It’s not only in the investigation into his handling of classified documents where Donald Trump is facing what’s apparently mounting evidence of his criminality, which in the ongoing documents probe led a federal judge to rule there was enough evidence suggesting such acts to get around claims of attorney-client privilege over testimony to be provided by Donald’s attorney Evan Corcoran.
It’s also in the probe into circumstances leading up to January 6 where the evidence is growing. Individual criminal cases against participants in the mob assault remain the purview of other prosecutors, but like the documents probe, the investigation into political schemes before and around January 6 is the responsibility of Special Counsel Jack Smith, about whom Trump seems very concerned, based on the rate of his angry public comments about him.
“We know the special counsel is looking into a possible conspiracy case against Trump and people around him about trying to block the congressional proceedings on January 6,” journalist Robert Costa said on CBS this past weekend. “We’re going to potentially hear now from Mark Meadows. Robert O’Brien, the former national security adviser, John Ratcliffe, the former director of national intelligence. And sources who are close to the grand jury also tell CBS News that they’re being asked, witnesses, about what kind of national security levers Trump was asking about in those final days.”
Considering it’s not exactly a secret that some around Trump had ideas for steps like martial law, it would seem that’s what would fall under that last category: potential action utilizing rhetorical levers of national security in the U.S. government in service of Trump nabbing another term that he didn’t actually win.
If you think about it, documentedly conspiring to use the powers of the U.S. military or perhaps the Defense Department in general to undo what in reality were the duly documented results of a presidential election is, in fact, pretty serious, should it be proven. The former aides to Trump who Costa mentioned were recently the subject of yet another court ruling against privilege claims surrounding prospective grand jury testimony. After the earlier rejection in Corcoran’s case, he appeared to promptly provide additional answers, ending opportunities for further subversion of that factor of that investigation.
