Below is my column in the Hill on the ongoing federal grand jury investigation reportedly looking into January 6th and potential criminal charges against former president Donald Trump. If there is an indictment, it cannot be based on a Vizzini charge that it is simply “inconceivable” that anyone would believe that there was widespread election fraud. Notably, a new Harvard study has found that most people who went to the Capitol on January 6th did so in loyalty to Trump rather than to engage in insurrection. Millions continue to believe that the election was stolen. However, any case would likely be tried in Washington, D.C., which constitutes arguably the worst possible jury pool politically for the former president.
Here is the column:
This week, CNN received a 282-page letter from former President Trump. The “Notice of Intent” to sue includes dozens of past transcripts and online stories of unrelentingly anti-Trump coverage on the network. However, there is one line that stood out; it stated that Trump “subjectively believes that the results of the 2020 presidential election turned on fraudulent voting activity in several key states.”
The line does not make a case for civil defamation — but it could offer a criminal defense if Attorney General Merrick Garland charges Trump as part of an ongoing grand jury investigation.
As a defamation lawsuit, the length of the exhibits does little to make up for the limited case law supporting Trump’s claim. Trump faces a difficult constitutional standard applied to public officials and public figures. Under that “actual malice standard,” he must show that CNN had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
Trump has long objected to that standard and called for it to be changed to allow greater liability for the media. Ironically, liberals such as Harvard professor Cass Sunstein also have called for the broader use of defamation to combat “fake news.” However, courts have not accepted such invitations. The standard is designed to make defamation actions more difficult, to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system.
CNN’s reporting in some stories that Trump lied about election fraud was clearly protected opinion. In other reports, it was based on the views of experts or sources. In either case, a defamation case cannot be maintained on the “I believed it to be true” claim. The question is whether CNN knew it to be false or didn’t care if it was false or true.
That claim, however, could have greater success in a criminal prosecution.
Some of us continue to question the basis for criminal charges against Trump on the current evidence. The House Jan. 6 committee promised to present compelling evidence to support criminal charges, but it has not yet presented that case after eight hearings. Even some Democratic figures, including former prosecutor and former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), do not believe a strong case has been made for an indictment.
I have long maintained that current or former presidents should be charged when there is clear evidence of a crime, including the cases of former Presidents Nixon and Clinton. The Justice Department, however, has long adopted a more cautious approach. Although a federal judge declared that Clinton committed perjury, which even some of his supporters admitted, he was not charged. There has been a recognition that such a prosecution — even a clear case like Clinton’s — could divide the nation at a time when it needs to move forward.
I have always disagreed with that view, believing that if a president commits a crime, prosecution strengthens the nation by showing its commitment to the rule of law.
However, that is not an invitation for improvisation or impulse. If a former president is going to sit in the dock, the case should be sufficiently strong to refute any question of political motive or influence.
That is not the current case against Trump.
While Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, there has been a notable shift away from that dubious basis for an indictment. Most of the current calls for prosecution focus on conspiring to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371) and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)).
Any prosecution will have to overcome significant constitutional headwinds, including free speech protections and the right to protest (and to call for such protests). However, the central problem remains Trump’s state of mind.
Trump maintains he believed the election was stolen and he had a legal basis to challenge its certification. Democrats in Congress (including some members of the Jan. 6 committee) have challenged certifications of prior elections, including Trump’s 2016 victory; past election controversies also involved rival slates of electors being presented to Congress. And Trump had a team of lawyers advising him these were valid claims.
Democrats have tried to undermine such a defense by referring to Trump’s personal lawyers as “Team Crazy” and noting that not only White House counsel but most legal experts disagreed with their analysis. They insist no one would believe these claims were credible. The committee’s case, however, was built without a modicum of balance in the presentation of evidence. Even in quoting Trump’s much-condemned rally speech, the committee routinely edited out his line that “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Some insist Trump’s state of mind can be dismissed as “willful blindness” and that he had to know there was no evidence of widespread election fraud. It is true that willful blindness can be used by prosecutors when they cannot prove actual knowledge, but it remains highly controversial. As one expert noted, “There is tremendous confusion in this area of law and a lurking sense that something is fundamentally awry.”
When an administration prosecutes a former (and possibly future) political opponent, even more can appear “awry.” Even under the alternative showing, “willful” does not include politically delusional or defiant defendants. Millions of Americans still believe there is evidence of election fraud. Moreover, the Jan. 6 committee has portrayed Trump as a raving egomaniac who refused to accept that he could lose to President Biden. Even former Attorney General William Barr said Trump refused to entertain opposing views and added, “I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has, you know, lost contact with, become detached from reality.”
Perhaps, but Trump would not be convicted for losing a grasp on reality. He would argue that he had a host of lawyers around him supporting this view.
True, the odds of convicting Trump on most any crime before a Washington, D.C., jury is very high. In a city that gave Biden more than 92 percent of its vote (and Trump roughly 5 percent), the defense could not face a worse jury pool.
However, that does not mean it would stand up on appeal. In the interim, a weak or creative case for conviction would rip the country apart.
For the administration of his opponent to prosecute him, the case must be more than just plausible. It must be unassailable.
Prosecutors need more than simply repeating that it’s “inconceivable” that Trump didn’t know he’d lost the election. In the film “The Princess Bride,” that was the go-to line for the character Vizzini, who used it to avoid any self-questioning. For many Trump critics, it serves the same purpose.
They maintain that it is “inconceivable” that Trump believed what he said about the election being “stolen” — so what he said must have been criminal.
Yet as another character from the movie told Vizzini, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
It means even less in a criminal case against a past or present president. Garland will need more than a Vizzini charge to make a case stick against Trump.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The “political” crisis that leaders of both parties must address is “self-destructive tribalism” that is tearing the nation apart. Many Americans are placing political party over country (and tribalism over our constitutional rule of law system). Instead of being United as the “American Tribe” viewing even the opposing political party as part of our tribe, many of us are viewing anyone that disagrees with us as basically the “enemy of the state”. This unhealthy tribalism feeds racism and other bigotry.
In this game, only foreign enemies and despotic regimes win by dividing us – Americans of both parties lose. Leaders in Congress and state lawmakers could start uniting Americans but apparently choose not to. Abraham Lincoln (de facto founder of the Republican Party) warned that America will never be defeated by a foreign power. If we destroy ourselves and lose our freedoms it will happen from internal division or “tribalism” – placing political party over country!
“I have always disagreed with that view, believing that if a president commits a crime, prosecution strengthens the nation by showing its commitment to the rule of law.”
This statement is the very core of this entire situation. At least half of this nation truly believes, at this point, that the left has so polarized and filled key government institutions with partisan agents that the foundation of this nation – The Rule of Law” is no longer a non-partisan wall against tyranny. Read Dicken’s “A Tale of Two Cities” to understabd the growing anger of the Jacqueries to understand, somewhat, the emotions of Jan 6.
I doubt that “At least half of this nation truly believes, at this point, that the left has so polarized and filled key government institutions with partisan agents that the foundation of this nation – The Rule of Law” is no longer a non-partisan wall against tyranny.” No doubt some think that, just like some think that the right has so polarized and filled key government institutions with partisan agents that the foundation of this nation – The Rule of Law” is no longer a non-partisan wall against tyranny. We don’t know the size of either group, and there’s no reason to think that the former group is larger than the latter group.
Democrats cheat to win and never accept defeat when they lose. Only a liberal would scream that Trump wasn’t elected in 2016 and then attack Trump for saying he won in 2020. The same morons that idolize Stacey Abrams, a woman that has done nothing, and adores Hilary could then complain about people questioning an election.
Only a liberal could be as bold as to deny the electors being seated in 2016, AS JAMIE RASKIN DID, and then sit on the J6 Committee screaming about not seating electors. It is easy to be so hypocritical when a) you are shameless and b) the media doesn’t question you.
Trump was elected in 2016.
Biden was elected in 2020.
Both are done deals.
The J6 Committee is not “screaming about not seating electors.”
Hey Anonymous, I agree that both elections are done deals but does Abrams? Does Hilary? Now try to actually respond to my point.
I’m a Democrat, and I was giving myself as a counterexample to your ridiculous overgeneralization that “Democrats cheat to win and never accept defeat when they lose.” I accept that Clinton lost in 2016.
SHE doesn’t/
Done deals.
Just like the done deal of the secession of the American Colonies from Great Britain.
__________________________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
I read the Peter Navarro Report and even if only some of the claims in it represent reality as it occurred in the 2020 election, then I believe there was systematic voter fraud perpetrated by Democrats. Was it enough to affect the election results in the battleground states? I believe so, but I don’t know with absolute certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, determining election results is a civil matter so the burden of proof standard is only a preponderance of evidence. I’m not a lawyer, but it appears to me there definitely is a preponderance of evidence presented in the Navarro Report. Has anyone seen a detailed line-by-line refutation of the claims in the Navarro Report mace by a reasonable, rational, non-partisan individual or institution? Until I see it and read it, I’m going to remain a “believer” in the Democrat 2020 election fraud hypothesis.
About 75% of Republicans, including I, think that the election was at least rigged, if not actually stolen. If this becomes an issue in a trial, it would open the door to the full-fledged review of evidence from several key states. For example: how many of the millions of absentee ballots were actually reviewed by election officials for the genuineness of signatures; and who “gathered” and delivered absentee ballots to drop boxes?
My guess: the same % of absentee ballots as in previous elections.
Do you trust the outcomes of any elections?
This may come as a surprise to Turdley but a criminal defendant’s “intent”, or “subjective will”, is a question of fact for a jury. What nonsense comes out of this guy’s mouth. Must be audtioning to take over for Dershowitz.
Your ignorant use of calling names shows that you can’t handle the truth. Grow up.
Donald, why read and then comment on a column written by someone you hate? You are just a jerk!
Donald can’t help himself. The voices in his head demand vindication.
The variety of response here show that whatever can be in the mind of man is “not inconceivable”. To be objective here and not take sides (although I do have a side) one must realize that every human being is not a digital computer. You cannot put the same information into 155 million minds (that voted on Election Day) and expect that they will all spit out the same answer. That is what is inconceivable. Is that not why we have elections. Remember that in no popular vote total of presidential candidates did the winning candidate ever reach more than approximately 61% . None. That means that effectively even our greatest presidents still lost 39% of the electorate.
People simply do not think the same. Each and everyone is a product of intelligence, experience, trauma, loss, or, in other words, the sum total of their lives. On the basis of that, they make their decisions. Simply because something is inconceivable to you, as a person, does not mean it is inconceivable to a whole host of other people. Even psychiatrists, psychologists, and neurologists often get the correct answer wrong because they often misinterpret what a person means or intends. To measure what is in a man’s mind is iffy in the best of circumstance. To interpret the results of an election, that had some strange occurrences in them, as rigged is not inconceivable. Provable cheating in an election is another thing entirely. And yes we should not forget that the 2016 and 2000 elections were also contested as was 1876 with a strange means of settling it.
Talk to 30-50 different people everyday in hospitals or exam rooms about their inner most thoughts and concerns and you will discover that nothing is inconceivable. If I was on the Jury, that particular mode of prosecution would have a high mountain to climb. Almost inconceivable.
Good point GEB.
It’s also inconceivable the fate of the America First agenda is that of Trump. The policies of that agenda proved to be very popular. If Democrats succeed in preventing Trump from running in 2024, then whoever he endorses will benefit from the energy of a base that already believed Democrats are an existential threat to our republic.
Democrats cannot prevent Trump from running in 2024. The people who’ve been testifying against Trump so far have been Republicans, and you know that other Republicans, like DeSantis, will use it against him.
Olly,
I am a registered Independent. Did not vote for Trump.
His America First agenda, I thought made sense and could get behind.
He made that speech at the UN, said he would be looking out for America first . . . just like everyone else did for their own countries.
Then MSM accused the agenda as being isolationist, or abandoning our allies.
Want to see abandoning our allies, see Biden Afghanistan withdrawal.
Funny thing, I keep reading Dems declaring that the Reps are an existential threat to democracy or authoritarian. Yet, if it were not for the Constitution the Dems are the ones would be the authoritarians. Their calls for packing the court, abolishing the electoral college, gun control, limiting speech, open borders, support for the 2020 riots, they and their outlook looks more 1984 than anything Trump ever did.
UF,
I’m also a registered Independent. I did vote for Trump primarily as a vote against Clinton. I expected him to try and wield power like his predecessor and hoped Congress would begin to claw back the power they gave up under Obama. Ultimately, his America First agenda forced the Democrats to take the opposite approach and now they are stuck with policies that are doing real harm to this country. Indicting Trump and/or keeping him out of the 2024 race won’t fix what ails the Democratic party.
Registered Independent here, too. I’ve almost always voted against incumbency, regardless of Party affiliation. I believe six years is plenty of time for any citizen to serve the People and should move on to lead as an example to others to follow rather than feed at the Public trough for decades or longer.
Garland’s a stooge and won’t make the call on Trump charges. It’ll come from Susan Rice. It’ll be an election ploy to prevent Trump from running. It’ll divide the nation when it needs to be most unified. It will usher in a DeSantis Presidency and will consign the Dims to minority status for a generation. All in all, it works as will a Trump return. The Dims are too clumsy to pull of anything but the most crude plot like they did in the Covid-aided 2020 election. That’s our saving grace.
The nation is already divided, and refusing to indict Trump if there’s good evidence that he committed a crime would divide the country as much as indicting him would.
The Trump – DeSantis battle for the nomination should prove interesting.
THE DEMS and RHINOs don’t care, they want to charge him befre the elections of 2022, there in DC, they don’t care about the appeals if Trump found Guilty by a DC DEMS Jury, they want the story line and news cycles, they want to get their voters out for 2022. Garland is a disappointment along with the DOJ, its all political and one sided. After 2022 we will see an exit of several officials, eother by choice or wanting out before they are impeched or just before the House of Cards comes crashing down. This is the radical Left Wing of the DEM’s and TRUMPhaters. They are afraid of Trump’s return. Any charges will energizie Trump supporters and Republca and DEM voters who are voting Republican This will back fre on the DEM’s
RE:” Yonder come the usual ‘experts’ to punch holes in your thesis. This should be interesting. The eventual outcome will be the final arbiter, arguments notwithstanding.
My brother is one that had his brain broken by Trump and he has spent the past week harassing me, trying to ‘convince’ me That Trump is Ted Bundy. And I’m NOT a Conservative, nor am I a Trump fan. Doesn’t matter to him that they moved the goalposts AGAIN (obstruction? Ha! Then Hillary should be next. Followed by Stacy and Al).
If anyone is experiencing willful blindness, it’s the seemingly permanently rabid people that have such hatred for one person on earth that did lots of things that were toxic or foolish, but nothing illegal, who will not stop torturing themselves or those around them until they see blood. It is unbelievably sad to see such ugliness. My brother cannot abide even living next to anyone that isn’t on board with him. His hatred has become a raison d’etre and it is eating him alive. Meanwhile, those with brains still in tact are happy to respect his opinions and leave him alone.
This all goes way beyond sane behavior, on the part of politicians *and* the people.
James,
We have a friend like that.
When we present an objective argument debunking some of her claims (she watches CNN), it all comes down to,
“Well . . . I just feel that way!”
Her feelings is not reality.
Interestingly enough, since Biden has occupied the WH, she stopped watching the news at all.
She is fully aware of the current economic crisis as they are on a one income household. And, somewhat amazingly, she blames Biden, not Trump.
TDS is a real mental illness.
We need a vaccine!!!
And Trump stans are the ones who suffer from it.
From what we have seen to date, Trump knew he lost. He knew, in some states, by how much and he asked the people in Georgia to find them! He pretty much told them to “find” the votes and he and his friends in congress would do the rest. The testimony of his own people…people who supported him make it clear that he knew. This “inconceivable” claim is typical of Trumpsters…try to dirty up what you think will be the out come so that you can attack the outcome on the basis of your one construct. You have fallen very low, very low.
Justice Holmes, you are wilfully misinterpreting Trump’s arguments about Georgia.
In the case that was the subject of the call, Trump alleged that many thousands of votes were cast illegally. It has now been documented that he was correct, taking into account only the allegations relating to illegal voting in one county after having moved to another more than 30 days before the election. All he was asking was for Georgian election officials to do their job and uncover these illegal votes. Under Georgian law if the number of votes exceeds the margin of victory there is supposed to be a rerun — proving fraud is unnecessary. This is no doubt because the legislature understood that fraud is almost impossible to prove after the fact.
It has also now been documented, including through special investigations and a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision on drop boxes, that in Wisconsin illegal votes exceeded the margin of error.
The most recent court decision in Pennsylvania held that the entire mail ballot process was unconstitutional under Pennsylvania’s constitution. Mail voting favoured Biden by a huge margin.
So not only is it conceivable that the 2020 presidential election was determined by illegal voting, it is, in the view of many, probable. Trump could in good faith believe this to have been the case. How much actual fraud there was will likely never be known.
Daniel, if Trump believed what you said, the place to prove it was in court, not attempting to go around that with a phone call to the GA SoS. Ditto for PA.
In Georgia, the courts delayed assigning a judge until it was too late. In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court decided not to resolve the issue, in the face of a scathing dissent by three judges. In Pennsylvania, the issue was not resolved on procedural grounds. The fact that the courts put their heads in the sands does not make Trump’s objections invalid or not held in good faith. Now that the election is over, courts have begun to make the decisions they ducked before.
Also, election officials are supposed to ensure that election results are based on lawful voting. It is not “going around the courts” for Trump to have asked them to do their job in the context of a discussion of a case alleging thousands and thousands of illegal votes.
I’ve made no claim about whether “Trump’s objections [were] invalid or not held in good faith.”
My point is that there is a legal way to address them and illegal ways, and the President is required by the Constitution to choose the former, not the latter. That you dislike the court’s actions doesn’t change the fact that IF Trump believed what you said, THEN the place to prove it was in court.
As for “It is not “going around the courts” for Trump to have asked them to do their job,” he never asked Raffensberger to do his job, and Raffensberger has testified under oath that he did do his job. If Trump disagrees, once again, the place to make that argument is in court.
Let Trump be questioned under oath like others have been.
The courts did not resolve this. The point of Turley’s article was to discuss whether it is “inconceivable” that anyone, and Trump in particular, could believe that the election result was based on an unlawfully conducted election. Not only is it not “inconceivable” but many think it is probable. The points I made were to explain why that is so.
Of course it’s conceivable.
Trump’s a malignant narcissist and very transactional, and he believes whatever he finds convenient to believe in the moment, especially for beliefs that feed his malignant narcissism.
The courts did resolve it, by rejecting that Trump had standing for the vast majority of the cases. That is a form of resolution. And after the courts made those decisions, both the EC and Congress further settled it by certifying Biden’s win.
You may not like that outcome. Trump may not like that outcome. But it’s been legally resolved by Congress.
I didn’t say it hasn’t been voted on by the EC and certified by Congress. It has been, and Biden is the President. That can’t be changed.
But that isn’t the issue the article discusses. That issue is whether Trump, or anyone else, could conceivably believe in good faith that the result that ended up being certified was unlawfully obtained. Trump and many others can and do. And there are good reasons for that belief whether you like it or not.
Trump’s beliefs aren’t determined by ‘good reasons.’ They’re determined by what feeds his malignant narcissism from moment to moment.
That someone believes some factual claiim in good faith doesn’t determine whether that factual claim is true. Flat earthers may believe in good faith that the Earth is flat, but it isn’t.
“He pretty much them to find votes”. “From what I’ve seen”. That’s the kind of hard hitting evidence that will “pretty much” get Trump indicted.
Kudos to you Jonathan! That’s excellent ☆
Vizzini, The Sicilian:
“There are no words to contain all my wisdom. I am so cunning, crafty and clever, so filled with deceit, guile and chicanery, such a knave, so shrewd, cagey as well as calculating, as diabolical as I am vulpine, as tricky as I am untrustworthy…”
Back at Ya – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMz7JBRbmNo
It seems Turley is setting up an excuse as he did for the Sussman case when mentioned the DC courts. That’s sign that Trump is very likely to be charged.
There is plenty of evidence showing Trump knew the election fraud claims were not true. He willfully kept the narrative alive because he knew his supporters were brainwashed enough to keep making the claim that there was massive election fraud.
Turley neglects other evidence that this was not a spontaneous protest, this was planned. Trump was relying on his supporters storming the Capitol to disrupt the count long enough to inject doubts on the process. That’s why it took more than three hours for him to say anything to his rampaging supporters who clearly believed he was telling them to stop the vote. He was intent on inciting the mobs and he was successful.
Trump has other problems besides the DOJ. He also has the Georgia attorney general pressing charges for violating state voting laws.
Trump has a clear history of having “ bad advice” despite his claims of being a “stable genius” who only picks the very best. Obviously he’s more of an unstable idiot.
Turley’s arguments are that only absolute, unambiguous, and verified proof is the only proof that will convince him that Trump is guilty. Obviously that was not the case when it came to Sussman. Turley was already deciding There was enough evidence despite no clear absolute proof that he demands when it comes to Trump.
There’s absolutely zero evidence that Trump knew or believed election fraud charges were untrue. Trump still believes, as I do, that this was a rigged, stolen, and constitutionally unlawful election in which tens if not hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots were cast. I don’t believe any reasonable person could reach any other conclusion.
“ There’s absolutely zero evidence that Trump knew or believed election fraud charges were untrue. ”
Oh, but there is. Steve Bannon provided it when. He said that Trump was going to declare victory even when he knew voter fraud claims were false. That’s just one piece of evidence.
LOL. WHat is Bannon’s source for this bit of knowledge that would make his testimony admissible?
Trump ONLY gave in and called off the fans when it became clear that Pence wouldn’t leave the Capitol. That was Trump’s Last Stand: he failed at litigating, bullying state election officals and he couldn’t bully Pence into refusing certified vote totals, so he tried to get his minions to stop Pence no matter what it took. He knew that Pence was in danger, and instead of calling off the dogs, made it worse by tweeting that Pence “let us down” and didn’t do the right thing. Pence, who knew who and what he was dealing with, refused to leave the Capitol, because if he had gotten into the limo, the Secret Service would have transported him to who knows where, all of which would have stopped certification of the votes, to buy time to get the fake electors’ certificates in and throw uncertainty into the mix. ALL BASED ON NOTHING–NO FACTS, NO EVIDENCE. Trump was hoping to stop the certification so that he could get state legislatures to simply award him the presidency even though he had lost and knew he had lost. At one point, Trump rioters were only 40 feet away from Pence, but didn’t know it because they didn’t know the Capitol layout well enough to realize that they were being led away by a Capitol officer. So, if there hadn’t been those 40 feet or if Pence had been spirited someplace far away “for his own safety” and couldn’t get back to certify the results, American democracy would have failed. THAT’S how close we came to losing the soul of America. All in the name of a malignant narcissist who lost and election but refused to concede.
“I have long maintained that current or former presidents should be charged when there is clear evidence of a crime, including the cases of former Presidents Nixon and Clinton.”
What about adding Biden to the list??
Why would Biden be on the list? What crime did he commit?
Anonymous says:
Why would Biden be on the list? What crime did he commit?
Norman, When I and everyone who read your comment get off the floor from laughing maybe I’ll waste time answering.
I dont like Biden, but really what crime did he commit?
I am going to guess when the Hunter Biden corruption comes to full investigation, there may be some Joe Biden crimes, but what have we got now?
Bribery. Good Lord, you must be the modern-day Rip van Winkle.
What exactly is the bribery you claim? Show us an example.
shame the DOJ and FBI are 100% corrupt
Anyone go to jail for the Russian Hoax….which was such a stasi move! Welcome to Democrat Fascism!
Name another profession where this wouldn’t get someone fired. Only “teachers” have this privilege.
Cops have this privilege too.
And both have UNIONS to protect them!
Election results are often not known on election Day, so no not inconceivable. However, had Trump not blown the first debate by being the unguided missile that he is, our country would not be in the mess it’s in. Trump policies should have prevailed over what we have now but voters were deceived by adroit political operatives. Now we find a way to criminally prosecute the loser of an election? Drain the dam SWAMP.
Trump was told my many advisors and officials at the federal and state level that the election was clean. He either chose to ignore them, or believed them and lied about it to his followers. But either way he knew.
Trump spearheaded an attempted coup. If that is not a basis for criminal charges then our country is truly doomed.
care to explain the thousands of illegal ballot boxes being stuffed?
There were no “illegal ballot boxes being stuffed”. That claim was debunked a long time ago.
Sevvy:
“2000 Mules” disagrees. Where’s your documentary?
Even D’Souza doesn’t claim that 2000 Mules proves anything. He only thinks it needs to be investigated.
That “documentary” doesn’t prove anything. Even that has been debunked.
No, it wasn’t debunked.
“. . . many advisors and officials at the federal and state level that the election was clean.”
*How* would they know that immediately after the election? Crystal ball? Ouija board? Such investigations can take months or years.
And *how* would they know that, given the countless “officials” and “journalists” who have no desire to even look?
It is glaringly obvious that the election was a sham (and I despised Trump as POTUS).
So obvious yet so sparse evidence.
Not sparse, it was covered up by the corrupt US media. Middle America is watching closely.