belief on the far right.
“What?” you say. See👇
Each thought the other wanted an alliance that was contrary to American values.
Element 3 says their intention must be to help Trump get away with a crime.
Proving intent is always tricky.
They certainly failed to act as a check on presidential power, and they haven’t conducted a meaningful investigation into Trump’s 2016 Russia connections.
But not doing a job isn’t a crime. Besides they probably think they are.
I think there's evidence of impeachable crimes. But first we need due process.
Pronouncing someone guilty based on news reporting is problematic.
They are falling in line and doing the bidding of the autocrat, blindly acceping that whatever Trump says is the truth.
More👇
washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/w…
Many represent strongly pro-Trump states.
Perhaps their intention to do the bidding of their constituents.
If it's too easy to convict people of crimes, we run the danger of jailing people for their beliefs, or worse, jailing members of Congress for how they do their jobs.
As repugnant as the political belief “we need an autocratic president” may be, lots of people do want this.
Just read Ann Coulter’s Twitter feed.
But I don't have Congress shielding Trump on my list:
russia-investigation-summary.com/crimes/
They are however failing to do the job I believe they should be doing.
If a majority of voters support autocracy, we'll be in trouble. (That is not happening)
Slavery was authoritarian. So was the Trial of Tears, Jim Crow, and laws that kept women out of the public sphere.
After SCOTUS ruled segregation illegal in schools, George Governor Wallace himself . . .
usnews.com/news/blogs/pre…
Arkansas Gov. Faubus said if any black students tried to attend an all-white public school, blood will run in the streets.
upi.com/Archives/1987/…
Not exactly law abiding.
The KKK is still with us.
McConnell said that a bill making it easier for more people to vote was a “Democratic power grab.”
esquire.com/news-politics/…
It isn’t like the GOP is hiding what they stand for.
I don't think it can or will.
And that about 40% of voters seems to be fine with Trump’s authoritarianism.
That’s a political problem, not a criminal justice problem.