A whirlwind few days in Washington have upended perceptions of Trump’s political and legal risk associated with his coup attempt after losing the 2020 election. Revelations that former White House aides were brought before a grand jury, cast the lid on a Justice Department investigation. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s public statements that the department would go after those who tried to disrupt the legal transfer of power appear to spell trouble for Trump, as the House panel showed he was at the center of several Venn diagrams of election plans. questioning the narrative of a timid attorney general reticent to investigate a former President given the upheaval such an approach could cause. That’s especially true since news broke Wednesday that Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the star of the committee’s Jan. 6 televised hearings, is cooperating with the department’s parallel investigation. Justice. That came a day after it was revealed that two former senior aides to then-Vice President Mike Pence, Mark Short and Greg Jacobs, had gone before a grand jury. The development was the clearest indication yet that the Justice Department was looking into conduct directly related to Trump and his closest allies. “I’m not one for every time there’s breaking news or a development that’s extremely important,” said Preet Bharara, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York who is now a legal analyst for CNN. “This is it. This is very important,” Bharara told CNN’s Jake Tapper, predicting a flurry of revelations in the coming days about other grand jury witnesses. The department also obtained a second warrant to search the cellphone of conservative attorney John Eastman, a key figure in the plan to block the certification of Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, 2021. It’s hard to know how long into the post-election period the Justice Department’s investigation has been going on. with so much intensity. But there is at least a strong impression now that it is fueling the progress made by the House select committee — a factor that would give this inquiry heightened legal and historical significance.

The House inquiry is also making progress

There are also new developments in the Parliament’s investigation. After expanding its investigation in the fall with the promise of more televised hearings, the select committee turned to another key figure in the Trump administration, Mike Pompeo. The former secretary of state and CIA director could sit for a closed-door hearing as soon as this week, multiple sources familiar with the committee’s schedule told CNN. Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, the committee’s vice chairwoman, told CNN over the weekend that the investigation focused on taking testimony from other members of Trump’s cabinet. In another blow to the former President, a select House committee just released new audio from former Defense Secretary Chris Miller, who testified under oath that no one had ordered National Guard troops to be ready to protect the US Capitol on January 6. The new evidence contradicts Trump and Meadows’ claims. And it also appears to hurt Republicans’ future efforts to use their own investigation if they win back the House in November to show that Trump was protecting Capitol Hill and that the real issue on Jan. 6 was not the attack by his mob, but the security weaknesses. that they lay on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s doorstep. The new open loops in Washington coincide with what was previously seen as Trump’s most serious legal threat, the Georgia special grand jury investigation into pressure by the former president and his team to flip a key swing state. The activity does not necessarily result in legal proceedings. The Justice Department’s investigation could end without charges. Any criminal action he takes may not go as high as Trump. And while the House select committee is clearly preparing a damning catalog of Trump’s post-election behavior, its findings may not sway the former President’s fiery base that dismisses the investigations against him as politically biased. There are also questions about whether the evidence uncovered by the committee showing dereliction of duty by the former president in inciting a mob that ransacked the Capitol meets the evidentiary level required for a trial.

And of course, the former president has failed to account for much of his colorful business and political career, often when his enemies thought they had him pinned down. Another CNN legal analyst, Norm Eisen, senior fellow for Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, agreed with Garland’s pledge in an NBC News interview to pursue anyone who tried to “interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another. “ “We’ve never heard those magic words before,” Eisen told CNN’s Ana Cabrera on Wednesday. He added that all evidence suggested there was one person responsible for attempting to interfere with the legal transfer of power — the former commander-in-chief. “I think the indicators point to a really serious legal risk for Donald Trump,” Eisen said. The growing momentum in the parallel investigations comes as Trump mulls the launch of his potential 2024 bid for the White House. The former President will be sure to argue that any legal action against him is an illegal and politically motivated effort to prevent him from regaining the presidency.During a speech in Washington on Tuesday that sounded a lot like a mild campaign, former president charged Democrats are arming the Justice Department against the opposition party. Garland has made clear in recent days that the department would not be deterred from its duty under the law if the person in question was a former President or ran a presidential campaign. While Democrats have long hoped that the web of investigations would finally trip Trump up or hurt him politically as he seeks to return to office, the Justice Department probe strongly suggests that a tense political season may be in the offing. The possibility of a former President being under immediate criminal investigation is serious. Under normal circumstances, it could be politically divisive. Given Trump’s temperament and willingness to disrupt national unity and incite his followers against democratic and judicial institutions, the impact of legal action against him could be devastating in an internally polarized nation. But it seems increasingly likely that the country will have to grapple with the question of whether a former President should be held legally accountable and the consequences of not doing so. “The country has been through a lot and I fear the country will have to go through more,” Bharara said.