The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack is expected to touch on a number of key themes as it runs through six public hearings where it will make the case that Donald Trump violated the law as he sought to overturn the 2020 election results.
The panel has already said – and won – in court that it believed Trump and his top advisers conspired to obstruct a congressional proceeding and defrauded the United States, as part of an effort to obtain otherwise privileged documents.
But as it presents the basis for reaching that conclusion, the select committee is also aiming to use the hearings to place the Capitol attack in a broader context of efforts to overturn the election, with the former president’s involvement as the central thread.
Here are key themes to consider as the hearings get under way.
How deeply was Trump involved?
What Trump knew, and when he knew it, has been a driving focus for the select committee. House investigators have come to the conclusion behind closed doors, say sources familiar with the matter, that Trump was the common thread for all efforts to overturn the election.
The panel has evidence about a number of potentially unlawful schemes, including the plot to seize voting machines or the plan to send fake electors to Congress to potentially persuade the then vice-president, Mike Pence, to refusing to certify states with “duelling” slates.
But the central question has long been whether Trump had advance knowledge – through his network of political operatives – of the Capitol attack. That remains unanswered, but it appears he did know of the political plan to stop Biden’s election certification.
Did Trump violate the law?
As the investigation progressed, the select committee appeared to indicate that it had amassed enough evidence of potential criminality on the part of Trump as he sought unsuccessfully to return himself to the White House for a second term.
At a business meeting last year, the panel’s vice-chair, Liz Cheney, suggested by reading from the US criminal code that Trump, by failing to stop the Capitol attack through “inaction”, violated a federal law that prohibits obstructing a congressional proceeding.
A federal judge earlier this year ruled that Trump and a lawyer, John Eastman, who advised the former president on post-election legal strategies, on a preponderance of evidence, probably also overtly conspired to obstruct Congress and defraudthe United States.
Is the evidence enough for charges?
The question to consider at the hearings is whether the select committee appears to have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump and his top advisers committed felonies – either for an obstruction charge, or other related crimes.
The final conclusions about the strength of the evidence will probably come after the hearings, when the panel releases its final report, currently slated for September, and whether it shows corrupt intent on the part of the former president – a key benchmark.
The select committee will also decide at that stage whether to make criminal referrals for prosecution. But regardless of the referrals, whether Trump or anyone else is charged with crimes related to January 6 remains a call for the justice department alone.
