Trump's criminal intent is now clear. Merrick Garland's intentions aren't. [View all]

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

By Glenn Kirschner, MSNBC Opinion Columnist

For weeks, if not months, leadership at the Department of Justice has repeatedly told us they will follow the facts and the law and will hold Jan. 6 wrongdoers accountable “at any level.” Yet they provide few updates or concrete information. We have seen zero overt law enforcement activity against anyone but the foot soldiers of former President Donald Trump’s insurrection. In substance, the DOJ is asking the American people to trust them. But following the House’s final (at least for a while) Jan. 6 committee hearing on Thursday, that trust is eroding.

Over the course of these eight public Jan. 6 committee hearings, we have seen compelling (not circumstantial) evidence of Trump’s potential crimes. Former acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue testified that Trump told a group of department officials that it didn’t matter if the election was rife with fraud, adding, “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” This is direct evidence — relayed by Donoghue under oath — of criminal intent. Trump apparently neither believed nor cared whether there was provable evidence of widespread election fraud, he simply wanted his DOJ officials to lie — "just say the election was corrupt" — and let him use that lie to help steal a second presidential term.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder described these statements as a “smoking gun” proving Trump’s corrupt intent, adding that it would be “laughable” for anyone to argue otherwise to a jury. I agree wholeheartedly with Holder. (Full disclosure: He was my direct boss when he was the United States attorney for the District of Columbia.) And for anyone who might dismiss Holder as hopelessly partisan, it’s worth remembering that before he served as U.S. attorney for D.C., he was nominated to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia — by President Ronald Reagan.

Link to tweet

Similarly, Cassidy Hutchinson testified that prior to Trump's Jan. 6 speech on the Ellipse, he was informed that some of his supporters were armed with rifles, pistols and other deadly weapons. In a staggering display of callousness and disregard for the safety of others, Trump responded by demanding that security take down the metal detectors and let his supporters in anyway, because “they’re not here to hurt me.” As a career prosecutor, I would argue that the only reasonable inference from that statement is that Trump fully understood his armed supporters were a danger to lawmakers certifying the election win of his opponent. Trump also said that after his speech (i.e., after the metal detectors were removed and his armed mob was allowed in), they would all then march to the Capitol. This is powerful, direct evidence — relayed by Hutchinson under oath — that Trump intended to lead an armed mob to stop the election certification.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/jan-6-hearing-witnesses-prove-trump-s-criminal-intent-n1297424