[ad_1]
In his April 18 Tuesday Opinion column, “This Jan. 6 case could make U.S. politics even worse,” Jason Willick argued cogently that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision on April 7 erred in upholding application of the criminal provision enacted by Congress following the Enron Corp. scandal to the rioters of Jan. 6, 2021.
” But he failed to mention another federal criminal provision — Title 18, Section 2383 of the U.S. Code — the applicability of which to Mr. Trump’s reelection effort still awaits an answer from the Justice Department. This provision would prohibit Mr. Trump from again holding public office because he gave “aid or comfort” to the Jan. 6 “insurrection.” This provision is clearly more pertinent to Mr. Trump’s situation than the one cited and discussed by Mr. Willick.
Unfortunately, the legislative bill introduced in Congress on May 27, 2022, by Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), H.R. 7906, was never pursued by them or others. It would have established an alternative to Section 2383 in the form of a civil suit brought by the attorney general. Because of its civil nature, there would have been no need for a unanimous jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” finding; a federal judge could have issued an injunction prohibiting Mr. Trump from holding office. Of course, such a decision would have been appealable to the same D.C. Circuit, then to the Supreme Court.
Elihu I. Leifer, Chevy Chase
[ad_2]
Source link
