The Trump indictment targets his closest allies, who can save themselves by testifying against him.

The Trump indictment targets his closest allies, who can save themselves by testifying against him.

The Unindicted Co-Conspirators in Trump’s Indictment: A Potential Path to Flipping Witnesses

The latest federal indictment against former President Donald Trump, brought by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith, reveals that Trump had six alleged criminal co-conspirators who assisted him in his failed attempt to block Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. These co-conspirators, if they were to cooperate with the prosecution, could potentially provide crucial evidence to strengthen the case against Trump.

It is worth noting that Smith did not charge any of these six alleged co-conspirators in the new indictment. This raises questions about the strategic decisions made by the prosecution. One possibility is that Smith may already have secret immunity deals in place or could be in the process of negotiating such deals with these individuals. Another possibility is that Smith wanted to indict Trump first and reference the co-conspirators to exert pressure on them to cooperate or potentially gather additional evidence before bringing charges against them.

Regardless of the reasons behind this move, it is evident that the cooperation of any of these six individuals would be highly valuable to the prosecution. Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, suggests that the strategy of not charging these alleged co-conspirators now is to put pressure on them and potentially flip them to testify against Trump, similar to what happened in a recent case involving classified documents, where a new defendant was charged after others cooperated. The hope is to gather enough testimony from powerful witnesses to convince a jury of Trump’s intent and involvement in the conspiracy.

The Known Alleged Co-Conspirators and their Roles

The identities of five out of the six alleged co-conspirators mentioned in the indictment are known. These individuals are Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer who propagated baseless conspiracy theories about the election; Sidney Powell, a conspiracy theorist who echoed similar claims alongside Giuliani; Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department official who sought to initiate investigations into non-existent election fraud; and John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro, two lawyers who attempted to overturn the election using discredited legal theories. It is worth mentioning that all of them have faced legal sanctions or are currently undergoing disciplinary proceedings.

Out of these five individuals, only Giuliani has testified before the grand jury investigating election interference. Despite rumors of a potential flip, his spokesperson denied any intention of cooperating against Trump, asserting that Giuliani firmly believes in the former president’s innocence. On the other hand, Powell continues to promote the narrative of a rigged election on social media, while Clark expresses frustration about the lack of investigations into the 2020 election results. Eastman, who downplays his involvement in the White House, remains allied with right-wing politicians, and Chesebro maintains a low profile, stating that he was merely fulfilling his duties as a lawyer.

• Trumpworld is concerned that more secrets may be exposed if the six...
• Chinese cities restrict property firms’ access to escrow funds
• Markets recover from US credit downgrade

The indictment presents a case that Trump was aware the election was not rigged but nonetheless plotted to overturn the results. While the document lacks explicit evidence like memos or text messages from Trump, which would typically be expected in a criminal conspiracy case, proving his intent will heavily rely on testimonies from other individuals who were present during planning sessions. Sarah Krissoff, a former federal prosecutor, emphasizes that this case will be testimony-based, requiring the testimony of numerous influential figures.

The testimony of a remorseful co-conspirator who played a role in Trump’s plans could significantly sway a jury’s decision.

Historical Challenges in Flipping Witnesses against Trump

The pressure exerted on Trump’s associates to cooperate against him echoes a previous investigation into his finances led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Although Bragg indicted Trump earlier this year on charges related to falsifying business records, the charges were limited compared to the broader scope of the investigation focused on tax, bank, and insurance fraud. Despite years of efforts, the prosecution failed to convince the Trump Organization’s longtime chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, to flip and become a cooperating witness.

Throughout the investigation, Trump publicly scorned the notion of witnesses flipping against him, suggesting that it should be illegal. In the end, Weisselberg’s testimony appeared ambiguous in court, raising doubts about his claims under oath. Although he pleaded guilty and testified against the Trump Organization, his testimony seemed coordinated with the defense and his ongoing affiliation with the company cast further doubt on his credibility. Prosecutors never obtained sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Trump for his conduct, leading to a civil lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General’s office that is still pending.

Similar challenges could arise with the six co-conspirators in Trump’s current indictment. They may calculate that sticking with Trump offers better prospects, especially considering his potential return to the 2024 presidential election. Trump has promised to protect those in his orbit and grant pardons, as he did during his first term. Additionally, any Republican nominee who hopes to secure Trump’s supporters’ votes might promise similar protection. These co-conspirators may even risk obstruction charges by lying to the FBI to safeguard Trump’s interests, as suggested by Rahmani.

However, if the alleged co-conspirators decide to cooperate, they may secure deals that involve pleading guilty to lesser charges. Smith could also recommend lighter sentences in recognition of their cooperation, although the final decision rests with the judge. Immunity from prosecution is less likely, given the significant roles these individuals played in Trump’s plans.

It is important to note that flipping against Trump carries its own risks. Former Trump ally Michael Cohen faced the ire of his MAGA followers and was not ultimately pardoned by Trump, resulting in years of legal controversies and an uncertain political future. The left may also find it challenging to embrace figures like Powell or Giuliani, even if they decide to testify against Trump.

In conclusion, the indictment against Trump and the presence of six alleged co-conspirators present an opportunity for witnesses to flip and provide valuable testimony. However, historical challenges and the potential ramifications of turning against Trump must also be considered. The outcome of this case could potentially reshape the way we understand and prosecute high-profile political conspiracies, warranting serious attention from both legal experts and the public.

• analysis
• Donald Trump
• Jack Smith