“Text messages to Trump\u2019s chief of staff Mark Meadows indicate that Trump allies in Congress such as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) pushed plans to set aside the election results and subvert the democratic process before Jan. 6. And when the insurrection started, the messages also reveal that members of Congress, Trump\u2019s media allies and his own son pleaded unsuccessfully with Meadows to get the president to call off his supporters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But while the committee may ultimately uncover sufficient evidence to indict Trump, it does not appear that they have done so thus far. Rather than using the exact language of the statute, she inserted four words that reveal the scope of the committee\u2019s investigation but also suggest that the committee knows it might fall short of the bar for criminal prosecution. \u201cDid Donald Trump,\u00a0through action or inaction<\/em>\u00a0[emphasis added], corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress\u2019 official proceeding to count electoral votes?\u201d Cheney asked as she urged colleagues to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress for refusing to be deposed.The key word used by Cheney is \u201cinaction.\u201d Thus far the evidence made public by the committee indicates that in the face of a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, Trump did nothing. Cheney and others argue that Trump violated his oath of office, in which he swore to \u201cpreserve, protect and defend the Constitution,\u201d which requires him to \u201ctake care that the laws be faithfully executed.\u201d There can be little dispute that Trump failed to do so. But a president violating his oath of office, in itself, does not constitute a federal crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That evidence \u2014 not to mention the earlier revelation of a PowerPoint presentation circulating in the Trump White House about how to block the electoral vote certification \u2014 led members of the committee to question whether the president might be in legal jeopardy. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the committee, gained particular attention for a question she posed that went so far as to\u00a0paraphrase the language<\/a>\u00a0of 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1512, which makes it a felony to attempt to \u201ccorruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n