'There's so much evidence': ex-prosecutor outlines most straightforward charge to convict TrumpSpecial Counsel Jack Smith could ultimately bring a fresh round of indictments against former President Donald Trump and his associates, this time in connection with the January 6 investigation.
It remains unclear what those specific charges would be; however, former federal corruption prosecutor and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington chief Noah Bookbinder told MSNBC's Chris Hayes on Thursday that one charge in particular would be easy to prove.
"Noah, one of the — if I'm not mistaken, in the draft prosecution memo that you were sort of coauthor on, one of the charges is conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and if I'm not mistaken, that's one of the charges the January 6 Committee looked at," said Hayes. "I have to say, as I look through it again, as a layperson, that jumps out to me. It's like, did you willfully try to defraud the government of the United States of something? And it's like, yeah. the most important thing, who would be the next leader of the country. What do you think about that?"
"I think in a lot of ways, that is the most straightforward of the charges," said Bookbinder. "I think an obstruction charge, obstruct doing a function of United States government ... is also extremely straightforward. But the conspiracy to defraud the United States government is basically saying that you were lying and you were doing it to prevent the government from doing a thing that it was supposed to do. And that's quite clear. There's so much evidence that Donald Trump, particularly through that false electors scheme, but also in trying to intimidate the Department of Justice to essentially lie to put pressure on states, that Donald Trump was taking these positions that he knew were false to try to stop the government from doing what it was supposed to do, which was to count and certify the votes in the election and choose the next president."
"I think that one is pretty straight down the middle, if they are able to get into court and have an impartial jury and put this case in front of them," concluded Bookbinder.
This case would be on top of the obstruction and Espionage Act charges brought against Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.
Watch: Trump had 'no legal right' to overturn the election even if he thought he won: expertOne of the most important elements for special counsel Jack Smith to establish in order to charge former President Donald Trump in connection with the plots to overturn the 2020 presidential election, is to establish his intent — something he is attempting to do with his new interviews with Hope Hicks and Jared Kushner.
But crucially, New York University law professor and former Pentagon special counsel Ryan Goodman told a CNN panel on Thursday, that does not mean Smith has to prove Trump didn't truly believe that the election was stolen from him.
"The best possible evidence they can get — and we don't know exactly whether Jared Kushner or Hope Hicks gave them this — is Donald Trump acknowledging that he knows he lost," said former federal prosecutor Elie Honig. "It's one thing to be told by certain people that he lost, because there were other people telling him he did not lose. If you can get it out of his mouth that he knows he lost, that's golden evidence for prosecutors."
"I agree ... that intent is essential," said Goodman. "I agree with Elie that it would be super important and very valuable to the prosecutor if they could prove that Trump knew he lost." However, he added, "I don't think they need that. Even the way The New York Timesreports it, they say if the prosecutor had that information, it could bolster his case or it could make it a more robust case, that's true. But there's so many other ways this could be prosecuted and it doesn't matter."
"Trump could have thought he won the election," Goodman continued. "It doesn't give him any legal right to pressure Mike Pence to violate his oath. That would be a separate crime. It doesn't give him any legal right to have a scheme to create false slates of electors who declare they're the rightful electors and to submit to congress to gum up the works, and if the prosecutor also charges former President Trump for the violence on January 6th, it does not matter whether or not he thought he won."
"I do want to mention, Hope Hicks did give explosive testimony before the January 6th committee on that particular issue," added Goodman. "There's an open question, the prosecutors, were they also asking her about that, because she testified and there were text messages that she advised President Trump on January 4th and 5th, please stay peaceful on January 5th and he refused her advice. That's in the final report from the Select Committee."
Watch: Trump creates 'alternate realities' to confuse juries – and it won't work: legal expertA legal expert believes Donald Trump is seeking to convince potential jurors that he couldn’t have committed crimes in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capital if he didn’t believe what he was doing was illegal, but that the former president's legal strategy isn’t going anywhere.
And this isn't the first time he’s doing it, former DOJ Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security Mary McCord said Thursday during an appearance on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes.”
“This pattern we see with Trump, I mean, a lot of it is playing to the public, but I think he knows that juries, grand juries, and petit juries, the ones who sit in trial, are also all part of that public that he's been playing to for so long,” McCord said.
Hayes likened Trump’s legal strategy to a delusional defendant in a bank heist who claims holding up a teller isn’t a crime because the robber was only reclaiming money that belonged to them in the first place.
“Even if you genuinely believe that, you're not in good shape,” Hayes said.
“In every matter, what he does is he creates, in a way, this alternate reality for himself,” McCord said.
“In the Mar-a-Lago documents case it's that he had the power to determine that all presidential records were actually personal records, or on a different day…he might also say that he actually declassified them all, and then he lives in that world, I think in order to almost to create what he thinks is going to be a defense, you know. I couldn't have committed a crime when I was so overwhelmingly out there saying these things, but that’s just not how the law works, and I think that that's going to fail in this case."
“If there is an indictment brought and if that's what he tries…his purported lack of knowledge that he lost is not going to be a legal defense here.”