Below is my column in USA Today on the second indictment of former President Donald Trump. While many are celebrating the charges, the implications for free speech are chilling. While Smith did not charge incitement or insurrection (or seditious conspiracy), commentators (and Smith) portrayed the case as holding Trump accountable for the actual riot in the Capitol. Notably, the same pundits and politicians previously insisted that the rejected crimes were obvious and well-established. Indeed, Trump was impeached on incitement charges. They are now shrugging off the conspicuous omission of those charges while attacking those of us with free speech concerns as apologists.
Here is the column:
Special counsel Jack Smith made history on Tuesday.
It wasn’t just the federal indictment of a former president. Smith already did that in June with the indictment of Donald Trump on charges that he mishandled classified documents.
No, Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration of a politician on false claims made during and after an election.
The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment. This complaint is based largely on statements that are protected under the First Amendment. It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections.
In the 2012 United States v. Alvarez decision, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies in a case involving a politician who lied about military decorations.
The court warned such criminalization “would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition. The mere potential for the exercise of that power casts a chill, a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom.”
That precedent did not deter Smith. This indictment is reminiscent of the case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. His conviction on 11 corruption-related counts was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing that federal prosecutors relied on a “boundless” definition of actions that could trigger criminal charges against political leaders.
Smith is now showing the same abandon in pursuing Trump, including detailing his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, before the riot while omitting the line where Trump told his supporters to go to the U.S. Capitol to “peacefully” protest the certification.
While the indictment acknowledges that candidates are allowed to make false statements, Smith proceeded to charge Trump for making “knowingly false statements.”
On the election claims, Smith declares that Trump “knew that they were false” because he was “notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue.”
The problem is that Trump had lawyers and others telling him that the claims were true. Smith is indicting Trump for believing his lawyers over his other advisers.
I criticized Trump’s Jan. 6 speech while he was still giving it and wrote that his theory on the election and the certification challenge was unfounded. However, that does not make it a crime.
If you take a red pen to protected free speech in this indictment, it would be reduced to a virtual haiku. Moreover, if you concede that Trump may have believed that the election was stolen, the complaint collapses.
Smith also noted that Trump made false claims against the accuracy of voting machines in challenging the outcome of the election. In 2021, Democratic lawyers alleged that thousands of votes may have been switched or changed by voting machines in New York elections. Was that also a crime of disinformation?
Smith indicted Trump because the now former president “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.” The special counsel also says Trump “repeated and widely disseminated (the lies) anyway – to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.”
Let’s acknowledge that Trump was wrong. The election wasn’t stolen. He lost, and Joe Biden won.
But how do you prove legally that Trump truly didn’t believe his false claims? And even if you can prove that Trump lied, how do you legally distinguish his falsehoods from the lies other political leaders have told over the years? When, in politics, does making a false statement cross the line into criminal behavior? Those are questions Smith and his team must answer in court, and ones that Trump’s defense team is likely to raise.
Polls previously showed that roughly half of the public viewed earlier charges against Trump as politically motivated. That is why many of us hoped that any indictment would be based on unquestioned legal authority and unassailable evidence.
Smith offered neither. This indictment will deepen the view of many in the public that the Justice Department is thoroughly compromised in pursuing political prosecutions.
These concerns were magnified Tuesday by Smith, who announced the charges with comments that made him sound more like a pundit than a prosecutor. The special counsel gave an impassioned account of the Capitol riot that made it sound like Trump was charged with incitement. He wasn’t. Nor was he charged with seditious conspiracy, despite his second impeachment on those charges.
Notably, many of the legal experts praising the indictment previously insisted that there was a clear case for incitement against Trump. Indeed, Democratic members made the claim the center of the second impeachment, despite some of us writing that there was no actionable claim.
Even Smith wouldn’t touch the incitement or sedition claims that were endlessly pushed by legal experts and Democratic members.
Instead, Smith will seek to criminalize false political claims. To bag Trump, he will have to bulldoze through the First Amendment and a line of Supreme Court cases. That’s why this latest indictment of Trump isn’t just wrong. It is reckless.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley
Smith’s final words to the jury:
If you find Trump not guilty, you will be charged and convicted of spreading disinformation.
S.Meyer——-Exactly!! Good one!
Thanks Cindy. How are things going. I know at one time your daughter was in NYC. She is no longer there, right?
S.Meyer…..Thank you..She loved NYC…….was there from 1998-2000…….moved back to N’Orleans, then came back to Texas, married, had 2 boys…they all live at the ranch about 15 miles from here. She’s Exec Director of our local art center….but she has always loved NYC.
Hope you and your family are well!
Mayor Adams should keep raising hell, louder and louder about the illegals! It’s probably too late, but might help the 2024 elections? Maybe?
Are they really going to put tents in Cemtral Park??!!!
“Are they really going to put tents in Cemtral Park??!!!”
Anything is possible. The crazies are running the show. I was up there recently and things seemed better than before, good enough not to sell my home at this time. I am still wary about being assaulted, so I limit where I go and try to be walking only where there are people and when it is light. In years past I didn’t have such limits but the dangers increased along with our ages.
I hope your daughter gets to take her kids to the city. It is better than Disney World.
(continue) Living on a ranch is where my daughter and grandkids go to on vacation. I assume a ranch means horses.
My computer is giving problems. The above is S. Meyer (Allan) as is my ISP. I had to create new email accounts as my main one is frozen. They think I need a new computer, but I like the one I have.
Be well.
Allan….Thank you. Yes our daughter really wants to take the boys to NYC but is waiting for it to be safer. When she lived there, she would take a subway at 4:30 A.M. and ride all the way to Lower East Side where she worked (Alcazar French Bakery) without fear and without incident!
Yes…the ranch has horses & donkeys…..used to have a herd of Texas Longhorns….they were so sweet!
Y’all stay well, and safe too!
Cindy, I rode my bike today at Noon to get cardio exercise and Vitamin D. I saw an elderly (80s?) couple walking briskly together, holding hands in the city park, getting their exercise, and I yelled, Life begins at 60!. They busted out laughing and we briefly chatted. Naturally I am turning 60 in a few weeks and I told them they were an inspiration as are you, hence this note. I had an Heart Echo Stress Test recently, no negative reports. Forward and onward!
🚵🏽 (biker icon)
Estovir…You dear man…Thank you! Best to you and your bike. And Happy Birthday soon!
In my 40’s I hiked (all by myself!) the Bright Angel trail of the Grand Canyon in ONE Day (from top of the South Rim, to bottom at the Colorado River, back to the top,,,,,,,in one day!) And now I’m trying to get out of this wheel chair,,,little by little……thank you for always encouraging!
Cindy, when I was in NYC last we took the subway. I felt it safe enough to go to the places we were heading. It takes too long by taxi and the cost is high starting somewhere in excess of $9 which is shortly going to increase. Heading cross town is impossible at times. We got out of some cabs because we the cab was so slow that walking slowly was faster.
Though I think the subways are reasonably safe during the day, if one takes precautions. I don’t know if I would take younger children on them, at this time, unless it is a normal part of their life.
I would have been nervous at 4:30AM but when I was young I travelled without fear. I carried one large bill, a match and a cigarette with me because at the time gangs would ask for one of those three and beat you up if you didn’t have them. Walking could be dangerous as well, but I fit in. I dated a girl only a few avenues away from some of the most elegant properties . Each time I walked across that short distance there would be a small gang eying me but I looked like I fit in so they left me alone. On occasion I saw them go after someone else and beat him up. I was used to this and occasionally being in tight situations. Today, at my age, I am a target. Giuliani was wonderful.
Allan……Be careful up there when you go to NYC! You’re smart to be cautious…yes you are a target, sadly enough. Rudy was a SAINT! He is the reason our daughter LOVED her two years there!
I think I told you that when we visited her, we would just walk everywhere…….she lived in the 90’s upper west side, and then at Canal and Hudson…..I was afraid of Taxis, afraid of subways, so we walked….but loved it! During my first and only taxi ride, the driver would not slow down! I kept asking him to please not drive so fast…..he kept on and I started crying I was so scared…Our daughter, who is always so sweet and passive, yelled “You’re making my mother cry!”…He finally slowed down. .LOL
Cindy, the city cut many east-west streets to one lane and added bicycle lanes on the Avenues, diminishing the number of car lanes. If this continues, NYC will become two cities, East and West NY, because getting from one side to the other will take too long. NYC cab rate increases mostly go to the city, not the driver, so their quality deteriorates.
Even before Covid I sometimes told a cab driver to stop, and I got out because he didn’t know how to drive. NYC is highly regulated, as are the cab companies, but that regulation is to make politicians more powerful, not to protect the consumer. My use of black cars is on the rise.
I hope you get out of that wheelchair and start climbing mountains again. Old age is slowing all of us down.
Allan…….This is a reply to your latest comment…Thank you for being so sweet….Spinal stenosis put me in the wheel chair, plus some of my medications make me dizzy and I don’t want to fall….but it’s so frustrating…Ironically the one thing I CAN do if I hold the back of a chair is tap dance! Isn’t that wild??!!
Move pver, Ginger!
“Ironically the one thing I CAN do if I hold the back of a chair is tap dance! Isn’t that wild??!!”
You have great spirit. At our age, we need it. Maybe you can tap dance holding the back of the chair because you are bending forward.
Keep up your spirit, and I will keep up mine.
Get a room!
Please, get a room!
“Get a room”
Is your curtain down?
LOL Allan!
Is it free speech to walk into a bank and demand the teller give you $500?
He tried to get fake electors to claim he won an election he clearly lost. Talking about how these electors could overthrow a fair election is not a crime? JT, you have lost it. As have all your sycophant trump loyalists on this site. Sad, so sad you cannot see trump for the grifter he is. Looking out only for himself. Of course it looks like JT is joining the grifter ranks as he get his lucre from Fox News. Free speech has a cost. if you conspire to break the law with your speech, that is a crime.
Is it free speech to walk into a bank and demand the teller give you $500?
I can walk into three different banks, and several investment advisors to make that demand.
Mr. Bob,
Yes, it is protected speech to walk into a bank and demand $500!! Taking the money would be the crime.
Not if you are a police officer and you threaten the bank teller with a “criminal offense” if the bank teller doesn’t give you the $500.
That is more akin to what Trump did in Georgia with Raffensperger. That is the NOT protected speech.
You’re thinking of Hunter and deady joe threatening the power of the USA gov to force their bribery payments.
If you have the money in your bank account and tell him the money is there, he should make the withdrawal. That is correct, and that is what Trump did. The votes were there, many more than the stated amount needed just like the bank account that might have 10,000 in it, and one only wants to withdraw $500.
Nothing Trump said to Raffensberger was wrong. It is protected speech and a correct action to be made whether it be Trump or Biden.
Only Congress can accept the electors. Congress has dealt the multiple slates of electors in the past. And Democrat Congress persons have motioned to have the VP refuse to accept the EC votes from specific states.
Pence accidentally told the truth after the latest indictment. He admitted that if he refused the votes of several States, the election would have gone the House of Representative….exactly as laid out by the Constitution. (But he in fact had the power to refuse the votes)
That which is known today about the Biden Crime Family, must have been known by the American public in October, 2020.
2020 was “fixed” and “rigged” by States that, among unconstitutional vote-by-mail, ballot harvesting and other abnormalities, violated their own constitutions, and by FBI interference with fraudulent “misinformation warnings.”
______________________________
AG Paxton Sues Battleground States for Unconstitutional Changes to 2020 Election Laws
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship”
Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook restricting a story about Joe Biden’s son during the 2020 election was based on FBI misinformation warnings.
– BBC News
Harry M. Reid
I love coming to this website to read your waaaaaa posts. Face it, Donald Trump is and always has been a grifter and a loser. He lives in an alternate reality. Many posters here live in that same vacuum. Jack Smith has trump’s gonads in a vice, and he’s turning the screw tighter. And then there’s Fulton County. Fani Willis and the grand jury will indict the grifter on racketeering charges. A jury will convict him. He will spend time in a Georgia prison.
Wally, representing the brain dead. Not a single opinion about the case at hand. Just venting his hate…but he never says just exactly What President Trump did that was bad.
Thanks, iowan2, you proved Wally’s point.
So then what did President Trump do wrong?
Read the federal indictments.
In the dox case he illegally took dox contains extremely sensitive defense information, and then stored the dox in totally inadequate storage facilities. Don’t go yapping that he “declassified” the dox. Regardless of the doc’s classification levels, they still contain extremely sensitive defense information.
Btw, I served in the US Navy for more than two decades. I served on the staff at the Naval War College in Newport, RI. While there I had a COSMIC top secret clearance. I had access to info in spaces that were guarded by armed Marines. Those Marines had orders to stop unauthorized people from entering those spaces, including by the use of deadly force.
Trump had the ability to declassify those documents. Now don’t go yapping that he didn’t.
I could care less about what clearance you did, you think or thought you had.
I am a retired Navy Submariner. I too owned a Top Secret clearance–ooooo—-There are armed Marines who guard the entrance to the nuclear propulsion spaces on an aircraft carrier. The information in there is classified as Confidential-NOFORN. Big whoopdy deal bro.
Biden had documents in his possession that were from when he was a Senator. The ONLY way he could possess those is if he stole them.
iowan2, Most of Turley’s criticism focuses on a small mart of the case at hand. Let’s say Turley has an argument about free speech, thoughneither he nor I know what the evidence is and what the witnesses will say. So much in the indictments have nothing to do with free speech (which isn’t unlimited) so Turley ignores them entirely, as have most of you. Out of curiousity, would you want the proceedings televised or hidden?
I’m not venting my hate. I hate no one. Hate is a waste of time and energy. I wrote what I wrote to tell you the truth: Donald J Trump is and always has been selfish and self-centered. He cares not a wit about you, all he wants is your adoration and your money.
Bullsh1t.
Hey wally
Would you like to bet 10 grand on that last assertion? I can have mine in escrow today.
10 grand? Sure. Send me the escrow account information. I’ll match it.
“he was ‘notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue.”” Who has the right, power and authority to provide “notice” of falsity? In its wide-raning censership regimen, Facebook apparently relied in part on the Southern Poverty Law Center, a radical and unprincipled left-wing group. Who has Smith designated to give such notices? Anthony Fauci? Barack Obama? The Washington Post? Jan Psaki?
@Edwardmahl.
Yes that’s the point.
Smith pulls 5 advisors/lawyers who told Trump he lost.
He ignores the other 5 telling him that he didn’t because of the inconsistencies in the election run in several states.
Then of course the history of Trump ignoring his advisors.
Oh and lets add that the election law isn’t clear on this issue. The Hayes compromise…
Smith will most likely get a conviction in DC. Which appellate court blows it out of the water remains to be seen. If it gets to SCOTUS or they intervene… it will end badly for Smith.
People should read the indictment.
Paragraph 3:
The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.
Paragraph 4:
Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:
a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;
b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified (“the certification proceeding”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k); and
c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Each of these conspiracies—which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud—targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election (“the federal government function”).
He’s not accused of lying, which — as the indictment notes — is generally legal to do. He’s accused of conspiracies. It’s not his words, it’s his deeds.
Each of these conspiracies—which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud
Political campaigns are centered on building mistrust of your opponents.
Yep you really want this.
Basing locking up the President, for building widespread mistrust. Read the Declaration of Independence
Yet you and the left still believes Russia effected the outcome of the 2016 election
“It’s not his words, it’s his deeds.” Huh, some deeds are protected speech–flag burning, for example,
+100
And many deeds are not protected speech, including the crimes he was charged with.
Let me use some of ATS whataboutism—to wit, where is the indictment of hillary or anyone in her orbit for conspiracy to defraud the us in creating/peddling both the dossier and the alpha bank scams?
That would be and easy win.
Where did she threaten to prosecute a state Secretary of State to manufacture fake votes for her? Which state was that?
Come on, man
Thats it, that one count??? Come on man. One of the chrges is fraud against the US. Are you just pretending to be a simpleton?
LOL – It’s funny how what you copied is a transparently empty burger – he did all this x y and z legally …
“he also did (nothing noted) …. which is 3 vague “conspiracies”….
So in the case of the legal things he did, they are cited – free speech and courts etc
In the case of the illegal things nothing is mentioned ….
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Just goes to show how corrupt and desperate the entire Democratic party has become. And the useful idiots who praise this indictment are laughing over the demise of democracy in their own country. The “good Germans” probably cheered when communists and Jews were rounded up in 1930s Germany also. Democrats don’t ever think two moves ahead, and they never realize when they get too close to the tipping point.
War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.
Ben Franklin
I’m surprised that Jack Smith didn’t include a larceny charge for the movie that Trump didn’t return to Blockbuster Video. It would have made more sense than these felony speech charges. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
They just haven’t uncovered or invented the crime yet. Wait for it.
Why are they so desperate is the question.
He is not “one of them”. Years ago when he spoke publicly he just as plainly pointed out the establishments CRIMES openly – like when he appeared on Donahue, for instance, decades ago.
At one point Donahue tried to “fight back” (Trump was pointing out the crimes of the rent control issue in NYC) and made some smart remark and Trump said back “What do you want me to do, lie about it ?” Then Trump continued to outline what was wrong. See, that’s what they can’t stand. you’re supposed to play along and lie to everyone, so their scams can continue. They “believe” they deserve all the breaks and getaways with it.
Trump exposes them – if Trump thinks they are a piece of work he says it immediately, to their faces, and it sticks.
That’s a real problem.
Then Trump always “pumps his brand”, known as bragging, or confidence, and that drives them absolutely crazy, because it’s Trump’s opinion. “We had the greatest hotel ever ! Everyone loved it. My golf course by it is world class ! I own that, all of it ! ”
LOL
At that point they are furious. Jealous, exposed as liars and cheats, then Trump praises himself.
The reporter or whomever tries another gotcha angle – Trump dismantles it on the spot pointing out the big problem with it.. the crowd hoots and cheers… another embarrassment Trump heaped on their head, he told the truth, he said the quiet part out loud.
At that point they swear their lives to the devil, anything to make it stop.
Stacy Abrams refused to concede the governorship election in Georgia in 2018 and continued it maintain that she won the election right up until she lost again in 2022. Where are the charges..
Oh, I forgot, she’s a Democrat and feted and treated like a victor and became the president of the World (on Sta Trek.)
No paddy wagon for her.
Did she threaten the GA Secretary of State to find votes for her?
“I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Sound like a threat to you, hackjob??
You do realize that came from Schumer, not Abrams?
Those are, in fact, different people.
No duh…you can play dumb but it won’t fly here, lawdog.
Yet you have yet to addresss why Shumer wasn’t indicted…
This despite the fact that sometime later, an armed man was arrested en route to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh.
Many of us here in NYS believe that Chuck Schumer should have been censured for shouting and calling out Supreme Court justices on the steps of the Court. And don’t forget that it was also Chuck Schumer who accused DJT of inciting an “erection” (sic) in connection with the events of January 6, 2021. I guess that he wasn’t reading from a script as he customarily does. Moreover, some of us are still wondering why anyone would have voted for JRB. His weaknesses and proclivities were well known prior to the 2020 election.
As the Anonymous defending Abrams above, I agree that Schumer should have been censured.
Not sure why this Tom guy wants to conflate the two. They are different people.
If whataboutism is conflating, you are the king lmao.
Censured??? Why not indicted. People acted on his incitement.
Your argument was that she had committed no crime since she didnt threaten anyone. My point was that I was certain that you saw no crime in what Shumer did, either. And you confirmed that suspicion when you said he should have been censured, but not that he should have been indicted.
I know its second level reasoning, maybe I overestimated your level of disingenuousness, and you really are that big of a dunce…my bad.
“A republic if you can keep it.”. Ben Franklin.
The Republic is dead!
I have serious doubt the National Socialist Democrat WOKE Park aka American NAZIS will allow the next Presidential election.
It’s the Ballot Box or the Cartridge Box.
It’s not that the ATF recently stated 700 million guns in circulation. The question is why did they need to count? Why are they pushing so hard on gun control? Notice they have changed the name to crime control?
Did you notice we changed Global warming to Climate change? Marxist are so subtle with the language.
It is almost…almost…laughable that the democrats can assert with a straight face that Donald Trump attempted to deprive citizens of their right to vote when the whole purpose of this indictment is to deprive citizens of the opportunity to vote for Donald Trump in the next election. The absurdity of it all is just incredible. And yet, here we are. And this, of course, is just a rerun of the Russian collusion hoax. No matter how absurd the charges against Trump, the democrats can always find an unlimited number of legal “experts” to bend logic beyond the breaking point in order to justify whatever it takes to vilify and destroy Donald Trump. To me the outright hatred of Trump on the part of the democrats and the unrelenting irrational attacks upon him are the primary reasons why I would vote for him. The more the elitists and the establishment hate Trump, the more I like him. And if not him, then someone else that they hate.
The indisputable fact that not 1 FORENSIC AUDIT was made in any of battleground states. Another indisputable fact is not one judge allowed the election results to be challenged even the Supreme Court. All of the cases were dismissed because of “lack of standing” or other procedural reasons, the facts and evidence were never allowed to be examined. This malfeasance by the courts is a stain that time will never erase.
John Schwarz – this is a good issue that I wish Republicans in Congress would raise. Millions of mail-in votes were cast, without any appreciable increase in the numbers of election officials. How many of those mail-in ballots were checked by a living, qualified election official for signs of falsity? Or how they were “gathered” and handled before they were dumped in a can? After the election, Democrats in the media went into a full attack mode to prevent questions being raised as to what really happened in the 2020 election.
Evidence? They yelled fraud on the court house steps and when the judge asked for evidence, which every judge did, trump lawyers said they were still looking for it. For all the talk of evidence to this day, where is it? Nada, none, zero. The Arizona audit conducted by republicans found Biden won by a larger than originally thought amount.
When you trump and his sycophants stop talking about the evidence and start showing the evidence?
Evidence? They yelled fraud on the court house steps and when the judge asked for evidence, which every judge did, trump lawyers said they were still looking for it.
Never was there an opportunity to present evidence during a trial.
Procedural slight of hand kept evidence from the courtroom
https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/01/forensic-audit-in-michigans-largest-pro-trump-county-finds-no-evidence-of-election-interference.html
Seems as if that is incorrect. Try again? That took 3 seconds of Googling, dude.
I note forensic audit was put in quotes.
All it amounted to was running tests in the voting machines. Not really an audit of the entire process.
Was Michigan one the states that changed voting law by fiat? Judges refused to consider that as a matter of law.
The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment.
That’s the size of it. The irrational hatred of Trump drives people on the Left to prefer annihilating every institution in this country as long as they can “get Trump” by doing so. To them that is preferable to preserving a nation in which Trump might be re-elected. In brief, they are so full of hatred it is driving them to destroy themselves and all of us along with them. Their hatred is straight out of the pit of hell.
“The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment.”
The hatred is all of that, and more. This is what happens when an outsider like President Trump threatens the comfortable, profitable lifestyle and privilege of the “power-elite” in the swamp. This most recent episode also is bringing to the surface those whose prominence in American life was a gift to them from the President. Pence? Barr? These and others like them were known only in the swamp until a trusting President made them a key part of his administration. And now, like the other swamp dwellers, they have turned on him. As for the prosecutor, what a spineless creature he is. Getting an indictment and probably even a conviction in DC against a Republican, especially President Trump, is easy. Why not bring the dog and pony show to some other forum where unbiased people can decide the outcome, people who are not dependent on government jobs and who routinely vote for any Democrat, no matter how stupid or corrupt. Ever noticed the mayors that the voters in DC elect? Jack Smith is nothing more than the Adam Schiff of the DOJ.
To think that the DOJ indicts Trump for the classified documents (he was president) and yet did nothing to Hilary and her secret documents and destruction of evidence (she wasn’t president) and is doing nothing against Biden and his secret documents (he also wasn’t president) is sickening and ruinous to the rule of law.
To think that the DOJ did doing nothing to Hilary, Obama and Biden for the Russian collusion hoax, the fake dossier, the Michael Flynn and others charges is sickening and ruinous to the rule of law.
To think that the DOJ is doing nothing to Joe Biden for his corruption with regard to Ukraine, China AND Russia is so obvious as to tarnish their now already tattered reputation. This is unhealthy for the nation.
To see the DOJ actively work with the defense in the Hunter Biden cases is disgusting.
We had the Secret Service help Hunter out with his missing gun. We had the FBI and the Secret Service help Biden’s daughter out with her diary. We had the Secret Service help Hunter out with the cocaine found in the WH. Merrick Garland needs to be impeached.
Turley isn’t honest when he claims “Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration for a politician on false claims made during and after an election.”
Everyone should read the indictment for themselves to understand the actual charges and evidence for them: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/1/united-states-v-trump/
Smith makes clear that Trump can legally lie to the public. What he cannot legally do is enter into conspiracies to commit crimes.
What he cannot legally do is enter into conspiracies to commit crimes.
There is no crime.
He cites obstruction of Congress. Trump never obstructed congress. We have an impeachment, and Jan 6 made for TV movie, and now Jack Smith, and not a single Obstruction of Congress
Trump can make that argument in court. Trying to convince *you* that the crimes identified in the indictment are crimes a waste of time and pointless.
Truest thing you’ve ever said.
LMAO
All honest lawyers of note have all looked at the indictment and declared it nothing but attempting to criminalize protected speech. Dershowitz is adamant in his position. So you have to convince Constitutional experts…not me.
You have disagreed with Turley constantly, but Turley has always been right. Dershowitz the same. These are well established Constitutional scholars and practitioners.
Yet you blindly believe Smith, who was overturned unanimously by SCOTUS and admonished for stretching the federal Statutes far beyond their scope and meaning.
I agree, Iowan 2. Nor did he try or conspire to obstruct Congress or defraud the US. He sought to persuade Pence and others to exercise the power of their positions to affect the result. In making his arguments he is alleged to have said things he knew to be false. In some cases these were constitutional theories articulated by Eastman. In other cases they were matters of fact, such as the number of dead people voting in various states.
First, Trump was entitled to rely on the constitutional theories of an esteemed professor of constitutional law, even if other lawyers held different views and even if Trump was unconvinced that the advice was correct. Pence took his own counsel and made a decision to proceed with the certification (a view I agree with). It is not a crime to make an argument based on a constitutional theory that is contested and of which you are unsure.
Secondly, on matters of fact, the officials he was seeking to persuade had their own access to information and could assess the evidence for themselves. This is what they did. There is no claim that Trump or his team actually falsified records or evidence. They are alleged simply to have made arguments unsupported by evidence, which the officials concluded were contradicted by the evidence.
At the same time, it is apparent that Trump believed, and continues to believe, that the outcome of the election was “rigged” overall, even though he has never uncovered the hard evidence to prove that. Efforts to persuade someone to take action they may have the power to take, and “conspiring” in those efforts to persuade, are not crimes, especially when it is believed that the results to be overturned were themselves a consequence of criminal conduct that had not yet been uncovered.
If Trump wants to make an advice of counsel argument, he’s either going to have to take the stand himself (which will cause him problems) or call his lawyer co-conspirators to take the stand (at which point they’d likely plead the 5th).
You can be charged and convicted of an inchoate offense such as conspiracy to obstruct Congress, even if the underlying offense never materialized. Another example is attempt to commit murder. Do you think that the murder must take place for the charge of attempt to stand?
This is basic, dude.
No such crime as attempting to conspire, though
Basic, dude
He wasn’t charged with that?
Conspiracy is an inchoate offense. Just like Attempt and Solicitation.
The point above was in response to Iowan who said: “There is no crime. He cites obstruction of Congress. Trump never obstructed congress.” Whether he obstructed Congress was IRRELEVANT to whether the crime of conspiracy exists because, as I said previously, the underlying offense need not have occurred for the inchoate offense to be validly charged. Make sense?
He did not conspire to obstruct Congress. He sought to persuade Pence and Congress to exercise his and its power in a certain way. He persuaded neither.
Conspiring to obstruct Congress might involve ordering the military in to arrest Pence, Senators and Representatives.seeking to persuade them is hardly obstruction.
Basic.
The fake elector certificates from AZ, GA, MI, NV and WI stated falsely that the signed electors were the state’s “duly elected and qualified” electors. As pointed out by Judge Carter, Trump and Eastman’s plan likely engaged in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election by planning to disrupt the Joint Session. This was done in part by planning to introduce these falsified documents via Pence, which has nothing to do with free speech or the mob. Trump additionally hoped Pence would declare the election to be irreparably defective under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, let the state delegations in the House decide the election themselves. The third option was to delay the certification to give Trump more time to prove false election claims. Each of these together are plans to obstruct Congress.
In other news: “Gigantic Paddy Wagon of Herculean Capacity Arrives in D.C. To Round Up Politicians Who Lied”
A huge paddy wagon having U.S. Marshals Service insignia began rounding up the usual suspects: “politicians” accused of telling lies and spreading misinformation. The US Attorney’s office announced a large dragnet to arrest all elected officials who have deceived the public.
The 300 x 50 x 30 cubit leviathan rolled into Washington and began collecting politicians, sycophants and pundits in equal measure, in pairs–one democrat for every republican–and ferried them to justice to be judged.
An FBI spokesman claimed success in this ongoing investigation, stating that it “J. Edgar Hoovered up a criminal outfit that is a blight on our great nation.”
John…you still seem to think there is a RULE OF LAW? There isn’t!
I look forward to a GOP leader who attacks like Democrats….and has no restriction on jailing Clintons, OBamas, Pelosis, Comey, Schiff, Smith, Ketanji Brown Jackson, smollet, zuckerberg, bloomberg, soros…..if you play with FIRE…YOU CAN GET BURNED. Republicans keep trying to be the GOOD guys…that day needs to END
Then cut 50% of federal spending….end federal aid to colleges,cities and states….and 5% tax on GROSS of financial transactions and moving money off shore by Wall Street. Also tax all non-profits where anyone gets $100k. Time to take away Democrat money and power!