The veteran prosecutor speaks exclusively to EL CORREO about the Commission’s public hearings on January 6 and the differences with the Watergate case
The shadow of the Watergate scandal that ended the Richard Nixon presidency hangs over the entire investigation into Donald Trump’s alleged coup attempt as a shadow of precedent, lessons learned and unfinished resolution. And despite their vast differences – Watergate was a conspiracy against the opposition political party, while the attack on Capitol Hill was essentially an attack on democracy – the parallels abound.
The overwhelming testimony against Republican tycoon Cassidy Hutchinson, assistant to Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, has been compared to that of John Dean, a former Nixon-era White House attorney, who led to the determination of the existence of a secret recording system in the presidential headquarters itself. A central part of that investigation was the interrogation of the president’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods, who was blamed for accidentally erasing 18.5 minutes of the secret tapes. The impeccable questionnaire that proved impossible that it had been an accident — and thus that the White House was covering up the truth — was conducted by another woman, Prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks, part of then-specialty counsel Leon Jaworski’s team.
Today, Chicago veteran Jill Wine-Banks speaks exclusively to EL CORREO about the Commission’s Jan. 6 public hearings and differences from the Watergate case.
– How do you assess the work of the congress committee?
-The commission has done a good job and filed a strong case against the former president. I have seen specific evidence of numerous crimes, such as obstruction of justice and inciting an insurrection, making it impossible to ever be re-elected to public office. Also the crime of conspiracy to defraud the state and other states, such as in Georgia, by trying to interfere in elections.
– Given the abundant evidence, most people are wondering why Trump hasn’t been impeached yet.
– It is not clear, there may be exculpatory evidence. I doubt it, but it could be. It is strange that Meadows has not yet been charged, at least for contempt of commission. The fact that he held a high office does not exclude him from the law. Another possibility is that he is cooperating, but I don’t think so, or that everything is played out in the hope that Meadows understands that his position is untenable and insists on cooperating.
-The Ministry of Justice has requested all the Commission’s investigative reports.
– No doubt he is researching and he certainly knows more than we do, but I think he is going very slowly. You don’t have to wait for the perfect case or ten crimes: it’s enough to have two or three. With all the evidence we’ve seen so far, you could already be charged, a jury would convict you, and a court would confirm that conviction.
-During Watergate, Nixon was never impeached because he resigned before the impeachment process reached the Senate. That circumstance seems to hang over the Trump investigation.
– A legitimate impeachment trial was underway in Watergate that could have resulted in a Senate trial with a guilty verdict on charges of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt for Congress. But Nixon resigned.
Under the legal framework of the time, it was thought that a president could not be imputed while in office.
– With Nixon, I thought a president could be impeached if there was enough evidence, which there wasn’t at Watergate. But special counsel Leon Jaworski determined at the time that impeachment was the right way to prosecute a president who had broken the law. Ultimately, Nixon was indicted as an unindicted co-conspirator (secretly by the special grand jury) for being part of the conspiracy and because it would not have been fair to the other conspirators not to include him.
Despite the similarities, there are major differences between the two cases. The political and media context during Watergate was different, there was a political majority for the investigation and the press and public distrusted Nixon.
– It was difficult to watch Republicans declare Trump not guilty during the impeachment proceedings after the Capitol Hill violence. The GOP didn’t vote against him, then released him, and they continue to cover him now. I don’t know if they’re afraid of him.
–You have defined Watergate as the perfect storm. Was Trump’s coup attempt another perfect storm?
-I thought that moment should not be repeated again, and here we are: history repeats itself even worse. Because now it’s not just any robbery. It is an attempt to nullify my vote, and that of others, in a democracy. It is a real and immediate threat to the democratic system, not just an abuse of power.
We are living the ramifications of the Trump presidency, as we have seen these days with the Supreme Court decisions on abortion or guns. Basically, five unelected people are now making decisions across the country. Is it possible to fire members of an institution that appears to be above the law?
– There are some options. Members may be removed if there is evidence that they have lied under oath. Congress can impose ethical regulations and can also limit the terms of its members to, say, 10 years, so that each president can appoint at least one judge during his term. The Court must be in line with current political views. As we know, most Americans support abortion, but the Court has ruled against it. And they can’t, especially if none of them have been elected and if they represent a minority of a minority. The Republican Party is a minority and the far right is a minority of that minority.
-It’s not a very positive view.
-We live in a country where frankly we don’t have the mandate of the majority, and I personally believe that the ‘filibuster’ (of the Senate) should be eliminated because it perpetuates the power of the minority.
– You showed that the Nixon White House wanted to blame Rose Mary Woods for erasing 18.5 minutes of one of the compromising tapes in the case. The moment was shocking: Two women face one of the most pivotal legal moments in the country’s history. How did you experience it?
–When you are at that level in the story and your own presence is breaking barriers, you keep your head ‘down’ and focus on getting the work done. The best work you can do. The interrogation was very important because public opinion began to see the big lie and to see the White House for what it was. And it had nothing to do with me and her being wife, the facts were clear.
The judge, John Sirica, told them, “Come on, ladies, we’ve got enough trouble in court without seeing two women fight.”
“You have to hear things like that, as on another occasion when I questioned one of the defendants, ‘Mr (Robert) Mardian, don’t you know that you can never win an argument with a woman?’ It’s terrible, since you’re the prosecutor, at that time they introduced you to their friends by saying “female lawyer.”
Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony before the Commission on Jan. 6 revealed scenes of an unbalanced, violent and out of control president.
This aspect of Donald Trump’s behavior has never been looked at so closely. How does it make you feel?
– Cassidy’s testimony about the scene of the mad president throwing the ketchup plate against the wall was devastating. In the last days of Watergate, Nixon was reported to have gone wild, walking the halls of the White House talking only to the portraits on the walls, drinking too much and being rude. In the end it comes to two weak men, also broken. When we hear about all these anomalies, it is horrifying to think that they have access to the nuclear codes.
– The commission hearings are having an effect on public opinion and now the majority of Americans are in favor of impeaching Trump. It has even increased their numbers among Republicans.
– Fox News, which did not air the hearings, aired Hutchinson’s this week, and one of the hosts even said the evidence was damaging to Trump. Something is changing, maybe it’s starting to get through to his followers, if only the moderates. This time the public will have to think he is too disgusting, too corrupt, too guilty. And it could affect the vote in this year’s election. That’s very important to me.
– To use your own words: not to impeach Trump would not only be partisan, but also dangerous?
-I believe criminal prosecution is the right thing to do and I believe America will continue to ask for it. Because if you are not held accountable, you are above the law, and we are convinced that no one is above the law. If we had charged Nixon after he stepped down, which would amount to indicting Trump now, that would have set a precedent and a message to Trump himself. Knowing he could be charged might have stopped him from doing everything he’s done and still does, with his voter fraud stories.
Source: La Verdad
I am an experienced and passionate journalist with a strong track record in news website reporting. I specialize in technology coverage, breaking stories on the latest developments and trends from around the world. Working for Today Times Live has given me the opportunity to write thought-provoking pieces that have caught the attention of many readers.
