Washington — The revelation late Tuesday that the Justice Department’s investigation into the events of Jan. 6, 2021, now includes questions about the actions of former President Donald Trump and his allies has heightened speculation as to whether the former president could face legal trouble for his conduct related to the assault. And as federal prosecutors all the way up to Attorney General Merrick Garland are facing growing external pressure to prosecute Trump, the crucial question remains as to what federal crimes might be successfully brought and tried against the former president. 

As part of its probe, the Justice Department has been examining a scheme to name fake slates of presidential electors for Trump in key battleground states he lost in the 2020 presidential election. The Justice Department has also been examining  the actions surrounding the Jan. 6 attack, when a mob of the former president’s supporters, many of them armed, breached the Capitol building to stop Congress from tallying state electoral votes and reaffirming President Biden’s victory.

Former Trump White House aides, including Marc Short, who served as chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence, have testified before a federal grand jury investigating the attack, and U.S. law enforcement agents have targeted former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and conservative attorney John Eastman as part of the probe.  

Trump, Eastman, and Clark have not been charged with any crimes or accused of wrongdoing, and the news that questions are being asked about the former president’s conduct does not indicate Trump is the target of any federal probe. The former president maintains he did nothing wrong, and continues to claim, without evidence, that the election was rigged.

The investigation from federal prosecutors is running alongside the wide-ranging examination of the events surrounding Jan. 6 from a House select committee, which concluded a tranche of eight public hearings last week, though more are expected.

Across the hearings, the House panel mapped out what it described as a multi-pronged campaign by Trump to remain in power, which included efforts to pressure Pence and state elections officials to reverse the results of the 2020 presidential election, and to push top Justice Department officials to challenge the election outcome, culminating with the mob of his supporters violently descending on the Capitol.

The former president’s plans ultimately failed, though, and Mr. Biden’s victory was reaffirmed by Congress in the early morning hours of Jan. 7.

Despite that failure, legal analysts and former prosecutors have honed in on two specific criminal charges that they say might pose a legal threat to the former president: obstruction of an official proceeding — the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to tally electoral votes — and conspiracy to defraud the United States. The charges, experts said, would focus on Trump’s alleged knowledge that the election was not stolen and his attempt to halt the peaceful transfer of power despite knowing he lost.

Randall Eliason, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said obstruction charges could stem from both the plan to name fake electors to cast their votes in Trump’s favor and the strategy hatched by Eastman for Pence to unilaterally reject electoral votes from key states during the Jan. 6 proceedings or send them back to the state legislatures.

Conspiracy to defraud the U.S., meanwhile, applies to corrupt efforts to obstruct a lawful government function: the certification of election results by Congress on Jan. 6.

“For any of the charges, it’s all going to be in the nature of a conspiracy charge,” Eliason, a law professor at George Washington University, told CBS News. The conspiracy charge requires a broader plan among co-defendants to commit a crime. “There’s the potential for senior people like Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows also to be implicated in the same case.”

Neither Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, nor Giuliani, his outside attorney, have been charged with any crime. The House Jan. 6 committee recommended Meadows be charged with contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena, but the Justice Department declined to charge him. 

The Justice Department could also pursue a charge of seditious conspiracy, Eliason said, though that would require prosecutors to show Trump conspired to use force “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” Members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, two far-right extremist groups, have been charged with seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6 attack.

Scott Fredericksen, a former federal prosecutor and independent counsel, said bringing charges like seditious conspiracy and inciting a riot against the former president would demand a “higher standard” of evidence for prosecutors, who would have to both indict Trump and attempt to successfully convict him at trial. 

Fredericksen believes the Justice Department should be examining the “whole concept” of the so-called “Big Lie,” the claim continually pushed by Trump that the election was stolen. Prosecutors, he said, “should be able to prove pretty clearly that Trump knew very well that he lost the election, this election was not stolen, and that was a complete fabrication,” which, according to Fredericksen, would make Trump’s claims and later attempts to prevent the transfer of power a potential aspect of a criminal conspiracy. 

“It’s not just Jan. 6,” Fredericksen told CBS News, “Jan. 6 is, in some ways, the culmination.” 

Testimony obtained by the committee sheds new light on the extent to which top White House and administration officials, as well as campaign advisers, told Trump his claims of widespread voter fraud were unfounded and encouraged him to accept his loss, though their warnings did little to deter Trump’s dogged efforts to thwart the transfer of power.

While Eliason said much of what has been revealed by the select committee in the course of its investigation thus far is potentially relevant to a case brought against Trump, “criminal charges have a much higher burden of proof.”

“It’s got to be as close to air-tight as it possibly can be, because it’s one thing to have testimony at a hearing that’s not being challenged, it’s quite another to have it at a trial where you’re subject to cross-examination and defense witnesses,” he said. “That would be a very different kind of animal. You have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before a unanimous jury of 12.”

Looming large over the potential for Trump to face charges is the unprecedented nature of such a case, as never before in U.S. history has a former president been prosecuted by the Justice Department, never-mind one who continues to tease another White House run.

A decision of whether to pursue criminal charges would be “the most consequential decision made by any attorney general,” Eliason said, and raises “weighty” issues to consider, including that such a move would involve an administration prosecuting the former president of the opposing party.

Fredericksen agreed: “The whole idea of politics pervades this entire case. It’s why I think the Department of Justice is extremely careful and reluctant to investigate, let alone charge, a former president. … It’s never been done before because it will be perceived by a good portion of the country as a political prosecution.” 

“A prosecutor is going to stay away from charging any crime for which he uses some kind of political activity. A prosecutor is not going to touch that,” Fredericksen said, adding that the legal line between political acts and criminal acts is a complicated barrier for prosecutors. “On one hand, it could be political, but when it’s employed with the idea of overthrowing the government, then that’s criminal.” 

To avoid the perception of politicization, prosecutors should proceed as they would in any other criminal case by interviewing witnesses, securing cooperation, and gathering as much evidence as possible, Fredericksen said. 

“There is no special formula,” he added. 

With each new revelation about the events surrounding Jan. 6, Garland has continued to come under scrutiny about future action by the Justice Department. In an interview with NBC News that aired Tuesday, Garland stressed, as he has before, that the Justice Department would “bring to justice everybody who was criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another, which is the fundamental element of our democracy.”

Still, Garland’s vow to hold all who broke the law, “at any level,” accountable has done little to assuage some congressional Democrats and critics of Trump, who are pushing for a case to be brought swiftly.

But Eliason said the probe is moving at a pace that should be expected given its “size and complexity” and noted that prosecutions stemming from Watergate and Enron spanned several years.

“Prosecutors are moving up the ladder higher and higher, closer and closer to the inner circle,” he said, referencing the recent appearance of Short before a grand jury. “We don’t know how that ends, that doesn’t mean charges will be found to be justified, it just means they’re doing what Garland has said, starting with the rioters and working your way up.”

The Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington declined to comment. 

A few people came close to winning it all in Tuesday night’s Mega Millions drawing, but they fell one ball short of cashing in on the massive jackpot. No one won the $830 million payout, and the estimated prize for Friday night’s drawing has grown to over a billion dollars.

The winning numbers Tuesday were 7-29-60-63-66 with a Mega Ball of 15.

According to Mega Millions, nine tickets matched the first five numbers but didn’t match the Mega Ball. The game’s Megaplier feature was purchased for one of those tickets, raising its prize to $3 million, while the rest won a million dollars.

Two of the million-dollar tickets were purchased in New Jersey, two were bought in New York and others were sold in California, Florida, Illinois and Ohio. The $3 million winner was also from Ohio.

Mega Millions says 156 tickets matched four of the first five numbers and the Mega Ball. Three dozen tickets had the Megaplier feature, raising their prize to $30,000, while the rest won $10,000.

With inflation taking a toll on Americans’ wallets and high prices at the pump, any kind of a windfall has its appeal.

“Even a thousand bucks would help,” a woman told CBS Minnesota. “With gas prices, just saying.”

With the one-time cash-option payout now over half a billion dollars — as opposed to an annual payment spread over 30 years — people still have a chance to win big.

“I don’t think anybody would know what to do with it, right?” Omar Castillo told CBS News Radio as he was buying tickets in Los Angeles before Tuesday night’s drawing. “I mean, it’s just a large amount.”

In:
• Mega Millions
• lottery

Sen. Joe Manchin announced Wednesday that he had reached an agreement with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer — which had eluded them for months — on health care costs, energy and climate issues. 

The package will be paid for by closing tax loopholes on wealthy individuals and large corporations, Schumer and Manchin said in announcing the deal. 

The health care, tax and energy package needs to be reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian to pass through the budget reconciliation process, which allows Democrats to approve the measure with 50 votes. In a joint statement, Schumer and Manchin said the “revised legislative text will be submitted to the Parliamentarian for review this evening and the full Senate will consider it next week.”

President Joe Biden said in a statement Wednesday that he had spoken to Manchin and Schumer and he supports the deal. 

“If enacted, this legislation will be historic, and I urge the Senate to move on this bill as soon as possible, and for the House to follow as well,” Mr. Biden said. 

Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia whose resistance had long derailed sweeping legislation on those issues, abruptly revealed the agreement in a press release, followed by a joint release with Schumer. 

The announcement from Manchin came hours after the Senate passed the Chips and Science Act, a bill to subsidize investments in domestic semiconductor chip production. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had threatened to stymie the semiconductor bill if Democrats continued to pursue party-line reconciliation legislation.

“From here forward, the debate over a future reconciliation bill or any targeted legislation must focus on supporting the everyday hardworking Americans we have been elected to serve,” Manchin said in a statement. “I support the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 because it provides a responsible path forward that is laser focused on solving our nation’s major economic, energy and climate problems. The question for my colleagues is whether they are willing to put their election politics aside and embrace the commonsense approach that the overwhelming majority of the American people support and will best serve the future of this nation.”

According to a one-page description of the legislation from Schumer and Manchin, the bill would invest $369 billion in energy security and climate change and extend the Affordable Care Act program for three years. In addition, the legislation would grant Medicare the ability to negotiate prescription drug prices. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday noted the finality of the deal.

“The good news here is that it is Senator Manchin, who is announcing a deal, not that they’re close to a deal or not that there are some parts to a deal,” she said. 

House progressives also seemed optimistic, tweeting, “We’ll need to evaluate the details, but it’s promising a deal to deliver on those issues might finally be in reach.”

Republicans immediately criticized Manchin’s agreement. Senator John Cornyn of Texas called it “Manchin’s New Build Back Broke Bill.”

“Senate Democrats can change the name of Build Back Broke as many times as they want, it won’t be any less devastating to American families and small businesses,” Cornyn said. “Raising taxes on job creators, crushing energy producers with new regulations, and stifling innovators looking for new cures will only make this recession worse, not better.”

— CBS News’ Jack Turman and Nikole Killion contributed to this report

In:
• Joe Manchin
• chuck schumer

The U.S. has put forward a “substantial proposal” to Russia aimed at securing the release of WNBA star Brittney Griner and former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday, offering the first public glimpse at U.S. efforts to bring the pair home.

“In the coming days, I expect to speak with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov for the first time since the war began,” Blinken said. “I plan to raise an issue that’s a top priority for us: the release of Americans Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner, who have been wrongfully detained and must be allowed to come home. We put a substantial proposal on the table weeks ago to facilitate their release. Our governments have communicated repeatedly and directly on that proposal.”

Blinken said President Biden has been “directly involved,” and he “signs off on any proposal that we make, and certainly when it comes to Americans who are being arbitrarily detained abroad, including in this specific case.” The conversation between Blinken and Lavrov will be their first interaction since Russia invaded Ukraine in February.

A White House official said Wednesday that “a high-level official” had reached out to the families of both Griner and Whelan ahead of Blinken’s announcement and “is having conversations with them today and tomorrow.”

Griner was arrested on February 17 at a Moscow airport when customs officials said they found vape cartridges containing hashish oil in her luggage. Whelan has been in Russian custody since December 2018, when he visited Russia for a friend’s wedding. He was convicted in a Russian court of espionage charges and sentenced to 16 years in prison in 2020.

Whelan’s family members welcomed news of the offer, saying they “hope the Russian government responds to the U.S. government and accepts this or some other concession that enables Paul to come home to his family.”

Russian media outlets have speculated that Griner could be included in a prisoner swap for Viktor Bout, a Russian arms dealer who is serving a 25-year prison sentence in the U.S. for conspiring to sell weapons to people who intended to kill Americans. On Wednesday, Blinken repeatedly declined to comment on a CNN report that the U.S. offered Bout in exchange for Griner and Whelan.

Steve Zissou, an attorney for Bout, said in a statement that “this is a sensitive moment in these negotiations, so out of respect for the process and the families involved, I have no further comment at this time.”

Mr. Biden did approve a prisoner exchange in another case in April, when Russia released former Marine Trevor Reed, who had been detained in Russia since 2019 on charges of assaulting two police officers and whose health was failing. The U.S. freed Konstantin Yaroshenko, who was serving a 20-year prison sentence for drug smuggling. 

Griner, who played in Russia during the WNBA off-season, pleaded guilty to drug possession and smuggling charges on July 7, telling a Moscow court that she brought the substance into the country accidentally. 

She spoke at her trial on Wednesday, saying that the vape cartridges “ended up in my bags by accident … and I take responsibility but I did not intend to smuggle or planned to smuggle [banned substances] to Russia.” Griner faces up to 10 years behind bars if convicted.

In the weeks following her arrest, Griner’s allies remained mostly quiet about her case, believing that Russian President Vladimir Putin would seek to leverage her celebrity as he waged war in Ukraine. Griner was detained less than a week before Russia invaded, pushing U.S.-Russia relations to a low point.

In May, the State Department said it determined that Griner was being wrongfully detained. Under a 2020 law, the classification shifted the handling of her case to the State Department’s special presidential envoy for hostage affairs. 

Griner’s wife, Cherelle, has since begun speaking out more publicly, calling her a “political pawn” and urging Mr. Biden to do more to secure her release.

“Initially I was told … ‘We’re going to try to handle this behind the scenes and let’s not raise her value and, you know, stay quiet,'” Cherelle Griner told “CBS Mornings” on July 6. “I did that, and respectfully, we’re over 140 days at this point. That does not work.” 

In a call with Cherelle Griner later that day, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris reassured her that the administration was working to secure Griner’s release “as soon as possible,” according to a White House readout of the conversation. Mr. Biden also read Cherelle Griner a draft of the letter he was sending to Brittney Griner in response to a letter the WNBA star had written him, pleading with him not to forget about her and other captives. 

“I’m terrified I might be here forever,” wrote Griner in her letter to Mr. Biden. 

As public pressure grew on Mr. Biden to secure the release of Griner, families of other detainees became frustrated with the lack of attention the cases of their loved ones had received from the president. 

Whelan’s family said they were “astonished” after Mr. Biden called Cherelle Griner, but not them. Mr. Biden eventually called Whelan’s sister, Elizabeth, after the family sought a meeting with the president for months. 

“President Biden assured me that the U.S. government was doing all it could to bring Paul’s safe return from his wrongful detention in Russia,” the family said in a July 9 email. “We spoke for several minutes and I was touched by the president’s obvious concern and empathy for Paul’s plight and the Whelan family’s distress.” 

On Wednesday, the family said they “appreciate[d] the Biden Administration seeking Paul’s release using the resources it has available.”

Melissa Quinn and Arden Farhi contributed to this report. 

In:
• Brittney Griner
• Russia