a likely Prosecution memo (pros memo) for Donald J. Trump

Actually, it's a 'model' prosecution memo. The experienced folks over at www.justsecurity.org have put together a prosecution memo that they believe will approximate the one that is forthcoming, based on what is known about the case. The Special Counsel memo will no doubt be more robust, as the office has access to much more facts. I think this is interesting because it provides an all-in-one place reference for reviewing all the pertinent issues surrounding Trump's likely indictment, due any day now. I had forgotten how much there was. Until the real one comes out, this is a nice reference work.


https://www.justsecurity.org/87236/...emo-for-federal-election-interference-crimes/

This model prosecution memorandum (or “pros memo”) assesses federal charges Special Counsel Jack Smith may bring against former President Donald Trump for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 election. The authors have decades of experience as federal prosecutors, criminal defense lawyers, and other legal expertise. We conclude that the evidence likely now meets Department of Justice standards to commence a prosecution. We base that conclusion upon a stream of recent disclosures in court filings and in the press that have come on top of the findings of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (the “Select Committee”).

Our memo follows a common DOJ practice. Prior to indicting a case, federal prosecutors prepare a pros memo that lays out admissible evidence, possible charges, and legal issues. This document provides a basis for prosecutors handling the case and their supervisors to assess whether the case meets the standard set forth in the Principles of Federal Prosecution, which permit charges only when there is “evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”

Here, we conclude there likely is sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction of Trump for his three-step plan to overturn the election:

1. Trump knew he lost the election but did not want to give up power, so he worked with his lawyers and others on a wide variety of schemes to change the outcome. Those schemes included creating fraudulent electoral certificates that were submitted to Congress, implicating statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States in the administration of elections.
2. When all the other schemes failed, Trump and his lawyers ultimately concentrated on using the false electoral slates to obstruct the constitutionally mandated congressional certification of the election on January 6, implicating statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which prohibits obstruction of an official proceeding. Their primary objective was to have Vice President Mike Pence in his presiding role on that day either block Congress from recognizing Joe Biden’s win at all or at least to delay the electoral count.
3. When Pence refused, Trump went to his last resort: triggering an insurrection in the hope that it would throw Congress off course, delaying the transfer of power for the first time in American history. This implicated statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which prohibits inciting an insurrection and giving aid or comfort to insurrectionists. (Section 2383 is rarely charged, and as we discuss below, this is a charge DOJ will use only with extreme caution. We believe there is sufficient evidence to pursue it—as did the Select Committee in making a criminal referral of Trump under that statute—but prosecutors may make different choices. Much will depend on the evidence the Special Counsel develops.)

Our own conclusions based upon the publicly available information are bolstered by the analysis of many other authorities:

• A federal judge has already found by a preponderance of the evidence that Trump and a co-conspirator (John Eastman) likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
• The Select Committee has made criminal referrals of Trump and his co-conspirators to DOJ under those and other statutes based upon voluminous and persuasive evidence summarized and cited in their report.
• Subsequent to that report’s issuance, the Committee released a large body of additional evidence containing information that supports prosecution—some of which is publicly analyzed for the first time in this model pros memo.
• Evidentiary hurdles faced by the Select Committee have been overcome by Special Counsel Smith through the use of his more robust subpoena power and a series of court victories. He has now taken testimony from two of the most important witnesses in the case, former Vice President Pence[1] and Trump’s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows,[2] and recently interviewed a third, Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.[3] Smith has also taken testimony from an array of other key witnesses including: former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone,[4] his former deputy Pat Philbin,[5] former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino,[6] former National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien,[7] former Senior Advisor Stephen Miller,[8] former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe,[9] former Acting Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli,[10] former aide Nick Luna,[11] former White House Presidential Personnel Office Director John McEntee,[12] and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.[13] While we do not have the grand jury transcripts, we are able to assess the likely testimony based on publicly available information such as that contained in Pence’s book, Meadows’s contemporaneous texts, and prior hearsay evidence that may itself not be admissible at trial. The testimony in DOJ’s possession is likely highly incriminating of Trump.
• A bipartisan expert consensus has emerged that charges here are merited and likely. Among the first and most persuasive to make the case was former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, who published a model prosecution memo over a year ago on which we build.[14] Most recently, the consensus has been joined by Trump’s own former attorney general and one-time defender, Bill Barr,[15] and eminent conservative jurist Judge Michael Luttig.[16]
• A series of rare convictions of some of the leading insurrectionists under the charge of seditious conspiracy have now laid the groundwork for closely related insurrection charges against Trump.

Just look at the table of contents! Nice work, guys!

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-con...tion-interference-just-security-july-2023.pdf