Trump's Law-Breaking Night: What Happened?

Former US President Donald Trump has been accused of breaking the law on several occasions. In 2021, Trump was accused of pressuring Georgia's top election official to find enough votes to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden in the state, which legal experts claimed may have violated a US federal law and a Georgia law against election tampering. Trump has also been accused of violating the Impoundment Control Act by withholding $214 million in Defence Department aid for Ukraine without authorisation from Congress. In 2023, Trump became the first sitting or former president to be indicted on criminal charges, including 34 felony counts related to falsifying reimbursement checks to ex-attorney Michael Cohen, who paid adult film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 before the 2016 election to cover up allegations of an affair. The House Jan. 6 committee has also urged the Justice Department to consider prosecuting Trump for four different crimes related to his efforts to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election and his behaviour during the Capitol insurrection.

Obstruction of an official proceeding

On August 1, 2023, a grand jury indicted former US President Donald Trump on four charges for his conduct following the 2020 presidential election through the January 6 Capitol attack. One of the charges was "obstructing an official proceeding" under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that Trump obstructed Congress' certification of the electoral college results on January 6, including by creating fake election certificates declaring himself the winner of key swing states, as well as pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to disregard then-President-elect Joe Biden's electors and pushing the DOJ to falsely claim there were problems with the vote in Georgia or other states.

The obstruction of an official proceeding charge is defined under the penal code as "corruptly" obstructing, impeding, or interfering with any official government proceeding and carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Hundreds of people who were arrested after the January 6 riot at the Capitol also received an obstruction of an official proceeding charge. Some of the most notable defendants charged include former Proud Boys leader Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, Richard Barnett (who was photographed with his feet on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's desk), Jacob Chansley (who earned the nickname "Q Shaman"), and Danny Rodriguez (who used a stun gun to assault Capitol Police Officer Michael Fanone).

Trump's indictment focuses on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. It does not directly charge him with inciting the January 6 riot but argues that the riot was a direct result of Trump's actions and that he exploited the violence.

Conspiracy to defraud the United States

On August 1, 2023, former President Donald Trump was indicted on four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, in connection with his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and remain in power. The indictment, filed by special counsel Jack Smith, accused Mr. Trump of conspiring with others to spread false claims of election fraud and take a series of actions to subvert the election results.

The charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States is a general statute that makes it a crime to work with others to carry out fraud against the country. In this case, the indictment alleges that Mr. Trump and his co-conspirators engaged in a "conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function" of certifying the election results.

Specifically, the indictment claims that Mr. Trump and his allies spread ""knowingly false claims of election fraud" to state legislators and election officials, in an attempt to pressure them into overturning the legitimate election results and declaring Mr. Trump the winner. They also allegedly created false slates of electors in several swing states that Mr. Trump had lost, in an effort to submit these fraudulent electors for certification.

The indictment further alleges that Mr. Trump and his co-conspirators sought to use the power of the Justice Department to further their scheme, by pushing for sham election crime investigations and attempting to use the department's authority to legitimize the false electors. Additionally, Mr. Trump pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to delay or obstruct the certification of the election results, despite being told by Pence and others that he lacked the legal authority to do so.

The conspiracy charge is just one of several counts Mr. Trump faces in connection with the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. The indictment portrays an attack on American democracy and underscores the serious threat posed by Mr. Trump's efforts to overturn the election results.

Conspiracy to make a false statement

On the night of January 6, 2021, supporters of former President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol, causing a riot that led to the deaths of five people. The House Jan. 6 committee has urged the Justice Department to consider prosecuting Trump for four different crimes, including conspiracy to make a false statement.

The committee's referrals to the Justice Department carry no legal weight, as federal prosecutors are already conducting their own investigation and are the sole deciders of whether to pursue charges against Trump. However, the committee's report is considered a "roadmap to justice," and the focus has now shifted to the Justice Department's decision on whether to concur that the evidence is sufficient for prosecution.

The conspiracy to make a false statement statute touches on conduct that the Justice Department is already known to be investigating. This involves an alleged scheme by Trump allies to submit "fake electors" in battleground states won by Biden as a way to obstruct the certification of the results and invalidate Biden's victory. These electors signed "patently false" certifications, and the committee has evidence that Trump was a participant in the scheme.

Months ago, the Justice Department issued grand jury subpoenas to the "fake electors" in multiple states, underscoring prosecutors' interest in the activity. The committee's report provides further evidence and details regarding this alleged scheme, which could influence the Justice Department's decision on whether to pursue charges against Trump for conspiracy to make a false statement.

Inciting or aiding an insurrection

On January 6, 2021, thousands of supporters of former President Donald Trump gathered at a "Save America" rally to challenge the result of the 2020 presidential election. In a 70-minute address, Trump exhorted his supporters to march on Congress, where the certification of Joe Biden's victory was taking place. The attack on the Capitol building began moments after he finished speaking.

Trump was impeached by the House on a charge of incitement after the attack. However, he was later acquitted by the Senate. The House Jan. 6 committee urged the Justice Department to consider prosecuting Trump for inciting or aiding an insurrection, among other charges.

The committee's referral to the Justice Department carries no legal weight, and federal prosecutors are conducting their own investigation. The committee's report, however, provides a "roadmap to justice." The inclusion of the insurrection statute represents an attempt to hold Trump accountable for the riot itself, both for his actions and his inaction.

Under the statute, Trump need not have coordinated with supporters to carry out a rebellion. Instead, one could violate the statute by simply aiding an insurrection or giving comfort to those participating in it. Trump summoned rioters to Washington on January 6 with the goal of mobilizing a large crowd of supporters. Some of the accused rioters charged by the Justice Department cited Trump's tweets as their inspiration.

During the riot, Trump showed no concern when the mob chanted, "Hang Mike Pence!" and for hours, he resisted the pleas of advisers who told him to tell the rioters to disperse. The statute bars anyone convicted of it from holding future office.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who investigated Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election, considered charging Trump with insurrection but ultimately did not. Smith's report, released in January 2025, explains that he concluded Trump appeared to have violated the spirit of the law, but not the letter. Smith also noted that there were no recent examples of prosecutions under this statute and that it would be challenging to prove that what happened on January 6 was an insurrection.

Violating the Impoundment Control Act

On the day House managers transmitted two articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that President Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act by unilaterally withholding $214 million of legislatively appropriated Defense Department aid for Ukraine without obtaining authorization from Congress. The GAO concluded that:

> Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.

The Impoundment Control Act was passed in 1974, at the height of the Watergate scandal, to prevent a rogue president from withholding lawfully appropriated funds. A president who seeks to put a hold on such funds for policy purposes must transmit to both the House and Senate "a special message" specifying the reasons and the amount of budget authority that he proposes to be rescinded.

Documents released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit disclose that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) blocked the military aid under direct orders from the president and knowingly failed to file a report with Congress. In an email exchange, Elaine McCusker, acting comptroller of the Defense Department, asked Michael Duffey, associate director for national security programs with the OMB, about the status of the impoundment paperwork. Duffey replied that there was "clear direction" from the president "to continue to hold."

Trump disputed the GAO's conclusion, saying that he acted lawfully under his authority to carry out American foreign policy. However, evidence suggests that Trump's claims of fighting corruption in Ukraine and getting European nations to contribute their fair share of aid were pretextual. Furthermore, Trump failed to raise the issue of Ukrainian corruption in multiple calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, despite the urging of his national security team.

The plausible explanation for Trump's illegal conduct is that he wanted to keep his hold on the aid to Ukraine secret because it lacked a legitimate policy justification. The Senate will now test at trial the House claim that Trump withheld the aid to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations that would help him cheat in the 2020 election.

Frequently asked questions