Only after former President Trump was acquitted for the second time in an impeachment trial did ABC finally give any form of credence to the Republican argument that the Senate was not the right place to hold a former president accountable. And during Valentine’s Day Sunday, Good Morning America was trying to count the ways and charges Trump could face and the federal and state levels to bar him from running for office ever again.
“In his speech after the vote to acquit, after he, in fact, voted to acquit, [Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell [R-KY] said, Trump, and I’m quoting here, ‘didn't get away with anything, yet,’” co-anchor Dan Harris noted to legal analyst Dan Abrams. “So, what legal consequences could Trump still face? Could there be state charges, federal charges? What do you think?”
According to Abrams, federal prosecutors would be too intimidated by the “political imagery” to prosecute Trump for inciting the Capitol insurrection. So, he looked to the states:
Yeah, I think the state charges are more likely than federal charges. I think that the feds are going to be a little bit more reluctant, a little bit more concerned about the political imagery, ramifications of prosecuting a former president. But the investigation in Fulton County, Georgia, about the President's efforts to overturn the election, the investigation in Manhattan over the former President's finances, tax returns, et cetera, are very serious and should be of great concern to him.
Harris’s follow-up question betrayed his personal eagerness to prosecute the former President. “Do you think it's possible that having a not guilty outcome in Senate trial on Saturday could, in some way, increase the odds that Trump ultimately faces some sort of a criminal prosecution most likely at a state level,” he asked Abrams.
In response, Abrams acknowledged the argument many Senate Republicans made, which was that Trump did incite the insurrection and a court of law was the proper and legal path for accountability.
“When you hear these Republican senators saying, ‘look, this is what the criminal justice system is supposed to do,’ I think that can lead reluctant officials who might be on the fence, even though they believe a crime has been committed, to move forward,” Abrams said, noting that McConnell and Senator Tom Tillis (R-NC) gave “reassurance” to law enforcement officials to pursue the case.
Both Harris and Abrams were also a little peeved with Senate Democrats for the last-minute confusion with calling witnesses. The urge for witnesses came following reports House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Trump got into a screaming match about calling off the pro-Trump rioters. Abrams then pointed out the problem of relying on the political process of impeachment (Click “expand”):
HARRIS: Let me just ask you one question about the trial itself, were you at all surprised by the fact that the House managers successfully convinced the Senate, including Republicans, to vote in favor of calling witnesses -- some Republicans I should say -- but then ultimately, the Democrats decided not to move ahead with witnesses. Were you surprised by that whole chain of events?
ABRAMS: Absolutely. I mean, that would never happen in the context of a trial. Right? Witnesses who could actually help your case and we’re going to decide not to call them. It shows you the difference between a trial and an impeachment, which is a political proceeding.
Noting the political considerations, Abrams also singled out impeachment manager Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) for making the call against adding witnesses. “What does it mean to extend the trial? What does this mean for the Biden administration? And so, I think that they had an opportunity here, many people thought they should have moved forward with it, but it's not a simple equation of would those witnesses have helped,” he said. “There is that enormous political equation as well.”
ABC’s pivot and sprint to charge and try former President Trump in a court of law was made possible because of lucrative sponsorships from Ancestry and Liberty Mutual.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
ABC’s Good Morning America
February 14, 2021
8:07:57 a.m. EasternDAN HARRIS: In his speech after the vote to acquit, after he, in fact, voted to acquit, Mitch McConnell said, Trump, and I’m quoting here, “didn't get away with anything, yet.” So, what legal consequences could Trump still face? Could there be state charges, federal charges? What do you think?
DAN ABRAMS: Yeah, I think the state charges are more likely than federal charges. I think that the feds are going to be a little bit more reluctant, a little bit more concerned about the political imagery, ramifications of prosecuting a former president. But the investigation in Fulton County, Georgia, about the President's efforts to overturn the election, the investigation in Manhattan over the former President's finances, tax returns, et cetera, are very serious and should be of great concern to him.
HARRIS: Do you think it's possible that having a not guilty outcome in Senate trial on Saturday could, in some way, increase the odds that Trump ultimately faces some sort of a criminal prosecution most likely at a state level?
ABRAMS: Yeah, I think the language of people like McConnell and Senator Tillis of North Carolina and others could certainly provide law enforcement officials, who believe that a crime was committed but are concerned about the political ramifications the reassurance that they need that they're the ones who are supposed to take care of this. When you hear these Republican senators saying, ‘look, this is what the criminal justice system is supposed to do,’ I think that can lead reluctant officials who might be on the fence, even though they believe a crime has been committed, to move forward.
HARRIS: Let me just ask you one question about the trial itself, were you at all surprised by the fact that the House managers successfully convinced the Senate, including Republicans, to vote in favor of calling witnesses -- some Republicans I should say -- but then ultimately, the Democrats decided not to move ahead with witnesses. Were you surprised by that whole chain of events?
ABRAMS: Absolutely. I mean, that would never happen in the context of a trial. Right? Witnesses who could actually help your case and we’re going to decide not to call them. It shows you the difference between a trial and an impeachment, which is a political proceeding.
Raskin had to take into consideration the political ramifications of calling witnesses. What does it mean to extend the trial? What does this mean for the Biden administration? And so, I think that they had an opportunity here, many people thought they should have move forward with it, but it's not a simple equation of would those witnesses have helped. There is that enormous political equation as well.
HARRIS: The question of whether this would in some way hinder Biden's legislative priorities. Dan Abrams, really appreciate your analysis on a Sunday morning.
