本周，众议院特别委员会的成员在调查结束时是否应该对前总统唐纳德·特朗普提起刑事诉讼的问题上似乎存在分歧，主席本尼·汤普森告诉记者，在副主席利兹·切尼表示尚未做出提交调查结果的决定之前，起诉特朗普“不是我们的工作”。
此起彼伏的争论再次引发了人们对向司法部长梅里克·加兰(Merrick Garland)和司法部提交刑事案件的质疑。该机构调查特朗普并不需要转介，也没有人会保证这一点，但概述特朗普推翻2020年总统大选的“七点计划”的公开听证会加大了加兰对唐纳德·特朗普提起刑事指控的压力，这是历史上第一次对前总统提起刑事指控。
虽然1月6日委员会的刑事移交在理论上可能最终只是一个象征性的姿态，但专家告诉ABC新闻，这一举动值得仔细考虑。
宾夕法尼亚大学法学院道德与法治中心(Center for Ethics and Rule of Law School)主任克莱尔·芬克尔斯坦(Claire Finkelstein)说，“我不认为该委员会的任何成员对唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)是否违反法律有任何疑问，也不怀疑刑事案件移交的实际好处。”。“我怀疑这更多的是为了维护国会的权威，不希望那些试图让唐纳德·特朗普在国会和司法部承担责任的人之间出现分裂。"
“但是，”她补充道，“那种认为‘我们会克制，从而维护我们自己的权威’的想法是错误的。”
利弊
纽约大学法学院(New York University School of Law)教授瑞安·古德曼(Ryan Goodman)表示，由于担心共和党人会将刑事案件以及随后对DOJ的任何调查描绘成出于政治动机，该委员会可能会决定将调查结果留在一份公开报告中，这样就可以间接“移交”给司法部。古德曼列举了一些可能让该委员会犹豫的原因。
“移交的负面影响可能是，如果加兰的司法部真的推进此事，美国部分公众可能会认为这具有潜在的政治性，”他说。“对司法部来说，表现得更加独立可能比看起来像是对委员会直接提交的案件做出回应更好。”
另一方面，古德曼说，虽然转介没有任何强制力，“我认为加兰一次又一次地向我们表明，他是被动的，而不是主动的——他对其他机构做出反应，迫使问题产生。”
加兰告诉记者，他和他的检察官正在密切关注委员会本周的听证会，司法部周三发出了一封新的信函，告诉委员会的首席调查员，委员会的“关键”成员“向我们提供所有证人访谈的副本”，委员会迄今拒绝这样做。这一请求表明，除了1月6日在实地发生的暴力事件外，DOJ还在调查其他事项——特别是备用或虚假的选举人，作为彭斯可能单方面阻止乔·拜登当选总统的不可信理论的一部分。
不管委员会是否提出正式的刑事指控，美国广播公司新闻采访的每一位法律专家都表示，如果政府不至少展开刑事调查，这将令人担忧。
巴尔的摩大学法学院教授、前美国助理检察官金伯利·韦勒(Kimberly Wehle)说，“作为一个宪法理论、法律、问责制和分权的问题，如果梅里克·加兰不至少尝试一下，即使司法部败诉，任何未来的总统都不会不利用白宫的巨大权力犯下广泛的罪行。”“这为白宫的犯罪狂欢开了绿灯，因为其他问责手段都失败了。”
切尼显然也有同感，他在听证会上采取了刑事检察官的语气，认为特朗普和他的盟友参与了犯罪活动，使用了特朗普白宫律师埃里克·赫希曼(Eric Herschmann)的视频证词，回忆他是如何建议特朗普白宫律师约翰·伊斯曼(John Eastman)“找一个伟大的effing刑事辩护律师。”
切尼用这段视频取笑周四的听证会尖锐地指出一名联邦法官已经发现特朗普向时任副总统迈克·彭斯施压阻挠国会选举人票计票“很可能”违反了两项联邦刑事法规:妨碍官方程序和阴谋欺诈美国。
“特朗普总统的所作所为没有事实依据，他被告知这是非法的。尽管如此，特朗普总统与一位名为约翰·伊斯曼(John Eastman)的律师和其他人密谋推翻1月6日的选举结果，”切尼说。
特朗普，在一个12页的声明周一晚上发给记者，抨击该小组不合法，他们的陈述是片面的，称其为“烟雾和镜子秀”
虽然该委员会正在考虑发送一份正式的刑事移交，但这里有一份委员会和专家们认为特朗普及其盟友可能违反的联邦法规:
妨碍官方程序-《美国法典》第18编第1512节
该委员会概述了一项所谓的“复杂的七点计划”，称特朗普及其盟友参与的目标是阻止权力的和平转移，包括“腐败地”计划用那些支持特朗普虚假选举主张的人取代联邦和州官员，并向副总统迈克·彭斯施压，违反他对宪法的誓言。
按照一项旨在停止计算选举人票的计划行事可能违反18 U.S.C. 1512，该条款规定，试图“腐败地阻挠、影响或妨碍任何官方程序”，如总统选举，是一项重罪，最高可判处20年监禁。
古德曼说:“如果有足够的证据证明特朗普知道他已经输掉了选举，那么很明显，他的行为带有腐败意图。”“如果你知道自己实际上输了，你就不能试图向副总统施压，要求他推翻选举。”
切尼在1月6日发给白宫办公厅主任马克·梅多斯(Mark Meadows)的短信中敦促特朗普呼吁停止暴力，并在周一的法令中提出了同样的问题，“唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)是否通过行动或不行动腐败地寻求指示或阻碍国会计算选举人票的程序?"
该委员会试图证明，即使没有特朗普在磁带上承认他知道选举失败这样的“确凿证据”，优势证据也应该让他清楚这一点，成员们将把他们的案件引向特朗普对司法部和州选举官员的直接和间接压力的潜在法律责任。
共谋诈骗美国-《美国法典》第18编第371条
这一法令，也是切尼在周四的听证会之前提出的，将两个或两个以上的人之间的协议定为犯罪，以“损害、阻碍或挫败合法的政府职能”，最高可判处五年监禁。
作为切尼提出的“七点阴谋”的一部分，该委员会认为，特朗普的法律团队违反了这项联邦刑事法规，因为他们在战场州指示共和党人用特朗普选举人名单取代拜登选举人，并将这些选票发送给国会和国家档案馆。
虽然特朗普的欺诈意图需要被证明才能定罪，但接受美国广播公司新闻采访的专家表示，在权衡潜在的刑事指控时，特朗普与其他潜在被告的关系将被考虑在内，他们指出，他的一些最亲密的盟友“有非常重大的刑事风险。”
前特朗普白宫律师约翰·伊斯曼(John Eastman)起草了一份计划，要求特朗普通过谎称彭斯可以拒绝合法选举人来保住权力，特朗普的前幕僚长马克·梅多斯(Mark Meadows)据称与特朗普的女婿贾里德·库什纳一起告诉当时的司法部长比尔·巴尔(Bill Barr)，特朗普“变得更加现实”，因为他们“正在努力”，他可能需要做出更艰难的辩护。
古德曼说:“如果这些人知道特朗普输了，并表明了这一点，那么证明对他们的指控就更容易了。”
如果那些与特朗普关系密切的人受到指控，可能更容易证明他同意参与阴谋。
“例如，”芬克尔斯坦说，“如果约翰·伊士曼被判犯有阴谋欺诈美国或妨碍官方诉讼的罪行，而唐纳德·特朗普被判与约翰·伊士曼合谋，他的意图的确切性质可能不必与他是主要被告相同，因为根据联邦阴谋法，他只需要同意反对阴谋。”
煽动阴谋-《美国法典》第18编第2384条
煽动性阴谋的定义是，当两个或两个以上的美国人密谋“用武力推翻、镇压或摧毁”美国政府，或用武力反对并试图阻止任何法律的执行。如果罪名成立，将被判20年监禁。
由于使用武力是这一罪行的一个要素，而且特朗普在袭击发生时不在国会大厦，专家警告说，在这种情况下，举证责任可能更困难。
古德曼说:“这肯定意味着特朗普有先见之明，并打算使用武力和暴力，我认为这将很难证明，尽管有很多证据指向那个方向。”
美国司法部(Justice Department)上周宣布了一份起诉书，指控当时的领导人和极端右翼组织“骄傲的男孩”(the Proud Boys)的其他四名成员犯有煽动阴谋罪。其中三人不服罪，另外两人将于周四提出不认罪。该委员会认为，数百名骄傲的男孩专门前往华盛顿进行叛乱，这显然表明这两者是有联系的，特朗普甚至还没有开始讲话，在国会大厦游行的团体成员就表明了这一点。
如果该委员会指控特朗普与被指控组织国会大厦袭击的“骄傲的男孩”或其他极右翼极端主义团体合谋，则更有可能受到煽动性阴谋指控，这可能会引发第14修正案第3条，该条款禁止那些“参与反对同一[美国]的叛乱或叛乱，或向其敌人提供援助或安慰”的人在政府中任职。
“但在某种意义上，”古德曼警告说，“更容易证明特朗普可能更了解他的支持者会试图进入国会大厦，并实际占领国会大厦，但不会使用暴力。”
通过电报、广播或电视进行欺诈-《美国法典》第18编第1343条
该委员会本周介绍了特朗普及其盟友从欺诈性选举索赔中筹集2.5亿美元的证据，要求为“官方选举防御欺诈”基金拨款-但该小组表示，不存在这样的基金-加利福尼亚州众议员佐伊·洛夫格伦(Zoe Lofgren)将“弥天大谎”称为“一个大骗局”。
该委员会的高级调查顾问阿曼达·维克(Amanda Wick)在一段录音视频中说，“选举被盗的说法非常成功，特朗普总统和他的盟友在选举后的第一周筹集了2.5亿美元，接近1亿美元。”“筹集的大部分资金都流向了这个新成立的政治行动委员会，而不是与选举相关的诉讼。”
这一指控引发了对潜在电信欺诈指控的质疑，或者通过实物或电子邮件诈骗他人的企图。
然而，专家告诉美国广播公司新闻，这项指控可能更难证明，回到特朗普的意图问题。检察官必须让大陪审团相信特朗普有意误导。
“他可以说，‘我不负责建立那些筹款活动，我不知道它们可能是非法的，’”Wehle说。"所以这是一个更棘手的问题."
收费还是不收费
美国广播公司采访的专家一致认为，1月6日的委员会迄今为止已经提出了一个令人信服的案例，加兰和司法部有责任遵循它制定的路线图。
他们认为法治正处于危险之中。
芬克尔斯坦说:“这关系到我们民主的结构，以及我们让公职人员遵守法律的能力。”。
古德曼说:“委员会的公开听证会极大地提高了国家的风险，因为犯罪活动是如此厚颜无耻，如果司法部在这个案件中不执法，它真的会进一步侵蚀法治和民主。”
“即使努力失败，至少有一个信息发出，有一个警察在街区，”韦勒补充说。“因为如果什么都不发生，我们将走向美国历史上一个非常非常黑暗的时代。”
As Jan. 6 committee debates criminal referral for Trump, experts weigh pros and cons
Members of the House select committee appeared divided this week on whether they should make a criminal referral against former President Donald Trump at the conclusion of their investigation, with Chairman Bennie Thompson telling reporters it's "not our job" to prosecute Trump before Vice Chair Liz Cheney said the decision to refer findings hasn't been made.
The back-and-forth has reignited questions on the merits of sending a criminal referral to Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department. A referral is not required for the agency to investigate Trump, nor will one guarantee it, but public hearings outlining Trump's "seven-point plan" to overturn the 2020 presidential election have amped up pressure on Garland to bring criminal charges against Donald Trump -- the first in history against a former president.
While a criminal referral from the Jan. 6 committee might, on paper, end up being a mostly symbolic gesture, experts told ABC News the move deserves careful consideration.
"I don't think that there is any member of that committee who has any doubt about whether Donald Trump violated the law or questions the actual merits of a criminal referral," said Claire Finkelstein, director of the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. "What I suspect is that it has much more to do with trying to preserve Congress' authority and not wanting division between those who are trying to hold Donald Trump accountable in Congress and the Justice Department."
"But," she added, "the calculation that says, 'We will hold back, and therefore preserve our own authority,' is mistaken."
Pros and cons
Amid concerns that Republicans will paint a criminal referral, and any subsequent DOJ investigation, as politically-motivated, the committee may decide to leave its findings in a public report, which would then serve as an indirect "handoff" to the Justice Department, said Ryan Goodman, a professor at New York University School of Law, who outlined some reasons that might give the committee pause.
"The downside with a referral could be that if Garland's Justice Department does move ahead, that it would be perceived as potentially political by some parts of the American public," he said. "It could be better for the Justice Department to appear more independent than seeming as though it's responding to a direct referral coming out of the committee."
On the other hand, Goodman said, while a referral doesn't have any compulsory force tied to it, "I think Garland has shown us time and again that he is reactive, not proactive -- and what he reacts to are other institutions, forcing the question."
Garland told reporters that he and his prosecutors are closely watching the committee's hearings this week, and the Department of Justice sent a new letter on Wednesday telling the committee's chief investigator it is "critical" members "provide us with copies of the transcripts of all its witness interviews," which the committee so far has declined to do. The request suggests there are matters DOJ is investigating beyond the violence on the ground on Jan. 6 it is already prosecuting -- specifically alternate or fake electors as part of the discredited theory that Pence could unilaterally block the certification of Joe Biden as president.
Regardless of whether the committee makes a formal criminal referral, each legal expert ABC News spoke with said it would be concerning if the government did not, at the very least, open a criminal investigation.
"As a matter of constitutional theory and law and accountability and the separation of powers, if Merrick Garland doesn't at least try, even if the Justice Department loses, there's no disincentive left for any future president to not use the massive powers of the White House to commit widespread crimes," said Kimberly Wehle, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a former assistant U.S. attorney. "It's a green light for a crime spree in the White House because every other lever of accountability has failed."
Then sentiment is clearly shared by Cheney, who has taken the tone of a criminal prosecutor in the hearings, arguing that Trump and his allies engaged in criminal activity, using video testimony of Trump White House attorney Eric Herschmann recalling how he suggested that Trump White House attorney John Eastman "get a great effing criminal defense lawyer."
Using the clip to tease Thursday's hearing, Cheneypointedly notedhow a federal judge already found Trump's pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to obstruct the congressional count of electoral votes "more likely than not" violated two federal criminal statutes: obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.
"President Trump had no factual basis for what he was doing and he had been told it was illegal. Despite this, President Trump plotted with a lawyer named John Eastman and others to overturn the outcome of the election on Jan. 6," Cheney said.
Trump, in a12-page statementsent to reporters on Monday night, blasted the panel illegitimate and their presentation one-sided, calling it "a smoke and mirrors show."
While the committee weighs sending a formal criminal referral, here's a look at federal statutes the committee and experts say Trump and his allies may have violated:
Obstruction of an official proceeding - 18 U.S.C. § 1512
The committee has outlined an alleged "sophisticated seven-point plan" it says Trump and his allies engaged in with the goal of stopping the peaceful transfer of power, including "corruptly" planning to replace federal and state officials with those who would support his fake election claims and pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to violate his oath to the Constitution.
Acting on a plan with the intent to stop the counting of electoral votes would likely violate 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which makes it a felony to attempt to "corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding," such as a presidential election, and comes with up to 20 years in prison.
"If there is enough evidence to prove that Trump knew he had lost the election, then it's obvious that he was acting with corrupt intent," Goodman said. "You can't try to pressure the vice president to overturn the election if you know you actually lost."
Cheney, raising texts sent to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows urging Trump to call for violence to stop on Jan. 6, mirrored language in the statute Monday to raise the question, "Did Donald Trump, through action -- or inaction -- corruptly seek to instruct or impede Congress' proceedings to count electoral votes?"
The committee has attempted to make the case that even without a "smoking gun" such as Trump admitting on tape he knew the election was lost, a preponderance of evidence should have made that clear to him, and members will lead their case next to the potential legal culpability of Trump's direct -- and indirect pressure -- on the Justice Department and state election officials.
Conspiracy to defraud the United States - 18 U.S.C. § 371
This statute, also raised by Cheney ahead of Thursday's hearing, criminalizes the agreement between two or more persons to "impair, obstruct or defeat the lawful government functions" and is punishable by up to five years in prison.
As part of the "seven-point plot" Cheney has laid out, the committee argues Trump's legal team violated this federal criminal statute when instructing Republicans in battleground states to replace Biden electors with slates of Trump electors and send those votes to Congress and the National Archives.
While Trump's intent to defraud would need to be proved for a conviction, experts interviewed by ABC News say, how Trump relates to other potential defendants would be considered when weighing potential criminal charges to bring, and they note some of his closest allies "have very significant criminal exposure."
Former Trump White House attorney John Eastman, in drafting a plan for Trump to cling to power by falsely claiming Pence could reject legitimate electors, as well as Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows, who allegedly with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, told then- Attorney General Bill Barr that Trump was "becoming more realistic" that he lost as they were "working on it," may have a harder defense to make.
"If those individuals know Trump lost and indicated it, it's going to be easier to prove the case against them," Goodman said.
And if those close to Trump are charged, it may be easier to prove he agreed to participate in the conspiracy.
"For example," Finkelstein said, "if John Eastman is found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States or obstruction of an official proceeding and Donald Trump was found to be in a conspiracy with John Eastman, the exact nature of his intent may not have to be the same as if he is a principal defendant because, under federal conspiracy law, he only needs to have agreed to the object to the conspiracy."
Seditious conspiracy - 18 U.S.C. § 2384
Seditious conspiracy is defined as when two or more people in the U.S. conspire to "overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force" the U.S. government, or to oppose by force and try to prevent the execution of any law. It comes with 20 years in prison if convicted.
Since the use of force is an element of this crime, and Trump was not on the Capitol grounds during the attack, experts cautioned that the burden of proof might be more difficult in this instance.
"It must mean that Trump acted with foreknowledge and intend to use force and violence, and I think that's going to be very hard to prove, though there is a lot of evidence that points in that direction," Goodman said.
The Justice Department last week announced an indictment charging the then-leader and four other members of the extremist far-right group the Proud Boys with seditious conspiracy. Three have pleaded not guilty, and two others are set to enter not guilty pleas on Thursday. In an apparent suggestion the two were linked, the committee has argued that hundreds of Proud Boys traveled to Washington specifically for an insurrection, as indicated by members of the group marching on the Capitol before Trump even began speaking.
If the committee accuses Trump of conspiring with Proud Boys or other far-right extremist groups who are accused of organizing the Capitol attack, there's more potential for a seditious conspiracy charge, which could then trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" from serving in government.
"But in some sense," Goodman cautioned, "it's easier to prove that Trump might have had more knowledge that his supporters would try to enter the Capitol and occupy the Capitol physically but not use violence."
Fraud by wire, radio or television - 18 U.S.C. § 1343
The committee introduced evidence this week of Trump and his allies fundraising $250 million off fraudulent election claims, asking for money for an "Official Election Defense Fraud" fund -- but the panel said no such fund existed -- with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., casting the "big lie" as "a big rip-off."
"Claims that the election was stolen were so successful, President Trump and his allies raised $250 million, nearly $100 million in the first week after the election," said Amanda Wick, senior investigative counsel to the committee, in a taped video. "Most of the money raised went to this newly created PAC, not to election-related litigation."
The allegation has raised questions over potential wire fraud charges, or the attempt to defraud another through physical or electronic mail.
However, experts told ABC News this charge might be more difficult to prove, going back to the question of Trump's intent. Prosecutors would have to convince a grand jury that Trump intended to mislead.
"He can say, 'I wasn't in charge of setting up those fundraising efforts, I didn't know that they were potentially illegal,'" Wehle said. "So that's a thornier case."
To charge or not to charge
The experts ABC spoke with agreed the Jan. 6 committee has made a compelling case so far, and that the onus is on Garland and the Justice Department to follow the roadmap it's laid out.
They argue the rule of law is at risk.
"What's at stake is the very structure of our democracy and our ability to hold public officials to the confines of the law," Finkelstein said.
"The committee's public hearings have raised the stakes enormously for the country, in the sense that the criminal activity shown to have gone on is so brazen, that if the Justice Department does not enforce the law in this case, it really does further erode the rule of law and democracy," Goodman said.
"Even if the effort fails, at least there's a message sent that there is a cop on the block," Wehle added. "Because we're headed for a very, very dark era of American history if something doesn't happen."
