By Naomi Schalit
Naomi Schalit, The Conversation
With the news on July 18, 2023, that Special Counsel Jack Smith had informed former President Donald Trump that he was a target of the federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the related Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, speculation began immediately among political analysts and pundits about what charges the former president might face.
But criminal investigations are not public, so drawing conclusions about what charges Smith might bring would have to rely on indications from other sources.
One place to find some possible hints: Smith’s investigation into Trump came on the heels of the sprawling public investigation of the Capitol insurrection by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack, known colloquially as the House January 6 committee.
The committee interviewed 1,200 people, including former Trump staff, state election officials and people who had participated in the Jan. 6 attack. Its final report was 845 pages long and provided many previously unknown facts and details about what happened on Jan. 6 and in the days and weeks leading up to it. The committee recommended Trump be charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, conspiracy to make a false statement and aiding an insurrection.
Here are four of The Conversation’s stories about the committee’s work to help you understand what it did, what it found and how its work may fit into what could be yet another historic prosecution of a former U.S. president. Three of the four were written by Claire Leavitt, a Smith College scholar of congressional oversight whose analyses are grounded in real-world experience: She spent a year working on the Democratic majority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
1. What’s an investigation and what’s a hearing?
As the committee prepared for its first public hearing, Leavitt laid out the two-pronged functions of the committee: investigation first, public hearings second.
“Blockbuster hearings are fascinating and even fun,” wrote Leavitt. “They dominate the political and cultural conversation and prompt movie stars to show up in ‘Saturday Night Live’ cold opens. But what do they actually accomplish?”
Such high-profile hearings, wrote Leavitt, actually represent the end of the investigative process. They “tend to be choreographed affairs, presenting a tightly woven narrative to the public. By now, most of the investigative work has already been done.”
Hearings “establish a shared foundation of facts that can inform short- and long-term debates – around the dinner table, in the media, in Congress and among scholars – over how major events should be interpreted,” wrote Leavitt. And they can also serve as a “a kind of preemptive justification for specific legal and legislative actions that may follow the investigation.”
For example, Leavitt wrote, “if the committee does end up recommending criminal charges against Trump and his allies, the hearings have already explained the legitimacy of these charges to the public.”
New York Times archive screenshot
2. Historic event given time-tested congressional scrutiny
Leavitt also set the January 6 committee’s work – really, its very existence – in historical context. For all the complaints by Trump and his allies that the investigation was illegitimate and a “witch hunt,” Leavitt wrote that the committee’s work fit squarely into the U.S. democratic tradition.
“The committee’s recommendation to prosecute a former president was unprecedented. But its investigation of the events of Jan. 6, 2021, fell squarely within Congress’ power and added a new chapter to a centurieslong history of congressional investigations into government scandals and failures,” she wrote.
Congress has the power to investigate. “Its standing and special committees,” wrote Leavitt, “known as select committees, regularly conduct both preemptive oversight and retroactive investigations. Their aim: to identify specific cases of wrongdoing both inside and outside government.”
And it’s the committee’s identification of wrongdoing that could have provided fodder for Jack Smith’s investigation of Trump.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
3. Legitimizing the drive for accountability
Did the January 6 committee pave the way for Jack Smith to charge Trump in connection with the events to overturn the election?
With its decision to recommend charges against Trump, the January 6 committee members, wrote Santa Clara University legal scholar Margaret Russell, had “reached the brink. This bipartisan committee, which comprised seven Democrats and two Republicans, decided unanimously that backing away from criminal charges would be a dereliction of its duty to recommend, based on what it has found.”
The magnitude of the charges the committee recommended, “particularly the insurrection one, is unprecedented,” wrote Russell.
And while the committee itself could not force charges to be brought, Russell said their recommendation had “very strong teeth in the sense of urging the Department of Justice to make sure that there is accountability.”
Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images
4. History takes time
Regardless of whether the House January 6 committee’s work contributed to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, its work should be seen as historic, wrote Leavitt. But that will take time to become clear.
“Assessing the full impact of the investigation requires patience – probably decades’ worth,” Leavitt wrote.
“The process by which events become part of the public consciousness is slow and often imperceptible, but it is a legacy arguably as important as the discrete electoral or policy outcomes that emerge – or not – in the short term.”
Naomi Schalit is Democracy Editor at The Conversation US.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
marlee says
and……Conservative Republican Liz Cheney’s closing statement:
“Donald Trump made a purposeful choice to violate his oath of office, to ignore the ongoing violence against law enforcement, to threaten our Constitutional order,” Cheney said. “There is no way to excuse that behavior.”
Ed says
Liz is not a Republican, she is an imposter. She might be right about President Trump, but she does not align with the right, said the blind man.
John Stove says
“Republican”?……you mean the party of “Law and Order’?….the only law and order the republicans follow is when they watch the show on TV
Ray W. says
You, Ed, have it backwards, but blindness can do that to you. Today’s Republicans are no longer true conservatives. Liz Cheney remains a true conservative. She is not the imposter. The Republican Party as it exists today is the imposter.
Please remember that the modern conservative movement began with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when Parlaiment stood up to King James II and forced him to flee to France. King James had insisted that he held all political powers. Parlaiment gather sufficient military forces to stand up to him.
Parlaiment insisted that the new king, chosen from the Hanoverian royal line, honor Parlaiment’s powers. The concept of separation of powers took root in England and eventually the United States. Parlaiment soon passed a 13-item Bill of Rights. The new king had his executive powers, which Parlaiment would respect and Parlaiment had its powers, which the new king promised to accept.
No true conservative legislature would ever bow to any president who attempts to expand his or her powers. Liz Cheney stood up to then-President’s Trump’s attempt to undermine a valid presidential election, just as she was supposed to do.
While you do not identify yourself as a true conservative, in this comment you present as someone who might think he is one. As Wittgenstein posited, one of the most difficult things in life is to not fool oneself. You may or not be a Republican, but you are not a true conservative, at least in this comment.
True conservatism, as a political force, is important to the American experiment in a liberal democratic Constitutional republic. Obedience to a new king is not.
Ed says
Ray w,
In another post, someone referred to us (you and me) as blowhards. Nothing in my post was suggesting my political affiliation nor my personal ideology, but rather my observation.. Liz is a Rhino.
Your pious opinions are nor absolute fact, nor are they 100 percent accurate as you profess with anecdotal history lessons from 300 years ago.
And no sir, I don’t know exactly who the bleep you are.
Laurel says
Ed: You can deny history if it pleases you, as it does many today, but you can learn a lot of where we are now by not ignoring it. Ray W. has helped me understand real conservative values that were a puzzlement to me, by explaining the history of conservatism. Today’s “Republican conservatives” are not conservatives at all. Maybe you can learn something too.
My husband was a lifelong Republican, but turned Independent because the GOP is not the GOP he grew up with, not even close. He resents the current, anti-constitutional drive that is in the process by “I alone” Trump and his worshipers. He resents the hostility that the current “Republicans” are aiming at half (or more) of Americans.
I am not a fan of Liz Cheney’s political views, but I am a fan of Liz Cheney. She is the real deal. She has vowed to do every thing she can to keep Trump from becoming President again. Most Republican politicians are chicken shits compared to her, totally scared of Trump.
Sherry says
@ed. . . “said the BLIND man”. . . a truly great description of yourself! Thanks!
I would personally add brainwashed. . . but, then again your own words tell us what we need to know about you. . . and BTW it’s not good!
For Real says
So true not to mention how many people get threats because of Trumps spreading of hate and violence in our countries.
For one person he sure has caused so much damage to this country, he needs to pay for all these crimes because he is NOT approve the law of the USA no one is.
makeitso1701 says
I hope finally this criminal will get what he deserves……PRISON.
LOCK HIM UP, LOCK HIM UP!
Karma is a beautiful thing!
Anthony says
Trump should not be allowed to run for any public office and his secret service protection needs to be taken away.
He is not above the law, enough is enough. How many more crimes can he commit before he pays the time for their crimes.
Laurel says
I hope Smith tears the sob a new one.
Robjr says
If convicted put him in jail immediately.
He is a definite flight risk, he has relationships with dictators who may not extradite him back to the US.
Ban the GOP says
Watch republicans sabatoge any agency that tries to hold them to any level of accountability. They have made every effort to sabatoge biden and get their criminal friends off the hook. Sad when an entire political party one of two no less backs terrorist loosers just cause they are a republican.
Charles says
Jack Smith is a true American hero just like John McCain, proud both of them believed in our constitution and the rule of law.
Jack Smith is smarter then Judge Cannon and if he is smart he will have her removed from the bench since she is already ruling on things that former prosecutors have questioned.
Jackson1955 says
I’m pretty sure that Special Counsel Jack Smith already has enough evidence to support secure a solid indictment against Fat Donnie for his role in the January 6 attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Any other evidence that develops after this point is simply “icing on the cake”. I can almost hear the MAGA cult crying through my tablet.
Soon, trump will be bouncing between trials in FL, DC, GA, NY, and NJ. Defection has got to be looking very good to him now.
Cue the theme from JAWS. Smith is getting closer and closer and closer and ……..