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
Why is this so difficult to understand? It’s not what Trump said about election fraud, it’s about what he engaged in and let happen in an attempt to stay in power. After going through the proper channels in the courts and being turned away, it was OVER. Peaceful transfer of power should have taken place but Trump along with his cronies continued to plot a scheme to and stay in power.
And in regards to why Trump has different charges now versus the impeachment – you don’t have to commit a crime to be impeached (which Trump should have been). And, as time has passed they have been able to gather evidence to support these charges.
Bill, what is so difficult to understand. Trump left the Whitehouse exactly on schedule. You make it sound like he barracked himself in when he exited the Whitehouse at the date and time required by the law. I know it’s difficult for you to understand.
“… and let happen…”
You’re super serial he’s a total dictator, right ? All he had to do was make it all stop, with his commands.
Letting something happen, making something happen, is what your ilk did on Jan 6th – refusing security, national guard, hundreds of agents infiltrating and plotting for months, then opening the heavy mag lock capitol doors and waving in the public.
Lying about “6 cops being murdered” – one of those “LAYING IN STATE IN THE ROTUNDA FOR THE DEMONCRATS TO FAKE WORSHIP” as if unjustly downed by Trump – it was literally a TOTAL HOAX.
Not only did your twerps let it happen, they made it happen, and then they lied and lied and lied and are still lying and attacking unjustly and cruelly.
Anonymous
And how is that “documentation” fraudulent ?
The constitution is clear – the legislature appoints electors.
I would fiurther note that Fraud does not mean what you seem to think it does.
Fraud is lying and deception. There is no lying and deception in any of this.
It was conducted right out in the open. That is NOT Fraud.
You are prosecuting people for legitimately accusinjg YOU of Fraud.
We are past the point where democrats can claim 2020 was not Rigged. The Federal Government meddling in the election with social media along constituttesd actual fraud and violations of the constitution.
The only question today is HOW MUCH fraud and election rigging there was.
Because it is now clear that the 2020 election was stolen – should Republican DA’s and AG’s start prosecuting Democrats in Swing states over the 2020 election ? Can the District Attorney in a red county in PA prosecute the electors in PA for election fraud ? The election was undeniably rigged, and fraudulent – so why not ?
You have ranted about stupid debunked legal theories – this effort to prosecute those that sought to overturn aq rigged election is one of the stupidest. If we are going to start disbarring people – lest start with Bragg and Smith and the AG’s that are pushing this legal garbage.
Not only do you have a huge problem – because the election WAS stolen – far beyond any doubt today.
You had to lie and censor and do it through government to win. That is WORSE than banana republic fraud.
But you have a huge problem – because even if you were right – you would still be wrong.
If the 2020 election had been “perfect” – people are STILL free to try to overturn it.
They are free to do anything that is not barred by the law or constitution to do so.
They can protest, sign petititons agree to be legislatively appointed electors, seek to get Congress to refuse to certify.
I would further note that When GOVERNMENT participates in “rigging the election” – they are arguably free to revolt, commit insurrection. Because “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ”
When those in government fail to follow the law and constitution violating the constitutional rights of the entire country,
That government is NOT legitimate – nor is any government elected as a result of such violations.
The Boston Tea Party, LExington and Concorde were based in oposition to just such lawless government tyranny.
Turley, as I read about this matter, Smith addressed the speech vs action issue in the indictment document. You didn’t.
Tch, tch.
“I have a great idea—let’s fill the indictment with pages of false claims that we aren’t charging him because of free speech. That way, they can’t use free speech as a defense.”—junior lawyer in Jack Smith’s office
I thought it was pretty transparent, but, it worked on you, eh David??
Senator Elizabeth Warren said that if a student goes to a four year college and decides that after two years he decides it’s not for him. He shouldn’t be responsible for paying for those two years. Granny Warren at her best.
Put all these issues in the free markets of the private sector and they will self-resolve – everything from wholly unconstitutional student loans to wholly unconstitutional Social Security and Medicare.
Anonymous
Do you understand that when you and those on the left say Something is “debunked” – that has proven to be proof that it is True.
Do we have to go through the whole list of claims the left has allegedly debunked that have all proven true ?
Alex Jones has a better track record for voractiy than you.
AJ, I believe when he recently wrote another book, the editor when over it & it ran like 94-5% completely accurate.
I’m doing to buy it, I’ll see.
The left has used the term “already debunked” for years as their go to persuasion method.
Do a google search. Its downright comical.
It’s pretty obvious now that the majority of Americans know the White House was stolen by Democrats who installed the current vacuous mannequin. The media has repeated the lie (that Biden received 81 million votes from real voters), and shouted down naysayers, desperately trying squelch threats of being exposed. Not only are they trying to remove Trump from contention in 2024, they are sending a chilling message to anyone questioning future election results. Like the 2024 election they realize can only be won through another tsunami of phony ballots.
May I suggest you meet people who have a better grasp on reality.
No, troll, u may not.
Anonymous
“He tried to use a legal theory that had no merit. It was debunked long ago.”
Both false and irrelevant.
Your alleged legal theory without merit was precisely what happened int he 19th century Harrison Election.
Further your meritless theory was most recently pushed by Prof. LAwrence Tribe as a strategy for Hillary in 2016.
Eastman went to great paines to try to Follow Tribes plan closely – specifically BEcause it was the LEFT that concopcted that plan.
But finally – lets say you are right.
There is no crime of advancing a legal theory without merit.
It happens ALL THE TIME.
In every single court case in the US – one side wins, and the other loses.
The Judge, the jury the appeals courts decide one sides case has no merit
We have not ended our court system, we are not jailing lawyers right and left.
Bragg and Smith have been advancing legal theories without merit – are we to jail them ?
Are we going to jail prosecutors if they fail to convict trump – for legal theories without merit ?
Is Mueller in Jail now ? Comey ? The rest of the collusion delusion group for merritless legal theories ?
Grow up – just because you do not like something does not make it a crime.
In fact actually being WRONG is not a crime.
Trump is wrong about many things.
Biden is wrong about far more.
Neither are criminals merely because they are wrong.
“Eastman is being disbarred for his attempt to illegally overturn the election in Trump’s favor. Eastman is in the minority as a legal scholar for a reason. He’s the flat earther of the legal profession.”
Eastman may be disbarred – F. Lee Bailey was disbarred once. Many prominent lawyers have been disbarred.
Regardless, your claim regarding Eastmen is Garbage – he did not advance a legal THEORY, he advanced a constitutional means to stop the certification of a rigged election in 2020 – one that not only has been advocated for preiviously – often by the same scholares you claim oppose him, but also ACTUALLY HAPPENED beofre.
REALITY is not theory. it is FACT.
What is true is that those “schiolars” challenging Eastman – Aren’t scholars – Eastman is either correct or about 500 members of congress in the late 19th century violated the constitution and elected the wrong president.
We are also way passed the claim that 2020 was not stolen.
The only question now is how many different inllegal and immopral and unconstitutional was was it stolen in.
And again – your legal claim is garbage – not just because it is disproven by REALITY,
But because it is stupid.
Only the left thinks that you disbarr attorneys for advancing legal claims they do not like.
Are we going to disbarr the losing attorneys in ever legal case ? Obviously the courts decided they were wrong ?
If Eastman pulled his claim out of his ass – rather than Lawrence Tribes as well as the 1876 election.
aIf it was ludicrously stupid – it is still neither a basis for disbarrment nor a crime.
And this is again the proof of the criminal corruption of the left.
Whatever power you get – you abuse.
In your world DJT is a criminal – because he opposes you.
Eastman is a criminal because he opposes you.
By hook or crook you have won, and now you will use that power to punish those that opposed you.
That is actual fascism.
An excellent rule of thumb is whatever the left is accusing others of – they are doing themselves.
Pudnhead, that was nice, short and concise.
Trump ought to consider himself lucky. Trotsky got an ice pick in the eye; Trump only gets indicted every few days. Didn’t Biden warn us all not to (censored) with the Bidens?
“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.”
Trump’s lawyers who told him the claims were true lost 60 cases in court trying to prove the claims were true. Many of those cases were heard by Republican judges, including judges appointed by Trump. Nonetheless, Trump continued to claim those were true. At some point (and well before the fake electors scheme), Trump needed to realize that the lawyers he was listening to were telling him what he wanted to hear, but were dead wrong.
You’re wrong on both counts.
First, the fact that courts opposed any investigations into voter fraud from taking place says absolutely nothing about the merits of the claims of voter fraud. The courts simply sidestepped the issue of actual, material voter fraud by asserting that the plaintiffs had no standing to file their claims, and on that basis dismissed the complaints.
Second, the fact that some of those judges were “Republican” or “appointed by Trump” is irrelevant to the issues and to Smith’s fraudulent indictments.
Obviously you don’t o is how the courts work. You see, if the court finds no merit in what the petitioners have presented, the court is obligated to throw the petition out.
Wally, can you comprehend what you read? Apparently not. I said that the courts never addressed the merits and, accordingly, the courts made no findings on the merits of the allegations. Instead, the courts concluded that the plaintiffs didn’t have legal standing to pursue their claims. But no matter how many times I say it, or how clearly I write regarding the legal distinction between “standing” and “merits,” you won’t get it. I suspect you have TDS, which renders you incapable of assessing facts and evidence, since you’ve been programmed to only see things that purport to support your warped views of reality.
Courts never got to the point of reviewing the evidence since (as I recall) all cases were dismissed on procedural grounds prior to any discovery or evidence being submitted. No standing prior to the election and moot afterwards. Affidavits of poll workers regarding fraud, evidence of signature mis-matches, voters registered at the last minute with non-existent or commercial addresses, 100% of nursing home residents with dementia voting, and information showing the number of votes casts were more than those registered to vote were not even considered in those cases. All that evidence has been ignored.
Because of Covid many counties cast aside state election laws and allowed illegal votes to be counted. Leftists are fine with those illegal votes as long as their party wins. The election fraud allowed in many states is ignored, excused, or called “debunked” because democrats have no problem with violating laws. Democrats are the great law-breakers (Ex. “A” Biden, et al).
This didn’t take long to debunk.
In re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7pm on November 3 2020.
The Trump campaign claimed on November 4 that vote counters in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, had not been properly separating mail ballots that arrived before and after an election-day deadline. To support these claims, they included allegations from a poll watcher who thought he saw 54 late-arriving ballots mixed in with other ballots. A judge dismissed the case at a hearing on November 5, finding “no evidence” that the 54 ballots had in fact arrived late.
Here is another:
Stokke et al v. Cegavske et al
One of the plaintiffs claimed that the use of signature-matching machines meant that a mail ballot had been improperly recorded in their name. A second claimed they were not allowed to observe the count.
At a hearing on November 6, a federal judge noted that the plaintiffs had no evidence to show that the signature-matching machines affected their ballot. The motion for emergency relief was denied because the plaintiffs did not provide “a sufficient legal showing and a sufficient evidentiary basis
Trump is his own worst lawyer, and a bad judge of character to say the least. I mean, who would hire John Bolton (or Pompeo/Barr for that matter) to do anything?
Assuming what you suggest is true – Trump lost all 60 cases in court – that does not address, e.g., Biden, the media and entire U.S. national security/law enforcement establishment (the ‘IC’) dissemination of disinformation. The laptop Did Not have all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. .. and that deception alone could have cost Trump the election, not to mention the publics confidence and faith in the U.S. government writ large.
Why does it matter who appointed the judge. That should make no difference. However, It’s obvious that the leftist progressives believe that judges rule based upon their political beliefs. It must be because that is how democrat appointed judges decide cases. I see so many articles and commenters make an issue of whether a judge is considered Republican or democrat. Why do they think that is so important? Furthermore, since they make a point that the judges were Republicans, it obvious they believe GOP appointed judges are the only ones who rule correctly regardless of their political beliefs. Leftists apparently don’t trust the democrat appointed judges. They know they are usually crooked.
Ultimately, Jack Smith’s case itself is fraudulent because he knows that there is zero evidence to prove that Trump specifically intended to deprive voters of the right to a fair election. Smith’s bogus charges hinge entirely on purported evidence showing Trump knew his claims of election fraud were false. But Smith has no evidence.
Smith argues that Trump “knew” his claims of election fraud were false because certain people told him they were false. But what other people said to Trump doesn’t prove knowledge of anything, other than certain other people said something different from Trump’s own beliefs.
Applying Smithian fake “logic”, Galileo must have lied when he claimed that the Earth was not the center of the Universe because other people and “experts” told Galileo that the Earth was, indeed, the center of the Universe. What other people told Trump about the accuracy of the election results has no bearing on what Trump actually believed.
Additionally, there has never been a competent independent audit of election results to determine the extent and magnitude of fraud in the 2020 election. In fact, Trump’s opponents vigorously fought any such investigations of election fraud from taking place. And they succeeded in the effort to block any investigations into election fraud. Nor have the courts permitted any such investigations to take place, tacitly approving of any election fraud took place, no matter how material theelection fraud. Thus, to this day, we still don’t know the extent or magnitude of election fraud. And Trump’s opponent have nothing to say about the many statistical studies demonstrating that material election fraud did take place, as well as other indicators of fraud.
Moreover, Biden actually did have advance knowledge that election fraud would take place. As he put it, “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” Indeed. Now, Trump’s opponents may attempt–and have attempted–to spin that statement as meaning something other than what Biden actually said. But the statement is suprisingly clear and lucid, especially for Biden. Biden’s Democrat Party has a “voter fraud organization” in place and it’s “extensive” and “inclusive” of various fraud techniques. Biden doesn’t say that the Democrat Party is opposed to voter fraud or even that it cares in the slightest about voter fraud or preventing it because he knows that the opposite is true.
You either missed or blocked out the AP’s post-2020-election investigation of all voter fraud that took place in the 6 battleground states. There were 475 cases of illegal votes cast total, or an average 79 / state. All were acts of individuals voting more than once, many for a recently deceased spouse who had intended to vote a certain way.
Some were done to amplify the individual’s political impact (“vote early and often”).
You can ignore this study if it causes you the slightest cognitive dissonance or other discomfort.
AP didn’t perform an audit of election fraud, nor did they–or do they–have the expertise to an election fraud audit. Nor can their project be considered an “investigation” by any stretch. And AP hasn’t demonstrated the slightest interest in identifying or preventing material voter fraud from taking place. AP is irrelevant to the discussion.
What’s the deal? Why are some Democrats planning on voting for Trump in the Republican Primary Election? Maybe to sabotage the general election. Does anyone know why?
I think that’s correct. And, it shows a major weakness in the Partisan Primary system. If there is no real competition for the Dem nomination, Ds can switch their primary affiliation to cast votes for Trump. They are going with analyses that show how even a weak candidate like Biden could beat Trump in the general.
Biden caught lying about hunter and family receiving money from China, during hearing on t.v. Black and white. Let’s see how long it takes for the compromised B.M. to ignore that fact.
Jack Smith, somebody I have never heard of, is making a big name for himself with these indictments, I think you’ve got to factor that in. Same with Alvin Bragg, I never heard of him either until he indicted Trump on these bogus charges. I think you need to factor this in, that these prosecutors are headline hunting, when you try and inderstand why these bogus charges have been filed by Harvard Law graduates. I only have a Paralegal Cerificate, but I cannot tell you how unimpressed I am with these indictments. They are clearly political in nature, they are also designed to interfere with an election. I didn’t vote for Trump, both times, but I have never understood the extent of the hatred for Trump. It’s very unusual. Trump wasn’t even that much of a conservative, not as conservative as Reagan. Why all this hate? I think this is just a left wing thing, the left is enraged a political figure is standing up to them, a political figure with huge support nationally. The left deserves the wrath of conservative voters because the left supports all these unpopular policies now, open borders, sex changes for children, high energy prices to cut consumption (which do not imapct elites pushing the polices but make working people poorer), deficits that fuel inflation, draconian DEI hiring policies (that violate civil rights), packing the Supreme Court, abortion on demand (paid for by US taxpayers – right up unti the 9th month!). The left, sadly, today doesn’t seem to beleive the US Constution matters any more, as Professor Turley tells us. We must all stick up for our constitutional rights, and the rule of law, most Americans believe in fairness and due process. Jack Smith and Alvin Bragg don’t believe in these things, clearly, which means they – more than Trump – are the dangerous actors. I hope Trump is cleared of all these phony charges. If you don’t like Trump – don’t vote for him, that’s the American way
Calm down. Conservatives control the U.S. Supreme Court for the final word on any appeals.
If Trump’s being persecuted they will overturn lower court rulings or send him to prison if he’s guilty.
ATS, Dennis, Gigi, and Fishlips need to wake up from their wet dreams. Because this is a political prosecution, there will be no conviction. In retrospect, James Comey was 10x smarter than Jack Smith and Bill Barr was 100x smarter than Merrick Garland. They knew that “any reasonable prosecutor would not bring a case against Hillary, because she, just like Trump is indeed “above the law”. IOW, that there was no possibility of obtaining a conviction. In this political climate, who here thinks for one second that the defendants lawyers won’t find a single sycophant in the jury pool (even if Trumps lawyers aren’t successful in convincing the hack lefty judge to grant a change of venue). There will be a hung jury, and the only question that will remain is whether Jack Smith accomplished what he has set out to do, damage Trump in the minds of reasonable voters.
In the Florida case, which has WAY more legitimacy than this one, the outcome should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. Mistrial.
These indictments were not brought in hopes of convicting Trump, the players in charge would have to be dumber than the fearsome foursome this post is addressed to. We all know why they were brought. Careful if you say otherwise, cuz we all know you don’t believe it…thats a crime.
From data reported by Census.gov and FEC.gov: how can anyone determine if there was fraud or not?
Voting in 2020 data from: Census.gov
231,419,670 Voting age
(All numbers below rounded)
168,308,000 reported as registered.
25,782,000 reported not registered.
37,503,000 no response to registration.
154,628,000 reported voted.
40,561,000 reported not voted.
36,404,000 no response to voting.
FEC.gov 158,383,403 million voted.
There were 35 candidates running for president, not including none of these or write-in votes.
Trump: 74,216,154
Biden: 81,268,924
Others: 2,898,325
92% turnout? I don’t think so.
Kind of ironic since Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dissented in United States v. Alvarez. Per Alito: the ruling had “[broken] sharply from a long line of cases recognizing that the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest.”
Turns out the liberals aren’t the only ones to invent ways around the Constitution when it suits them. Alito et al can create an expansive notion of “harm-causing” speech when it suits them.
Jonathan: Sorry, but as I explained in a previous comment, this latest indictment by Jack Smith is not a “threat to free speech”. Apparently you did not read p. 2 of the indictment. Smith makes it clear this case is not about DJT’s exercise of political speech. Smith acknowledges DJT had every right to make false claims about the 2020 election results, he had the right to make that incendiary speech prior to the attack on the Capitol–and he had every legal right to challenge the results in 70 court filings–all of which he lost. The 4-count indictment is not about DJT’s false claims that the election was “stolen” him. It’s about what DJT did, his CONDUCT, after he lost all his court challenges, i.e., the conspiracy to overturn the election by unlawful means.
It appears DJT’s legal team is going to argue “advice of counsel” as a defense. That DJT honestly followed the legal advice of his lawyers. That’s the defense you put forward in your column. John Lauro, one of DJT’s lawyers, has been on Fox arguing his client was entitled to rely on the advice of John Eastman, a supposed constitutional scholar. Eastman pushed the fake elector scheme to replace the duly certified electors with DJT electors–contrary to the clear language of the Constitution. That’s why Eastman is Co-Conspirator 2 in Smith’s indictment.
And DJT was getting a lot of other legal advice contrary to what Eastman was pushing. WH counsel, that DJT should have turned to, told him there was no evidence of widespread “fraud” in the election and that the scheme by Eastman, Giuliani and Sidney Powell was totally bogus. Bill Barr, DJT’s own AG, told him the same thing. Even his political campaign advisors told him he lost thee election. But DJT ignored ignored the advice those he should have listened to and went forward with the conspiracy to overturn the election results. So the defense that DJT was just following the “advice of counsel” will be DOA when it gets to court!
That said, John Lauro, one of DJT’s lawyers, is making his client’s case much worse. Lauro went on Fox yesterday, put his foot in his mouth, and told host Laura Ingram the following: “What President Trump said is, ‘Let’s go with option D,’…Let’s just halt, let’s pause the voting and allow the state legislatures to take one last look and make a determination as to whether or not the elections were handled fairly. That’s constitutional law. That’s not an issue of criminal activity”.
What is wrong with Lauro’s statement and why does it further incriminate his client? Look at p. 34 of the indictment that states: “The Defendant and Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] then asked the Vice President to either unilaterally reject the legislative electors from the seven targeted states, or send the question of which state was legitimate to the targeted states’ legislatures”. So this was an admission by Lauro to the charge in the indictment that his client was engaging in criminal conduct. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits state legislatures to substitute electors. Lauro apparently did not pay attention when he took Constitutional Law! Former DOJ lawyer Andrew Weissman can’t understand why Lauro would make such an admission: “I don’t know why a defense lawyer is going to start giving facts about a critical moment”.
The Q is why would DJT choose a lawyer who goes on TV, makes an admission and demonstrates his utter lack of understanding of the Constitution? The answer is that every really experienced attorney in criminal law and the Constitution has refused to represent DJT–he’s toxic in the world of criminal defense work. But DJT is desperate. He faces court cases all over the country and he has to take anyone who will agree to represent him.
Finally, the reporting is that DJT was really upset with the magistrate who presided over his arraignment yesterday. The judge continually referred to DJT as “Mr. Trump”—not “President Trump”. Sorry, Don, I know it’s a bitter pill to swallow but you are no longer the President.
Dennis – in what way exactly was Trump trying to “overturn” the election? If courts agreed that results in a few states were the result of fraud or other illegal conduct, then the results in those states could have been legally changed. That is what Al Gore was seeking to do in 2000 and no one suggested that he was engaged in a crime. In other words, the only way Trump could have changed the outcome was by using legal means, a point that JT made in his column. And, as another commetator noted below, Trump’s lawsuits were mainly, if not wholly, thrown out on technicalities. Earlier this year, or late last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court AGREED that Trump was correct in his challenge to last-minute changes in that state’s electoral law in 2020. Maybe Jack Smith will prosecute them.
In Gore’s case, Republicans got the Florida recount stopped–because they KNEW it was wrong and Gore would win. We have the Iraq War as a result. He didn’t even get one recount–how many did Trump get? Eastman came up with a plot to circumvent the will of the American electorate: Lie about “fraud”, get Pence to go along and refuse to accept certified votes, return the matter to swing states and tell them that there was fraud (even though you know there wasn’t), and then pressure the Secretaries of State to “find” that Trump won. The plot was completed with falsified Electoral College certificates that were executed by fake electors–and, those people are being prosecuted. The call with Brad Raffensberger to “find 11,780 votes” was part of this scheme. When Raffensberger refused to change the votes, which had already been recounted and checked for fraud, Trump threatened him with criminal prosecution. The “technicalities” you refer to as the reason 60+ lawsuits failed was lack of evidence. Giuliani was repeatedly asked by judges what evidence of fraud he had as a predicate for the lawsuits he filed–his answer was that he filed the lawsuits to “find” the fraud. That won’t fly–dismissal on this grounds is not a technicality. If you don’t have solid evidence to back up your claims in a civil complaint, it will get tossed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted–FRCP Rule 12.
edwardmahl: Here’s my answer to your Q. DJT tried to “overturn” the 2020 election when (1) he tried to intimidate Mike Pence to stop the electoral vote count; (2) when he got his supporters to storm the Capitol to prevent what Pence would not do; (3) when DJT called the Georgia Secy. of State to try to get him to unlawfully change the vote count and (4) when none of that worked DJT conspired with John Eastman and others to unlawfully appoint false electors in the contested states. It’s all in the indictment. Read it.
And you’re wrong on Trump’s legal challenges to the election. He lost all of his 70 court challenges, not because of “technicalities”. Read the judgments in those cases. Not one judge was presented with any credible evidence by DJT’s lawyers that there was enough voter “fraud” to change the election outcome.
And the Al Gore case in 2000 is completely different. Some in Gore’s campaign urged him to go to court to challenge the result of the election. Gore refused and graciously accepted defeat.
In the Wisconsin case I don’t know what you are talking about. In Dec. 2020, in a close 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin SC rejected DJT’s attempt to invalidate 221,323 absentee ballots. This decision after the US SC, in Oct. 2020, declined to change Wisconsin’s voting rules. Is this the case you talking about? If you are you got it all wrong.
So I don’t know where you get your information. But it’s definitely not FACT or EVIDENCE based. You seem to just be regurgitating JT’s talking points and the things you hear on Fox or other right-wing media. That’s sad because you appear to be an intelligent fellow.
D M – here’s a response to your reply.
1) Intimidating Pence. This is what Pence said:
“Former Vice President Mike Pence wrote in his new memoir that former President Donald Trump warned him days before the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol that he would inspire the hatred of hundreds of thousands of people because he was “too honest” to attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.” https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/15/politics/mike-pence-book-trump-january-6/index.html This is not “intimidation.” On the other hand, Sen. Charles Schumer telling a Supreme Court justice that “we know where you live” or warning Trump that the intelligence agences have means of ruining him comes much closer to the description.
2) Storming the Capitol. You know better than this. He reserved space for a demonstration and told his supporters to protest peacefully.
3) Attempting to change votes in Georgia. Once again, you know that this is not true. He is recorded as asking Raffensperger to FIND enough votes to change the result. There are cases where uncounted ballots have been found after elections. The term “find” can also encompass uncovering illegal or fraudulent votes. Al Gore spent two months trying to “find” uncounted or wrongly counted votes is Florida.
4) False electors. They were alternate electors who would take the place of Democratic electors IF election officials in a few states agreed that Trump had actually won the state. In 1960, the Democratic Party appointed alternate electors in case the close election in that state was changed by a recount. Oddly, it was a wise move, because the result was changed from Nixon to Kennedy.
Wisconsin case – I got my facts from the internet. You are correct that Trump’s challenge to how absentee ballots were collected in Wisconsin was turned back by the Wisconsin in 2020 on a 4-3 vote. (Shouldn’t the dissenting judges be prosecuted for endangering democracy?) Last year, in another opinion, one of the judges who voted to reject Trump’s challenge wrote that he believed that Trump had been correct, but there was not enough time to litigate the issue. I believe that statement came in an opinion in a case where the Court held that “most ballot drop boxes aren’t allowed in the state and that a voter can’t have someone else return — in person — their completed absentee ballot on their behalf.” https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1100696685/wisconsin-supreme-court-ballot-drop-boxes-disability-assistance
Thank you for saying I appear to be an intelligent fellow. I may or may not be, but I definitely do not rely on either Donald Trump (whom I did not support for the nomination and would not support now but for the attacks on him) or Fox News (which I don’t watch).
One of the problems, and there are others, with these examples is that Jack Smith kept repeating that what Trump was saying, in being a part of these maneuvers, he knew was false. Fraud requires intent. So in Trump’s state of mind, were these fraudulent electors or alternate electors?
I think Trump knew he lost. But beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Isn’t there at least some doubt in your own mind as to Trump’s mental state? I’m not convinced he is totally attached to reality and is entirely capable of self-delusion in this instance.
As one person who has written about Trump has said: “Does Mr. Trump mean what he says? And what exactly does he mean when he says what he says?” The implication being that he is such a constant con artist that he is fully capable of conning himself.
“DJT tried to “overturn” the 2020 election”
Perfectly legal. There is no crime associated with trying to alter the outcome of an election – especially a rigged one.
“he tried to intimidate Mike Pence to stop the electoral vote count;”
Did he illegally try to extort or bribe Pence ? If not – we are done.
Extrotion and bribery have specific legal meaning.
There is no crime of intimidation – nor can I tell what it is YOU mean by intimidation.
I would suggest rather than vague terms you address SPECIFIC acts.
What exactly did Trump do ?
Everything you do not like – is not a crime.
It is increasingly evident that the 2020 election never should have been certified by Congress.
Had the FBI and DOJ and other Federal agencies not coerced social media – and we have very specific threats made to social media including loss of S302 protection as well as earning the enmity of the FBI, Without those threats the large scale censorship would not have occured. Without the censorshorship it is near certain Biden would have lost.
This election hinged on a total of 45,000 votes in 3 states. It is near certaint hat the Biden corruption scandal would have flipped 45,000 votes in those 3 states. Flipping about 300K votres would have turned the election into a landslide.
Flipping 1M votes would have made this almost Reagan/Mondale.
Polling of Democrats indicates about 10M democrats either would have voted for Trump or not voted at all.
Regardless if 1% of those who SAY they would have voted differently did – the election would have flipped.
Congress should not have certified.
Nor do I think Congress should have certified given the massive illegal ballot harvesting campaign run by democrats – over 2M illegally harvested ballots were counted in just 6 swing states. Ballot harvesting is illegal everywhere in the US except California.
No matter how you vote – You or in a FEW states an immediate family member MUST deliver your ballot.
The TTV expose is far from the only evidence of ballot harvesting. The Wisconsin supreme courtt found massive ballot harvesting TWICE. It concluded that was illegal, but the only remedy was to throw out the election and the WI Supreme court was unwilling to go that far. WI alone likely had 1M harvested ballots counted in the 2020 election.
Of course there have been limited investigfations – because the left has – just as they are doing now – engaged in MASSIVE lawfare campaigns.
You are actually stupidly PROUD of efforts to disbarr attorneies for perfedctly legal work. In GA numerous County DA’s refused to prosecute or even investigate well documented Ballot Harvesting cases – because they were threatened with disbarrment by the GA ABA if they engaged in ANY election fraud prosecutions.
You rant that Guiliani as an example is facing Disbarrment – yet arent we seeing playing out LIVE on TV right now the FACT that unlike the Collusion Delusion the supposed Debunked Biden Ukraine story actually is the TRUTH.
In fract close to universally the debunked conspiracy theories are those of the LEFT.
What is it that John Solomon, or Guiliani or the NYT Reporter who broke the Biden Ukraine corruption story in 2015 Got Wrong ?
In fact – why is it that VP Biden was not being investigated for Public Corruption in 21015 ?
Might that be because the Head oif the public corruption division of the DOJ in 2015 is now the Deputy AG supervising Jack Smith who was an attorney in the Public Corrption devision through the Obama administration ?
I think it is entirely possible that DOJ has ALWAYS known actual public corruption when they saw it and that the prosecution of Trump is because He too knew Public corrption when he saw it and might have had questions about why it was covered up.
Oh and it is coming out that DOJ did consider investitgating Joe Biden for Public Corruption in 2018 but decided not to – because openning a criminal investigation of the presidents chief political rival stinks to high heaven.
” when he got his supporters to storm the Capitol to prevent what Pence would not do”
Youj do understand the massive logic problems in that sentence. How are protestors going to prevent what Pence would not do ?
Regardless, there was very little “storming of the capitol” – There was what was nearly an entirely peaceful protest – except for the various acts of violence preciptated by the capitol Police.
It is the Capitol police that murdered Rose Boylan, it is the capitol police that murdered Alishi Bennet. It was the Capitol Police that tear gassed themselves in the West Tunnel, and then tear gassed the crowd – which is what actually triggered the violence.
We have all seen yout 3 minutes of violence video. Produced by the Democrats in the house – carefully edited, carefully photoshoped to make everything look as evil as possible. We also know there is 41,000 hours of Tame video – video where the CP essentially are conducting tours for protestors.
Absolutely Trump’s supporters came to the capitol in the hopes they could persuade Congress to do what Pence would not – and refuse to certify a rigged election.
And Guess what ? The first amendment gives them the RIGHT to do so.
The right to protest, the right to assemble, the right to free speech and the right to petition government.
So at the core of you garbage case is that Trump inspired protestors to do precisely what the constitution allows them to – and protest rigged elections. In fact they have that right – even if they are Wrong, except they are NOT.
So far what have you been right about ? Anything ? The collusion delusion ? The Biden Syndicate ? Ukraine ? Covid ? Social Media Censorship ? Election rigging ? Anything ?
So far what have those MAGA protestors allegedly enthrall to Trump been right about ? Everything !
So if your argument is going to be based on what is true and what is not – your in very deep do do.
“(3) when DJT called the Georgia Secy. of State to try to get him to unlawfully change the vote count”
There is no “illegally” calling – you keep spicing everything with the work illegal as if adding it makes it true.
Did Trump try to extort or bribe raffensberger ? If not – YOUR DONE.
Trump is perfectly entitled to be angry about a rigged election – and GA was a bloody mess. And frankly Raffensberger F#$K’d up royally. I would note that Raffensberger Promised many things regarding election integrity and investigations – both prior to the election and after, and in nearly all instances HE LIED. He promised a manual audit – That did not happen.
He promissed a signature audit of Fulton County – instead he delivered a very tiny signature audit of a different county and when that turned up more than enough Fraud (and 10 times as much error) as necescary to flip the election Raffensberger burried it and ran as fast as possible. A signature audit of Fulton county would have resulted in minimally 6,000 fraudulent votes and more than 50000 ballots that should have been rejected – that is almost 10 times what would be needed to flip GA – and all in ONE county. And that of course presumes that the error and fraud rates in Fulton county – the WORST county for those in GA where the same as the error and fraud rates found in the audit of the most affluent democratic county in GA.
So you actually want to Argue that Trump can’t get on the phone and ream out Raffensberg ?
Did Trump try to extort or Bribe Raffensberg – illegal is NOT just what you do not like.
It is not a crime to rant about the outcome of an election. It is especially not a crime to rant about the outcome of a RIGGED election.
And most people not on the far left actually understand that. Stacy Abrams is not in the penn for life.
Because she did not commit any crimes – that we know of – neither Did Trump.
Trump was president of the United states – not the govenor of GA. He has no power or authority over the GA Sec. State.
Whether you like it or not people are allowed to get angry. throw a hissy fit, make demands – that is not a crime.
You throw hissy fits all the time. Should we be fitting you for an orange jump suit ?
“when none of that worked DJT conspired with John Eastman and others to unlawfully appoint false electors in the contested states. It’s all in the indictment. Read it.”
I have – not a crime in it anyway.
You can SAY unlawfull as frequently as you want. IT does not change anything.
With respect to certifying an election – Congress can constitutionally do whatever it wants. It can make laws dictating how it will certify the election and it can completely disregard those laws. Trump can demand they do things differently. And congress can listen, or it can ignore him – whichever they choose. No matter what – AGAIN absent actual bribery – you know like taking money from Russian oligarchs to kill investigations, or like extortion – threatening to cut of a billion dollars in aide there is no crime in throwing a hissy fit or ranting. And what is a “false elector” ? If a state legislature sends electors, they are REAL, and if congress accepts them they are real. Again you do not seem to grasp that the constitution dictates the rules – and it pretty muich gives state legislatures free reign at their end, and congress free reign at its end. And OH BTW this happened before – and the electors were accepted OPPS. Reality bites. It is usually a pretty good bet that you are off engaged in politically corrupt LAWFARE, when what you are trying to prosecute has never been prosecuted before – despite actually happening before.
“And you’re wrong on Trump’s legal challenges to the election. He lost all of his 70 court challenges, not because of “technicalities”.”
Of course he lost on “technicalities” – Read the actual basis for dismissal. Standing is a technicality, Laches is a technicality, mootness is a technicality.
Can you name a SINGLE election challenge where discovery was allowed ? Where there was an evidentiary hearing ?
You can not dismiss a case on the merits without allowing discovery and holding hearings. questioning witnesses, cross examining them. Anything less than that is legal “technicalities”. ALWAYS.
Some of those “technicalities” – have merit in SOME cases. But NONE of them actually speek to the merits of a claim – and editorial comments by judges who have NOT allowed discovery, heard witnesses, overseen cross examination, and seen evidence presented is not worth the paper it is written on.
And guess what – most of the country actually understands that.
The FACT is the very court cases you cite ARE the problem. In many instances the courts dismissed the same challenges BEFORE the election – as premature and then after the election as too late. Most people grasp that is corrupt.
Regardless, the courts were universally complicit in getting sucked in to democratic lawfare efforts to use Covid as an excuse to conduct a lawless election. And then when it blew up in their faces, they covered their asses by making sure no case actually got to a hearing.
Regardless, your argument seems to be – “see the courts said we got away with it”.
While there was plenty of evidence of corruption in the fall of 2020 – there is mountains more today.
It has been RPOVEN beyond ALL doubt – that the left RIGGED the election by unsing the government to violate the first amendment rights of millions of people in order to get Biden elected.
There is ZERO doubt that occured – more recently – Facebook finally dumped their equivalent of the Twitter Files on congress,
and if anything it is worse. We have left wing nut Twitter executives RESISTING government efforts at censoring them – but ultimately capitulating. In some instances it appears they even KNEW that FBI/DOJ/ alphabet agencies were LYING to them.
Again Falsus in unum falsus in omnibus.
You, Democrats, the left, the Biden campaign, the DOJ the FBI have been CAUGHT lying and actually ILLEGALLY rigging an election . And now you want to pretend that the OTHER means by which you ALSO rigged the election – they did not really happen.
A jury is free to decide that when a defendant is Perjured themselves about ONE thing, that they are lying about others. Even ALL others. Those of you on the LEFT have LIED about pretty much EVERYTHING.
There is no good reason you should be beleived about ANYTHING.
With respect to WI – given that YOU can not accurately describe the cases you are refering to I can not tell you if they are the same cases.
the WI supreme court has TWICE found that actually election fraud occured in 2020 – on a large scale.
It also found in the same cases that there was no remedy. That is finding FOR Trump but refusing to give him what he wants at the same time.
It is like finding that an error in a trial that resulted in an aquital was decided WRONGLY, but that double jeophardy STILL prevents retrying the defendent.
The WI supreme court TWICE found that WI had violated the WI election laws in very serious ways that would have effected far more than enough votes to flip the election. But that while they had the power to scold the WI executive and tell them neve3r to let that happen again, they had no power to throw out possibly millions of votes.
Which is ALWAYS the problem with large scale election fraud.
The courts are presented with the choice of disenfranchising millions of people who legitimately voted for a candidate – because thousands of ballots for that candidate are fraudulent and there is no means to tell the fraudulent ballots from the legitimate ones.
Or in the alternate disenfranchising the millions of voters who voted for the ACTUAL winning candidate but whose votes are essentially wiped out because thousands of fraudulent ballots were counted.
There is no remedy for large scale election fraud. That is why it MUST be prevented BEFORE the fact.
That is why all the things democrats have gone lawless on – mailin voting. signature verification, voter id, unattended ballot boxes, balloot harvesting are generally not fixable AFTER the election.
YOU lawlessness – in 2020 and since has corrupted our elections and the consequence is that trust in elections is the lowest it has been since the 19th century when Fraud was rampant.
It is NOT all that hard to conduct an election that people can Trust. Take pretty much everything Democrats want to do – and DO NOT do that.
Vote in person on election day with voter ID and paper ballots, at precincts with less than 15,000 voters each, hand count ballots in public and do so by midnight on election day or your results are not counted.
Doing elections right is NOT hard. Jimmy carter has managed to do it in some of the shittiest places int he world.
Your unwillingness to get out of your couch and come to the polls is NOT an excuse for corrupt elections.
You rant because Trump tried to “influence” raffensberger. Who tried to influence You when you voted by Mail ?
Who saw your ballot ? Who threatened you with the loss of a job, or violence, ot the loss of benefits ? Wo offered you many for voting as they wished ? Who showed up at your door to “help” you vote ?
Secret ballot elections – required by 38 US state constitutions, including EVERY SINGLE swing state bar elections in which there is even the possibility that someone can threaten you or pay you for your vote. Why ? Because that is corrupt, because that is fraud, and because it was routine in the 19th century.
There are 4 requirements that must be met to comply with the “secret ballot” requirement of 38 US states.
an official ballot being printed at public expense,
on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
being distributed only at the polling place and
being marked in secret.
This was NOT met in PA, WI, AZ, NV, GA, MI in 2020 (or 2022), it can not be met by mailin voting.
It can be met by actual “absentee voting” – this is another of the word games of the left – WI and PA and several other states CALL their Mailin voting schemes “Absentee Voting” – they are not. Absentee voting requires you to come to a county election office prior to election day and to vote in the equivalent of a voting booth in that election office.
Some states like WI also allow Election offials to come to YOU with a ballot, where THEY assure that you voted in secret, YOU seal your ballot and give it to them – still meeting all the secret ballot requirements. Most states have also allowed military ballots and overseas voting – where again the voter comes to either a US consulate or a Military elections office and fills out and seals their ballots Their in front of deputized election officials.
That is what Absentee voting legally means. Mailin Voting is NOT absentee voting – even if your state engages in left wing nut 1984 orwellian word games.
Lets make this easy:
Did Trump tell Raffensberger – “Do what I ask or you are losing $1B in Federal aide” – As Joe Biden did in Ukraine
Did Trump tell Raffensberger – “Do as I ask and I will deposit $5M into your families Bank accounts” – As with Joe Biden in Ukraine ?
it is pretty easy to tell when somethjing changes from righteous or unrighteous anger into an actual crime.
The Supreme court has a free speech standard for alleged Threats – though there is no evidence trump has threatened anyone.
Regardless a threat must be specific, it must be immediate, it most be within the power of the person issuing it and it must be credible.
Every single one of those criteria are met by Joe Biden’s threats to Ukraine.
Not ONE of those criteria are met with either Trump’s call to Zelensky or Trump’s call to Raffensberg.
Extortion must meet the same criteria. Bribery requires inducement.
Burisma induced the Biden’s into abusing US powers vested in VP Biden – though the more we learn – The Biden racketteering scheme has atleast as Much extortion as inducement.
Something is not a crime just because you do not like it. Something is not a crime – because you repeatedly use the word illegal.
Another relevant question regarding ACTUAL criminal conduct is does the party you are alleging to have committed a crime have the actual power to get what they demand ?
Does Trump have actual legal power over Raffensberger ?
Does Trump have power over Congress ?
No!
Did VP Biden have the power to deny Ukraine $1B in US aide ? Yes
Congress can certify or not certify an election as they please and there is nothing Trump or anyone else can do about that except vote them out.
Without evidence of bribery or extortion – there is NOTHING to Smith’s indictment, because the acts Smith is alleging are LEGAL.
And protected speech under the first amendment.
Legally, there is a smell here that doesn’t pass the test. I am satisfied this indictment was brought because of the breaking and entering at the Capital. It wouldn’t have been brought otherwise. Yet is has nothing to do with that. That means duplicity is afoot.
It is very easy to argue that the intent you have as far as Trump is concerned is a guy stretching legislative and legal forums as far as he can, and as far as an aggressive lawyer will do for him. Some might call it “gaming” the system. It depends on your point of view. But Trump’s intent was to stay within the system. And ultimately, he didn’t get his way.
He didn’t assassinate Pence and name a new Vice-President who would do as he asked. Nor would he have encouraged violence if Pence had tried to do as he asked and failed.
If the Capital had never been breached, and it had been reported that Trump had made this request of Pence, is there anyone who is going to argue with a straight face that Trump would have been indicted for that?
He is being indicted because the Capital was breached — which has absolutely nothing to do with the indictment.
Trump was indicted for a plot cooked up by John Eastman–trying to get Pence to refuse the certified votes, which he thought would cause the votes to get sent back to swing states where Republican legislatures would invalidate them and declare that he was the winner–all without any evidence of fraud. The call to Raffensberger was part of the plot–demanding that he “find” just enough votes to declare Trump the winner. There were calls to other SOSs as well. They had slates of fake electors who not only signed certificates saying Trump won, but they sent them to the National Archives. These people face felony charges. None of this has anything to do with breaching the Capitol, but everything to do with Trump’s massive ego and narcissism. He just couldn’t lose.
Well Gigi, massive ego and narcissism aren’t in dispute.
But legally your “plot” has some hurdles in its way. At what point do aggressive legal or legislative maneuvers become “plots” — whatever you mean by the term? And in addition to that, even if you have a case against Eastman, that does not carry over to his client, who relies on his lawyer’s advice.
This “plot” of yours involved nary a shot being fired or for that matter any activity that would have involved anything other than either a series of court findings or series of votes — none of which took place. So this “plot” seems to have involved a recognition of judicial and legislative limits. Nothing was advocated that would have taken place outside of those venues.
“I am satisfied this indictment was brought because of the breaking and entering at the Capital. It wouldn’t have been brought otherwise.” Wow, you are gullible. They also screamed Russia Russia Russia for three years and that was a lie. And they knew it all along. They lied about everything Covid-related: it’s origin, masks, lockdowns, social distancing, expected death rate, deaths from Covid-only, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, the effectiveness of the “vaccines”, boosters, and the myocarditis, strokes, heart attacks, and deaths caused by the jab.
Wake up. It’s all about control and power.
I appreciate the Russia Hoax. But Russians taking over the country is a nice dramatic theme that gets press. This business got the wind in its sails because people actually got inside the Capital and stopped the certification. I think as long as the vote had gone off without incident, I don’t see this matter having a lot of political juice. And I think D.O.J. looks for other things to occupy its time.
told him there was no evidence of widespread “fraud” in the election
Very few have made the claim of “wide spread” fraud in the election. That is the strawman logical fallacy you invent in order to avoid outright lies.
“Finally, the reporting is that DJT was really upset with the magistrate who presided over his arraignment yesterday. The judge continually referred to DJT as “Mr. Trump”—not “President Trump”. Sorry, Don, I know it’s a bitter pill to swallow but you are no longer the President.”
Disdain for decorum and norms. Mark of a biased sycophant.
The judge continually referred to DJT as “Mr. Trump”—not “President Trump”. Sorry, Don, I know it’s a bitter pill to swallow but you are no longer the President.”
The President of the United States retains the honorific of ‘President’ after leaving office.
That is the proper decorum.
As is usual, the leftist judge is acting like a jerk…just because she can.
Jack Smith will go down in history as a useful idiot.
Trump will end up behind bars. Period
Wally
Want to put your money where your big fat mouth is?
‘wally’ is a basic troll, just hit and run gibberish he cant defend.