A grand jury is expected to meet again on Thursday in Washington DC as Donald Trump faces the prospect of a new criminal indictment.

On Tuesday, the former US president said he expected to be arrested in connection with the federal investigation into efforts to undermine the 2020 presidential election that culminated in a riot at the US Capitol.

Mr Trump said he had received a letter indicating he was a target of that investigation - a signal that an indictment may be imminent.

Any indictment in the probe, if one is to come, will emerge from the jurors in Washington.

Justice department special counsel Jack Smith has declined to comment, so it is unclear what charges prosecutors might bring against Mr Trump. And until an indictment is unsealed, we will not know specifically what each count will entail.

However, a mix of recent media reports, plus recommendations from the House of Representatives committee that investigated the riot, do offer some clues.

The Wall Street Journal, citing a person familiar with the investigation, has reported Mr Trump's target letter mentioned three specific charges: conspiracy to defraud the US, deprivation of rights, and tampering with a witness.

These are broad statutes, giving prosecutors a significant amount of latitude to charge Mr Trump, legal experts told the BBC.

The federal inquiry followed a 16-month investigation by the US House of Representatives Select Committee on the January 6 Attack made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans.

In its final report last December, that panel recommended four separate charges for Mr Trump and his associates: Insurrection, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the US, and conspiracy to make a false statement.

While that criminal referral does not carry legal weight, the justice department may have considered the House panel's proposals as part of its own inquiry. Mr Trump has dismissed the various investigations as a political witch hunt, and Republicans disbanded the committee after winning a majority in the House.

Here's a deeper look at the potential charges Mr Trump could face in this case:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States

This crime entails "two or more persons conspiring either to commit any offence against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof".

"The statute really should be thought of as two statutes," said Daniel Charles Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School. One prong of the very broad law covers every single federal crime, he explained, the other any conspiracy to defraud the US.

The House January 6 committee believed Mr Trump worked with others to impede the function of the US government and mislead the public about the results of the 2020 election. A charge could cover some of the alleged "fake elector" schemes, or other tactics Mr Trump and his allies used to try to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College result, Mr Richman said.

Until Mr Smith releases charging documents, we will not know specifically which actions Mr Trump allegedly took to violate this statute.

Deprivation of rights

This charge could encompass two different statutes - Sections 241 and 242 of Title 18 of the US Code - that make it a crime for an official with legal authority to deprive someone of their rights. They are very broad, Mr Richman said, and the potential "rights" in play are numerous.

The statutes often come into play in cases against police officers abusing their power, for example. Mr Trump was the President of the United States on 6 January 2021, when the riot at Congress took place, potentially making him liable under these statutes, Mr Richman added.

Tampering with a witness

Reports by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News indicated Mr Trump could face this charge, according to the target letter he was sent by the justice department.

This is another potentially broad statute, Mr Richman said. "You could be telling a witness to testify falsely, you can be destroying evidence."

During the televised Capitol riot committee hearings, lawmakers alleged that members of Mr Trump's circle attempted to pressure or interfere with witnesses who had been called to testify before the committee.

Obstruction of an official proceeding

This statute makes it a crime to "corruptly" obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding, or to attempt to do so.

The Capitol riot committee recommended this charge because they believed Mr Trump repeatedly attempted to stop or undermine Congress's certification of the election in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot. They also argued Mr Trump deliberately attempted to stop the process by instigating a mob to storm the US Capitol on the day of the ceremony itself.

Many rioters who attacked the Capitol have been charged under this statute.

Conspiracy to make a false statement

This statute makes it a crime for a government official to cover up a scheme, make materially false statements, or issue false statements or documents with the knowledge the information isn't true.

The January 6 committee claimed Mr Trump and his backers' planned to submit a slate of false electors in key swing states who would have handed him the presidency in defiance of election results.

Sixteen people were charged on Tuesday in the state of Michigan for their role in an alleged false elector scheme after the 2020 election.

Insurrection

This crime relates to inciting, assisting, or engaging "in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States".

The House committee argued that Mr Trump encouraged his supporters to come to Washington and cause havoc in order to stop the peaceful transfer of democratic power, and as the riot was going on, failed to take appropriate action to end the disorder.

Media reports about the contents of Mr Trump's target letter have not mentioned an insurrection charge, and legal experts said they would not be surprised if Mr Smith did not pursue this route.

"This is not a commonly used statute," said Aziz Huq, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. It was safer, he explained, for Mr Smith to rely on "broadly applicable federal statutes for which there's lots of precedents, and lots of case law".

Source:
courtesy of BBC NEWS

by Kayla Epstein

If you have any stories or news that you would like to share with the global online community, please feel free to share it with us by contacting us directly at [email protected]