Below is my column in The Hill on how the second indictment of Donald Trump could fail even if Special Counsel Jack Smith could prove that the former president knew that he was lying after the election. Proving his state of mind will be controversial, but, even if successful, it would not necessarily be determinative in the constitutional challenges to come.
Here is the column:
The latest federal indictment of former President Donald Trump was handed down this week with all of the authority of papal infallibility. Pundits lined up to proclaim that case as the greatest prosecution in history.
Former Obama administration acting Solicitor General Neil Katyal even declared that the indictment touched off “the biggest legal case in our lifetimes, perhaps almost ever. It’s up there with cases like Dred Scott, it is up there with Brown v. Board of Education.” What was missing was any serious consideration of the implications of allowing the government to criminalize false statements in a campaign.
Trump was not charged with conspiracy to incite violence or insurrection. Rather, he was charged because he “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.”
In order to secure convictions for this, Special Counsel Jack Smith would need to bulldoze through not just the First Amendment but also existing case law holding that even false statements are protected.
The government acknowledges that the Constitution protects false statements made in campaigns, but it insists that Trump must have known that his statements were false and therefore was engaged in fraudulent statements to obstruct or challenge electoral results.
As a threshold matter, one problem is immediately evident. If Trump actually did (or does) believe that he did not lose the election, the indictment collapses. And so in an effort to demonstrate his knowledge, the indictment details how many people told Trump that he was wrong about the election and wrong about the law. I was one of those voices. Trump did not listen to me, most legal analysts or even his White House counsel. Instead, he listened to a small group of lawyers who assured him that a challenge might succeed and that there was evidence of massive election fraud.
But Trump is allowed to seek out enablers who tell him what he wants to hear. All presidents do this. (Joe Biden, for example, ignored virtually unanimous legal opinion and relied upon a single law professor’s say-so to justify an obviously unconstitutional executive action that later had to be reversed).
This case, which criminally targets the sitting president’s leading opponent, is much more dangerous because it sets up the federal government as the arbiter of truth.
This indictment essentially charges Trump with not accepting the “truth.” There is no limiting principle to this indictment. The government would choose between which politicians are lying and which are lying without cause.
Under our current understanding of free speech, Democrats ranging from Hillary Clinton to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) were engaged in protected speech when they called Trump illegitimate and challenged the certification of his win, even though they knew that their challenges were completely meritless. Yet this indictment suggests that Trump engaged (and indeed still engages) in criminal conduct by insisting that the 2020 election was stolen. Presumably, it also follows that tens of millions of Americans holding that same view are also involved in spreading the same false claims underlying the indictment.
Smith could still secure the cooperation of insiders to support a claim that Trump knew. Many of us have noted the sudden silence of former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and a couple of former Trump lawyers who do not appear to be among the six referenced criminal co-conspirators. One of those six could also flip and say that Trump said that this was all an undeniable but useful sham.
Yet even assuming Trump knew his claims were false, there would still remain the controversial effort to link his false claims to the actions of others in challenging the election. And even then, there remains the constitutional problem of criminalizing political lies.
In the 2012 decision United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies in a case involving a politician who had knowingly lied about his military decorations.
Some of us in the free speech community heralded that decision as correct long before Trump was even a consideration for the presidency. The court recognized that criminalizing false statements “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.”
What was most striking about the case was that Xavier Alvarez knew he was lying about the medals. A 6-3 majority, including every liberal justice on the court at that time, ruled that Congress had gone too far in attempting to criminalize lies about one’s military service.
Likewise, Trump might have known that his claims of systemic voter fraud were bogus, yet still believed that a recount could flip the close result. This might be what he meant in his call with Georgia officials in which he stated “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”
So even assuming that Smith can prove Trump lied, there would still be constitutional barriers to criminalizing his false statements. That is why the threshold constitutional claims in this indictment should be addressed by the courts before it goes forward.
The problem could come down to the judge. Even liberal pundits admit that Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who has used past Jan. 6 cases to vent, is the “worst [judge] Trump could have got.”
Chutkan could effectively certify the deeper constitutional questions and let the parties seek appellate review. Or she could insist that Trump be tried before the constitutional questions are considered. Although the D.C. Circuit is not a friendly court to Trump, the Supreme Court would likely balk at the criminalization of false political speech.
That would mean that Chutkan could force a case to be tried that should not be tried. And even with a conviction, there would remain a serious threshold constitutional question that is not entirely answered by determining what was in the mind of Donald Trump.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University.
There was an interesting point made by Olson over at CATO that Turley hasn’t devoted attention to and it would be interesting to see his take on it. Olson notes with regard to the Alvarez case:
“You … have a constitutional right to lie about your war record… Yet lying about that same war record to obtain government benefits can be made a crime without controversy.”
The indictment links Trumps lies to actions he took with regard to the replacement of electors. Assuming you can show Trump’s state of mind and that he was lying, then Turley needs to explain how the replacement of fake electors is somehow different from fraudulently obtaining government benefits.
getting elected is not a government benefit. The answer is right there in your question
This is a legal question that assumes you can show Trump’s state of mind. That he knew he was lying. So it isn’t a matter of getting elected. He knows he wasn’t elected in Turley’s hypothetical. Fake electors are fraud. Improper government benefits are fraud. So Turley is obligated to write a bit more about the case law on fraud.
Asserting that something is true without evidence, or with weak evidence, as part of an argument seeking to persuade a government official or legislator to take action as part of an election challenge is the exercise of free speech in a petition for redress protected by the first amendment. It is nothing more than an unsupported or poorly supported argument. There is no other conduct involved. The petitioner is not seeking to deprive another of his property or entitlement otherwise than by asking for an adjudication by the officials or legislators empowered to decide. It makes no difference what the state of mind of the person making the argument is. And to help line up alternative electors in case the argument succeeds has precedent and has never before been considered a crime.
Yes. That’s a real problem. The fraud statutes do not envision “fraud” to be applied in this manner.
You have another hurdle as well. Let’s say you allow for this unusual notion of legal statutory fraud. The statutes require the defendant knowingly violates them. The very fact that they are being used in a way in which they have not been used before makes that unlikely — particularly when the defendant is relying on the advice of counsel.
Somebody handed me this one:
“It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.”
Hammerschmidt v. United States
That case involved references to an earlier case where people conspired with and bribed an official to give them non-public government-prepared information about the agricultural market from which they expected to benefit. Hardly similar to merely making arguments with non-existent or weak evidence, to an official with the power to act, in a challenge to an election.
In Hammerschmidt itself the court found that there was no fraud and distinguished the earlier case.
As a last caveat and inquiry, I cannot help but notice that you have referred to this in ways that are outside the bounds of Turley’s hypothetical. We don’t have someone asserting something is true with no evidence or weak evidence. We have someone who is knowingly asserting something he knows to be false. He makes these knowingly false statements to create the appointment of electors in states he knows he lost. So he isn’t engaging in an election challenge within any sensible meaning of the term. He knows the electors are invalid. Yet he works to get their votes approved as opposed to the others.
Take dead voters as an example. Assume Trump knew he was wrong about the number, but asserted it anyway. Since the number was wrong, there could be no evidence or only weak evidence supporting it (I am assuming no records were falsified). From the perspective of the official making the decision, what Trump believed about the assertion is irrelevant. All that matters is the quality of the evidence supporting it. In the absence of persuasive evidence officials will reject claims. That is what happened.
The only conspiracy that arguably existed was to make arguments to officials and legislators about the recorded results of the election using information known to be false. That falls within the first amendment rights to speak and petition.
Trump defenders keep overlooking the fact that Trump said, long before Election Day, that the “only way” he could lose is if his “victory” was stolen through fraud.This is despite the fact that all polls predicted he would lose–he was setting the stage for the insurrection. Trump took a victory lap at 2:00 a.m. after Election Day, because he and Giuliani decided to just claim he won, even though the vote counting wasn’t complete. When he took his victory lap,Trump knew he was way behind, and getting more and more behind as mail and absentee ballot counts were coming in–which is something he was told would happen. He did have a veteran election consultant who explained this to him–but he didn’t want to hear it. And, there could be absolutely NO grounds–reasonable or unreasonable– to claim fraud even before the results were complete. What if he HAD won somehow? Does anyone believe that he would still claim fraud? Another teeny little inconvenient fact: when Trump and his supporters claim that “dead people” convicted felons, illegals and others not quallified to vote had voted anyway–who’s to say that all such votes went for Biden? There was only a handful of such instances alleged–nowhere near enough to affect the outcome, and in one of them, a man cast his father’s mail ballot right after he died–turns out that he voted for Trump. There were a few other instances in which someone alive cast their absentee ballot and then died before Election Day–that’s not fraud. These irregularities only came to light with audits long after Trump claimed “victory”, so he can’t rely on this to claim he really believed he won.
The fake elector scheme wasn’t a fight that ended in court. Consciously ignoring that is willful ignorance.
You continually say “in case the argument succeeds” but fail to acknowledge that only NM and PA had this contingent language. How can you justify the fake certifications that violate the Electoral Count Act and fail to include the contingent language?
Let me guess. Yet again you will fail to respond.
The votes of the alternative electors could only have become effective if Pence or Congress had been persuaded they were valid. It doesn’t matter what conditions were written into the submissions. Neither Pence nor Congress was persuaded.
Sorry but that is not how legal documents work.
To make the fake elector certificates effective only if Congress / Pence are “persuaded”, then they need conditional language that includes this trigger. Or they would need to state a certain other date on which they would become effective in the future. Otherwise, they are immediately effective.
In other words, it absolutely does matter “what conditions were written into the submissions.” Unsurprisingly the words on the legal documents do matter. At least here in the USA. What jurisdiction do you think operates differently?
The votes of the alternative electors could only have been counted if Pence and/or Congress had found them valid. If they did not find them valid, they would not count. It’s not complicated.
Where on the fake elector certifications does it say that they are only “duly elected” if Pence and/or Congress had found them valid?
Seriously, you are making this stuff up now? If it doesn’t say that, how are you able to proclaim that from on high? Where is your evidence of this qualification to their effectiveness? And why were they submitted to the US Archivist BEFORE January 6th?
No matter how many times you repeat this, it is isn’t reality. Unless you can show me where these fake documents make this qualification. Yet again, I am guessing you will not have the evidence to back up your ridiculous claim.
Sorry but that’s not how legal documents work. For them to be conditionally effective upon acceptance by Congress, they need language to that effect in the documents themselves. They did not include such language.
Do you have some authority to vote to the fact that a legal document’s effectiveness can be conditioned upon an event occurring which is not specified in the document?
The certs were fake and they became effective when they were signed. This effectiveness is completely independent of whether pence or congress approved of them.
If you disagree, please show me where in a cert (other than PA and NM) where their effectiveness was in any way limited. Otherwise you are just making this stuff up over and over and over again.
Fake electors are fraud. Improper government benefits are fraud.
Alternate electors were readied if fraudulent votes were thrown out. Not a crime.
You have not identified a monetary or something of monetary value (gold, diamonds) SCOTUS has made that clear shutting down the DoJ expansive definition of ‘benefit’
You keep assuming Smith and Garland are operating in good faith. History shows they are both corrupt.
Alvarez literally gives the example of securing employment. What would Trump’s job title be if he defrauded the public to win the election?
Oh wait, the President!
In later rulings SCOTUS has found the benefit had to be money or something easily monetized, (gold).
What case limits it to money or assets?
Well it’s Turley’s hypothetical, not mine. Under his hypothetical there aren’t any fraudulent votes to be thrown out. The electors are to be replaced even though Trump knows he lost. “Proving a lie won’t necessarily secure a conviction” i.e. let’s say Smith can show Trump knew he was lying. And I am simply stating that if you are going to write an article assuming that, you should spend some time on the fraud statutes and why they should be discounted.
I haven’t written a word in support of the indictment or Garland. I hate to sound holier than thou. It’s a rarity given my mistakes.
But in matters Trump, I haven’t been like 90 plus percent of the electorate taking a position within minutes after an announcement. I won’t have a position on this indictment for weeks.
Getting to be President when you were not elected and the salary and power that goes along with it is the ultimate government benefit.
So Joe Biden then??
Forming an alternate slate of electors is not a crime.
Falsifying documents certainly is
nothing was falsified
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/january-6-clearinghouse-nara-records-regarding-invalid-alternate-slate-elector-21-0174-FOIA.pdf
Yes, they were fake. They made attestations that were not true.
The DOJ indictment of Trump says that he “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.”
Independent of whether Trump lied, however, there is nothing in the Constitution or case law that prohibits a politician from spreading lies unless he uses those lies to intentionally or recklessly incite violence.
When looking for someone to blame for instigating violence January 6, 2021, a good place to start might be the hundred or so undercover federal agents and assets in the crowd that day.
I am soooooo happy that the good Professor took the time and courage to put to printed word his overview of both this and the other article’s topic, “Speech-as-conduct.” Just a single switch-around of two letters in his name would result in “Jonathan Truley (sic).”
In my own simple way, I only add as follows:
(1) From day one–before it was even an issue,- I always inferred that Trump, in his “speech” to Georgia’s Gov. Kemp, was merely saying, “Hey, I’m not asking you to spend thousands of dollars and man-hours on finding fraudulent votes, I only need you to find 11,781 of them.” I saw this comment as no more, no less, and as JT meaningfully points out, Trump didn’t say “invent” or “create” votes. (Trump’s threats of criminality to Kemp were more inappropriate, but nonetheless, hardly criminal, IMO.)
(2) All this talk about “stolen election” and whether Trump “knew” he lost the election… Of course he “knew” that he lost—–according to the official vote count.
But, (whether I like Trump or not), I truly believe that he did not believe that Biden won fair and square. All of his “speech-as-conduct” efforts must be viewed accordingly.
(3) As pertinent to (2) above, I do not believe prosecutors will honestly be able to show that either his speech or conduct rise to the level of culpable “intent” enumerated in prior SCOTUS decisions ( Glasser, Hammerschmidt), e.g., “deviousness, trickery, chicanery, dishonesty,” etc. JT has brought up the Ramirez case, but I believe those other cases are more relevant. I simply infer that Trump was desperately stabbing at whatever he could to find and expose wrongdoing. Sure, he could believe that the official vote count made Biden the president, but does that mean that he intended to negate those results by “deviousness, trickery, chicanery, dishonesty?????”
(I also believe, as Estovir summarily commented yesterday, that it was not so much illegal voting or illegal vote-counting, but more of media and political propaganda/twisting of truth, to turn voters away from Trump and hide Biden’s wrongdoing, that swung the vote).
(4) As some have pointed out, sending “alternate” electors forward, —ready to go in the event of exposed wrongdoing by Democrat/Biden operatives—-, was not, in and of itself, indicative of criminality and has been done before. After it happened in 1876, the Electoral Counting Act of 1887 kind of changed any conflict or objection to electoral votes by now requiring that disputes be made in writing by a member of the House or Senate, followed by adjournment and meeting of both Houses of Congress to either agree with or dismiss the objection.
Therefore, since VP Pence was serving as President of the Senate, could he have objected to the counting of certain states’ counts/electors until pending allegations were resolved following adjournment and deliberations? It appears that this is what Trump was asking for, -however inarticulately.
It has always appeared to me as a bit strange that the Constitution would take the time to convey Pence’s role (president of Senate) as merely perfunctory or ceremonial? I think this is unanswered, among other ambiguous and equivocal language in the Electoral Counting Act. While Trump may have “pressured” Pence to hold up the final vote as President of Senate, Trump did not wrongfully order him to do so, or deviously trick him into doing so. I believe this to be an unsettled area of law.
(5) Finally, while I do not like Trump’s personality (who does?), I do believe that he genuinely loves America in all its glory, and wanted to contain/expose those who would prostitute the country’s long-held beliefs and tenets. I also believe that Trump believed he was right. But I am reminded of someone who once said, “I know what you believe and wanted, but you have a funny way of showing it.”
I am surprised by Pence–it would have been much more professional and diplomatic to say nothing (except as required in honest testimony) –but not on the campaign trail, where he could simply address queries from voters by saying, “I testified truthfully.” Instead, I think Pence dishonored his role by subsequently using this conflict to save his own tusche and promote his own candidacy for president (longshot as it is.) Funny how people always step on each other to get to the top, eh?
I apologize for the length of this and thanks for letting me express my thoughts on this forum.
I agree, Lin. Good comment.
I apologize for the length of this and thanks for letting me express my thoughts on this forum.
The majority of us come here for Professor Turley’s legal analysis. > 90% of the comments however are not worthy of being read so we scroll. I refer to GIGO. When it comes to legal analysis, few commenters are qualified to contribute except a handful like you (and Daniel). I for one would like legal minds like you to teach non-lawyers like me to look at cases from different angles. So, if in the spare moment, you can contribute while wearing your legal thinking cap, please do.
Much obliged
Hello Estovir: (ran to do some errands before the rains started.)
As to the two cases I cited, neither is directly on point (nor others, e.g. Tanner, Dennis, etc.), in that the factual scenarios and issues are disparate. But I simply opined that the Glasser and Hammerschmidt cases, while not actually instructive, may at least be influential in their reasoning:
“Depriving the United States of lawful governmental functions by dishonest means is a “defrauding” within the meaning of
§ 37 of the Criminal Code. “ (Glasser, 315 U.S. 60 at 66)
“To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane, or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.” (Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. 182 at 188.)
The (above) “overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention” clause bothered me a bit (as relating to Trump wanting Pence to hold things up). But in my brief perusal of cases, I found none that address whether Pence, acting as president of the senate, would not have his own ability to raise objection to certain states’ votes–for the purpose of further adjournment and deliberations by House and Senate to resolve the merits of the objection, as outlined in the Electoral Counting Act. Just my musings.
I haven’t visited cases or thought about the issue since, -being quite sidetracked by the wrath of thunder and lightning outside, but I don’t believe Providence is punishing me for my views, as we really need the rain, ha ha.
But in my brief perusal of cases
Excellent. You have the skill to peruse legal cases. I wouldn’t know where to start, know how to accurately understand them. I know my strengths and legaleeze isnt one of them. Thank you so much!
(oops, I meant Alvarez, not Ramirez. -And (grammatical), “either his speech or conduct riseS…”) (I need to read my own comments before posting. apologies and thanks.)
Agreed, lin. Especially this paragraph: “It has always appeared to me as a bit strange that the Constitution would take the time to convey Pence’s role (president of Senate) as merely perfunctory or ceremonial? I think this is unanswered, among other ambiguous and equivocal language in the Electoral Counting Act. While Trump may have “pressured” Pence to hold up the final vote as President of Senate, Trump did not wrongfully order him to do so, or deviously trick him into doing so. I believe this to be an unsettled area of law.”
Does the 1887 Act meet Constitutional muster is another valid question. Put another way, does the Constitution delegate to Congress the *power* to make electoral decisions not specifically addressed in the 12th Amendment such as, challenges to electoral votes in dispute and can the President of the Senate further challenge one or more states electoral submissions for review? Without a new Amendment that clarifies these and another concerns not defined in the 12th, and without SCOTUS having been asked for it’s opinion, it appears that Congress overstepped it’s authority 136 years ago.
Lin: let’s begin at the beginning, shall we? Let’s look at Trump: did he have a reputation as a decent, respectable person, admired by others when he decided he needed the power, attention and adulation of the United States Presidency? NO! In addition to being sent to a military academy because he kept getting kicked out of one private school after another for bullying, he had a terrible reputation in New York: the spoiled brat son of a man who made his money on the government by building cheaply-constructed housing for returning GIs after WWII. Daddy bailed him out of one financial mess after another until dementia required his finances to be managed by a guardian–and, that’s when the bankruptcies started–6 of them, including 2 casinos. He was successfully sued for racial discrimination in housing and entered into a consent decree, something he continues to lie about–claiming he “won”–when he agreed to the violations and a remedial plan. He burnished reputation as a cheater in business–requiring people who sold goods and services to sue him for payments–thousands of times. He achieved fame for being a flashy attention-hog, a womanizer and a fake “self-made boy-wonder billlionaire”, when, in reality, most of the income he obtains is from a trust set up by his Daddy. The projects he developed bleed red ink, which is why he has to keep borrowing money to stay afloat. He is despised in his home town for these and other things, including reneging on the agreement to save iconic bas relief art nuveau sculptures and nickel gratework from the Bon Wit Teller building that he tore down to build his gold palace, complete with gold toiltets. He consistently lied about the size of his apartment, about his finances (to get on the Forbes List as one of the wealthiest people) and his fake “foundation” was shut down by the NY AG because he was using it as a slush fund instead of for charitable purposes, and his “contributors” were taking tax deductions to which they were not entitled. These are just some of the highlights.
1. NO ONE in their right mind would construe Trump’s call to Raffensberger as a “speech”–he demanded that votes he knew he didn’t get be awarded to him anyway–just one tick over Biden’s vote count–claiming he “won” by “a lot” and that Raffensberger “knew” it. Nothing he said to Raffensberger could reasonable be twisted into: “I think mistakes were made, so please review the accuracy of the vote totals”. Other than Trump’s infinite ego, there were no grounds for any reasonable person to believe that Trump had won or that so many swing states got their counts wrong, or that fraud was involved. NOTICE: it’s only the swing state votes Trump is challenging–if the evil Left had “fixed” the election, why would they only use swing states? The vote totals had been checked and rechecked already–there were NO votes to “find”–the results were accurate. And, Raffensberger wasn’t the only SOS he tried to bully into misrepresenting the results of the vote–it happened in other swing states. And, he backed up his request for Raffensberger to commit fraud with the threat of criminal prosecution. All of this was part of the plot–after Pence rejected the certified vote totals, the certifications were supposed to be returned to swing states for “reconsideration”–bullying Raffensberger, among other SOSs, was to get them to award enough votes to throw the election to Trump, even though he lost, and even though they would have to falsify the vote counts in order to pull this off. None of the SOSs went for it–because they understand that their oath was to the Constitution of the US and their individual states. Plus they respected the will of their electorate. Along with this plot was the fake electors signing false Electoral College Certificates that said Trump won–falsifying election records is a felony.
2. You say: “I truly believe that he did not believe that Biden won fair and square. All of his “speech-as-conduct” efforts must be viewed accordingly.” What you, as a delusional disciple of Cult 45 “believe” is irrelevant–your statement proves you “believe” the BS Turley and alt-right media are shoveling–so that’s what they’ll keep on doing. According to a poll last week, most Americans believe Trump committed crimes. When you view the character of Trump, his massive narcissism, his endless lying, the historically-low approval ratings, his pathetic need to “win” at any cost, and every single poll predicting he would lose, coupled with the terrible job he did trying to pretend he was “President”, the shape America was in–plus the fact that he started lying about “fraud” even before Election Day, it’s as plain as day that he determined to stay in office no matter what it took. And, we in America have several legal avenues to challenge the results of an election–recounts, re-recounts, audits, and filing lawsuits. Trump used each and every one of these avenues–and, they all proved he lost–BEFORE January 6. While Trump, based on his ego and need to prevail, can say he “believes” there was fraud, even though there never was, he cannot get others to commit crimes based on fraud without any proof and with all proof to the contrary. The insurrection was Trump’s Last Stand–that it was deliberate is proven by the “Stop the Steal” rallies and his rhetoric. Why would a losing presidential candidate tell his followers to “STOP the Steal”? HOW were they going to STOP it, other than by violence? What was there to “protest”? Nonexistent fraud that still hasn’t surfaced? This was part of the plot–stir up the faithful–maybe they would catch up with Pence and lynch him, and THAT would “STOP the Steal”. Trump didn’t care, which is why he watched the carnage unfold for over 3 hours on television, and only called off the faithful when Pence still wouldn’t give in or even leave the Capitol area. When he called off the faithful, he told them he “loved” them. If this isn’t sick, then what qualifies? The next day, even McConnell and McCarthy publicly stated that Trump was responsible.
3. “I simply infer that Trump was desperately stabbing at whatever he could to find and expose wrongdoing. Sure, he could believe that the official vote count made Biden the president, but does that mean that he intended to negate those results by “deviousness, trickery, chicanery, dishonesty?????”” Yes, most Americans believe that Trump intended to negate the valid election results using any means possible–including having his fans lynch Pence, if necessary. Trump is seriously mentally ill–with narcissim. That makes him dangerous to democracy. You also say: “not so much illegal voting or illegal vote-counting, but more of media and political propaganda/twisting of truth, to turn voters away from Trump and hide Biden’s wrongdoing, that swung the vote.” “Twisting of [what] truth”? What “wrongdoing” by Biden? Where’s your proof? Trump got impeached the first time by trying to leverage aid awarded to Ukraine in exchange for ginning up lies about Biden. Why hasn’t the “wrongdoing” been proven?
4. You may delude yourself into believing that Pence had some magical power to reject certified vote totals because Trump tried to bully him to do, and/or that this is an “unsettled” area of law–you couldn’t be more wrong. Pence himself explained it best–our founders rejected the idea of a monarchy in favor of democracy, so it is impossible that they could have intended for one person to be able to decide who the President was going to be–based on his own judgment–so there could be no authority for the VP to unilaterally reject votes that have been CERTIFIED–do you know what CERTIFIED means? Look it up. It’s not just a suggestion–it means the vote totals were validated
5. ” I do believe that he genuinely loves America in all its glory, and wanted to contain/expose those who would prostitute the country’s long-held beliefs and tenets.” Lin: explain just HOW someone “genuinely loves America”–when he insults its military heroes, like John McCain, calls military personnel, especially those who died in battle, “suckers and losers”? How about refusing to go to the French-American graveside service because it was drizzling out and it would call his pompadour to fall? How about evading military service with phony bone spurs that never kept him off the golf course? You speak of “prostituting” Americans “long-held beliefs and tenets”–what could be worse than refusing to honor the will of the American people due to his massive ego? How about lying to America about the fact that he lost, and despite all possible investigations and recounts that prove no fraud, continuing to lie about it? How about refusing to attend his successor’s inauguration, which is one of our longstanding traditions? How about lying about the seriousness of COVID, downplaying the risk, all because it made him look bad? How about starting a trade war with China, imposing tariffs, which only increased the cost of goods and services, because he couldn’t bully China? How about daring the Judge in his latest case to jail him, deliberately defying the order not to attempt to intimidate witnesses? How about stealing classified documents, lying about returning them, discussing the contents with young female staffers to show off, hiding the documents to prevent his lawyer from returning them, and then fundraising over this? I could go on and on. You, Lin, are immune to reality.
Lin: let’s begin at the beginning…..
I LITERALLY STOPPED READING THERE
When it comes to getting the attention one’s audience to persuade their listeners, you really excel at losing them from the first sentence. No amount of new fake sock puppets will change that because you suck at English composition
+100
Gigi,
You equate mostly meaningless stuff much of what is a lifetime old to the actual criminal conduct of the current president and his family.
If you wish to judge people by there past – which I have ZERO problem with – Biden is a serial liar, plagerizer, possible peodo, who has no business in the senate much less the WhiteHouse.
The Biden family seems to have produced only one decent person – Beau – and he is dead.
And we can do this with Every person in washington today.
Everyone running for president – and nearly everyone running for office is a NARCISIST.
As has been said many times of many offices – no one who wants to be in office should be allowed to be in office.
Democrat, Republican it does not matter.
There are few republican and even fewer democrats I would hold up as examples of good character.
That is one of many reasons I am libertarian. You do not get to blame me for our politicians.
That said I have little doubt that if the Libertarian party managed to actually win officies in significant numbers we would find that
elected libertarians are little better than Democrats or Republicans.
One of the MANY reasons for severely limited govenrment is the people who are going to get elected.
Please do not try to sell any of us on claims that Clinton – either one, or Obama or Biden – the entire clan are decent people worthy of our respect and deserving of our vote – Their NOT.
In the end you still have multiple HUGE problems.
For all your corrupt efforts to prosecute him -= Trump is NOT a criminal – but those opposing him ARE.
It is self evidence we dodged a bullet avoiding putting Garland on the Supreme court.
And “nobody messes with a Biden” should be written on Joes Tombstone.
At every possible oportunity Joe Biden has demonstrated that he will use whatever office whatever power he gets for personal enrichment at public expense, for corruption, and to go after his enemies.
It is hard to imagine a worse possible choice for president.
Hitler was alteast comptent. Joe can not even manage that.
For all Trump’s flaws – none of which rise to the level of Biden, Trump did a better job as President than any other in the 21st century. That is not good – that is a low bar. But it is still better than Bush, Obama, and Biden.
Further contra left wing nuts such as yourself – Trump actually was an HONEST president
Despite your incescant petty nit picking Trump did NOT lie to us about anything of consequence.
Like all successful businessmen Trump understands something absolutely critical that you do not.
Trust is the most valuable commodity in the free market. People do not willingly do business with people they do not trust.
That is why you hear all the Coercion and threats in everything involving the Biden’s
They can not even manage to be bribed without repeatedly threatening those they are dealing with.
You have indicted and impeached Trump for phone calls in which he asks for an investigation or for someone to find votes.
Do you have an example of his ONCE Threatening anyone ? Yet the Biden communications are REPLEAT with threats.
Those of you on the left what to constantly pretend that perfectly legitimate conduct is the equivalent of criminal conduct.
VP’s can not declassify anything, and have no legal right to government documents – classified or not.
Presidents have the unfettered right to declassify and the right to anything produced by the whitehous – classified or not.
The courts look more favorably on Criminals that cooperate. But that only applies to people who actually committed a crime.
There is no obligation for those who are actually innocent to cooperate in their own persecution.
It is not EVER obstruction to stand up to corrupt government efforts to go after you.
You impeached Trump for seeking an investigation of an OBVIOUSLY corrupt politician.
You offered this idiotic standard that you can not investigate political oponents – even ones who committed crimes,
And having done so you are busy prosecuting political oponents who have NOT committed crimes. ‘
You have no standards except for double standards.
I can go on and on. But you are impenatrable to facts and logic and reason.
Absolutley Trump should not be our next president, nor should he have ever been a candidate.
But the same can be said – and more of EVERYONE running and certainly everyone who has been elected.
As noted before – Bush was Worse, Obama was worse. Biden is working hard to be the worst US president of all time.
And the most corrupt. We are 10,000 miles past Nixon levels of corruption.
Gigi
You are in way over your head and it shows. You really should stay out of the big boy discussions in the hope of looking less like a fool.
Also didnt read past your first line, where you’re starting Genesis, but i could probably guess 90% of the vomit you spewed.
Therefore, since VP Pence was serving as President of the Senate, could he have objected to the counting of certain states’ counts/electors until pending allegations were resolved following adjournment and deliberations?
The question. Who has the Constitutioal power to review the VP’s action of holding votes to give Stated time to review the results.
Lin,
In addition to the ECA violation, which should invalidate them anyway, the alternate electors – other than PA and NM – were signed and attested to, without any conditional language, which would trigger upon their acceptance by Congress, Pence or anyone else. As you hopefully know (unlike Daniel), a legal document would need to include conditional triggering language upon a future event to be – as you put it – “ready to go in the event of exposed wrongdoing by Democrat/Biden operatives.” Therefore, how can you take the opinion that these were not falsified documents made effective when signed?
I am glad you brought up the 1876 election as the comparison is wholly inapplicable. As you hopefully know, the alternate Tilden electors declared themselves the “electors duly and legally appointed by and for the State of South Carolina” and they acknowledged that their submission was “not signed by the Governor” and “the seal of the State as affixed thereto, as required by law, is not attached.” They included a statement explaining its absence. Compare this to the fake Trump electors, which asserted they attested to being “duly elected and qualified” in the State, when they had no basis for that contention. They carried out these actions with the hope and belief that the electoral votes of the 2020 election would be awarded to the candidate of their choosing, instead of the candidate that the applicable state’s voters actually chose.
Moreover, and most importantly, the Electoral Commission that Congress created to settle the Hayes-Tilden dispute agreed unanimously (15-0) with the proposition that the individuals in South Carolina who purported to cast electoral votes for Tilden “were not the lawful electors for the State of South Carolina, and that their votes are not the votes provided for by the Constitution of the United States, and should not be counted.” Therefore, your contention that sending the alternate electors forward has never before been “indicative of criminality” is untrue. The precedent you cite yourself includes an acknowledgement that the action was unlawful. Here is a book of the relevant Congressional proceeding for your reference:
https://books.google.com/books?id=g6QmAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA284&lpg=PA284&dq=%22were+not+the+lawful+electors+for+the+State+of+South+Carolina,+and+that+their+votes+are+not+the+votes+provided+for+by+the+Constitution+of+the+United+States,+and+should+not+be+counted%22&source=bl&ots=ENHjujAOYb&sig=ACfU3U3B5RG0v-KBxHINUgUrrnVspfrdQA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi67PG028uAAxWZlWoFHV-oC2YQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=%22were%20not%20the%20lawful%20electors%20for%20the%20State%20of%20South%20Carolina%2C%20and%20that%20their%20votes%20are%20not%20the%20votes%20provided%20for%20by%20the%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States%2C%20and%20should%20not%20be%20counted%22&f=false
Furthermore, pointing to a lack of prosecution only makes sense if you are wholly ignorant to the historical context. Why would the electors be criminally investigated or prosecuted when the Hayes representatives and Southern Democrats compromised to let Hayes become president in exchange for abandoning Reconstruction in the South? Furthermore, a couple years later, during an congressional investigation, evidence emerged that top participants in the Tilden campaign had engaged in an effort to bribe local election officials in the disputed Southern states to alter the election returns. But even this apparent criminality did not result in prosecutions and convictions. So, does that mean that election bribes are not illegal either?
Respectfully, I was quite amused reading your comment.
First and foremost, please read my comment more carefully.
(1) I NEVER, even slightly, “brought up the 1876 election as the comparison” (your words). My ONLY reference to the 1876 case was to say that its confusion contributed to the subsequent 1888 Act. I neither stated nor implied that the SC alternate electors were legal. Here’s a non-legal reference for you, which verifies what I said: https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/01/21/five_facts_on_reforming_the_electoral_count_act_of_1887_812956.html#!https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/01/21/five_facts_on_reforming_the_electoral_count_act_of_1887_812956.html#! —which states, “The Electoral Count Act of 1887 was adopted in response to the contested presidential election of 1876, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors. It was intended to clarify rules for determining which slates to count.”
(2)You also make the statement to me, “Therefore, your contention that sending the alternate electors forward has never before been ‘indicative of criminality’ is untrue.”
Perhaps, you need to go back and read what I actually said.
This is what I actually said: “As some have pointed out, sending ‘alternate’ electors forward, —ready to go in the event of exposed wrongdoing by Democrat/Biden operatives—-, was not, in and of itself, indicative of criminality, and has been done before…”
Please note my clause, “in and of itself.”
As one factual example supporting my statement, please review the historical facts surrounding Hawaii’s two slates of electors sent to the Electoral College in 1960 (one casting votes for the Democrat nominee; one casting votes for the Republican nominee)
Yes, the facts are different. They always are.
Thanks anyway.
LIN: “As some have pointed out, sending ‘alternate’ electors forward, —ready to go in the event of exposed wrongdoing by Democrat/Biden operatives—-, was not, in and of itself, indicative of criminality, and has been done before…”
ME: Yes, the Commission investigating the Tilden electors did find that submitting fake electors was illegal.
If you are trying to draw a distinction between “sending ‘alternate’ electors forward” and submitting the electors, then, as a lawyer, you should know that this is a distinction without a difference. These were not agreements, where signatures were in escrow pending closing, like an M&A deal. This is a legal certification, which was signed and attested on a particular date:
See for example in Michigan: https://michiganadvance.com/2023/07/19/heres-what-we-know-about-the-charges-against-the-2020-michigan-fake-electors/
For Michigan, this was effective December 14, 2020. There is no conditional language that makes the statement: “WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors . . certify” contingent upon Pence and/or Congress agreeing to Trump/Eastman’s scheme. It took effect weeks beforehand.
Furthermore, in Wisconsin, after the WI Supreme Court issued a detailed written opinion confirming the results of the recount and Biden’s victory for the state, which foreclosed any possible litigation that might change the outcome of Wisconsin’s election, the GOP electors generated and signed documents mirroring genuine presidential elector certificates. The group then transmitted these documents to the US Archivist. They were NOT on standby pending some Pence/Congress acceptance.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/january-6-clearinghouse-nara-records-regarding-invalid-alternate-slate-elector-21-0174-FOIA.pdf
ME: Thank you for ascribing to me things that I never said or implied. Thank you for circumventing what I DID say.
Thank you for focusing on the 1876 case, which is wholly irrelevant, since it preceded the 1887 Act and sequelae. Thank you for not mentioning that the actual indictment itself states that Giuliani and others “falsely” told the alternate electors that they were “contingent,” and would only be used if Trump’s pending challenges/litigation succeeded.
Assuming that the indictment’s allegation states a truth (that Giuliani did advise them of this), then of course, prosecutors will need to show why Giuliani’s advice was apparently ignored by some of the alternates, who proceeded forward on their own (to beat the Dec. 14 deadline for submissions), resulting in several now being prosecuted in the states that you mention.
This is my understanding of events. I may be wrong. You may be wrong.
YOU: Ooops.
ME: Those who wax prolix, for endless paragraphs and pages, asserting non-facts and non-arguments, are disfavored by appellate justices and their clerks.
Thanks again.
# prosecute Fauci
Anthony Fauci’s Deceptions
A trove of emails, Slack messages, and other documents reveal Fauci’s behind-the-scenes involvement. ‘Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on origin stories.’
https://www.thefp.com/p/anthony-faucis-deceptions
Sammy “The Bull Gravano” has some advice for Trump
Typical Turley, direct people to what he tells you the actual issue is and why it’s wrong, ignoring all the other issues he disregarded. I didn’t think he’d go as far as to attack the judge, yet here he is, suggesting she could “force a trial” when she did no such thing. He even slid in a picture of her, I wonder why?
Wrong. Professor Turley didn’t “attack” Chutkan. He’s simply stated a well reasoned legal opinion. And there’s no ulterior motive about it.
That said, Chutkan is, indeed, worthy of attack. There’s no question about Chutkin’s corruption: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/breaking-exclusive-corrupt-obama-judge-overseeing-president-trumps/. Of course, as a champion of the Two-Tiered System of “Justice”, you like Chutkin’s corruption.
JFeldman: yeah, there’s 2-tiered system of justice all right. At his latest indictment, he was already under indictment in two other cases–BUT he was allowed to walk without posting bond. He didn’t even have a mug shot taken. His passport wasn’t even confiscated. NO ONE ELSE wold be treated this way. Even his lowly co-conspirator had to post a $100K bond. The latest caper is to deliberately defy the judge’s order not to try to intimidate witnesses. Let’s hope she throws him in the cooler for this one–he’s long overdue. Anyone else would be jailed for contempt.
James, I read your article which doesn’t seem to meet any journalistic standard but it and you are drawing the wrong conclusion. The reason Trump followers keep going to jail isn’t because of corrupt judges, it’s because they’re corrupt people.
Your response says little other than tacitly acknowledging that you and Gigi, etc. are the champions of the Two-Tiered System of “Justice” merely because you agree with the corrupt judges. And when you refer to The Gateway Pundit article not meeting any “journalistic standard”, you really mean The Gateway Pundit doesn’t promote the Deep State lies that you hold so dear and deeply love, like the Russian Collusion Hoax, the “earmarks” of “Russian” interception of Hunter Biden’s laptop, on and on and on. You don’t dispute a single statement of fact in the article because you can’t. Instead you follow the same techniques of fraud as your Deep State masters and simply attempt to deflect and project.
By journalist standards I meant the undocumented, unverified claims that other others wouldn’t print. When Trump gets arrested like other people and gets put in handcuffs and has a mug shot taken, you can begin to discuss a two-tiered system because Trump is getting preferential treatment, is he not?
Referring baselessly to the article’s claims as “undocumented” and “unverified” does not make them so. Again, you love to deflect and project without stating a single fact or a scintilla of evidence to back up anything you say. You have, indeed, been programmed well by your Deep State masters
I won’t even attempt to keep you from your imagined truth. Baseless has a definition which definitely applies. Enjoy going down with the ship.
I knew that you couldn’t come with even a scintilla of evidence to support your nonsense. So, relying on your leftist tools of deflection and projection were your only option. It’s your prerogative to be stupid. But do you have to exercise that right 24-7?
Some of you are truly amusing when you convince yourselves you’ve proved something. Enjoy your day!
Enigma: I don’t wonder why. You ARE asking rhetorical question–no?
I’m not wondering why either. Turley knows who he’s writing for,
This indictment is part of the Biden Crime Syndicate’s ongoing operation to interfere in the upcoming election. The Bidens are corrupt to the marrow, and that includes election interference and selling out America’s interests to enrich themselves. They flaunt their corruption as a tool of power. Their corruption is the message.
The message is: Look people and see how corrupt we are, we can flaunt it and get away with it, so don’t f–k with us.
The facts are not in dispute. Trump did what he is accused of. He did lead the fake elector scheme, he did pressure legislators and the GA SoS to reject the will of their voters, and he did pressure Pence to throw out EC votes, something he could not do. He also did steal classified government documents, refused to give them back, lied about them, and tried to destroy evidence. These are all crimes.
This is ironic that you and your MAGAs claim to be “law and order” when it comes to throwing the book at undocumented immigrants and minorities caught with some pot. But when it comes to Trump, you see him as above the law. That is trying to get away with corruption. Same on you.
To say that Trump is being prosecuted for lying is like saying McVeigh was prosecuted for renting a truck.
As normal Turley is misrepresentation the indictment. Trump is charged with conspiracy to take illegal actions to overthrow the election. The lies are part of the bigger picture. And this happened after the election, so he was not campaigning. The president attempted to illegally stay in power. This is a big deal. If we can’t prosecute those who lead an attempted coup then we might as well kiss our country goodby.
If you mixed the DNA of obama, his dead chef, hunter biden, and jack smith and planted it in vivo in rachel levine, even the resultant being would laugh at you, clown.
turn off the npr and get an honest job.
Thank god for that cop that killed Ashley Babbitt, or else Trump might have pulled-off the coup.
Now that I think about it, what you post isn’t funny, it is disgusting. You make the left look even worse than it is though clear lenses.
Thanking God for the shooting and killing someone is very classy. Also, attack the article, don’t call the writer names. Have some class and decency—even if others don’t. This is the rhetoric harming our country. I know you don’t believe that Ashli Babbitt not being killed could have meant a successful coup. Ironic you are using the very same political hyperboley and lies that the first amendment protects. It does the same for Trump.
I never voted for Trump and I don’t want him to be president, it will be bad for our country, yet bastardizing political speech into the crime of conspiracy is wrong. The ends do not justify the means. If the prosecution is successful and not overturned, even speech like these comments could be turned into crimes.
Todd: It’s not political speech to try to bully Secretaries of State to falsify certified election results under the threat of criminal prosecution. It’s not political speech to try to bully the VP to reject certified votes without any authority to do so, and then tell supporters who believed the lie that their votes were stolen that he didn’t “do the right thing”. It’s not political speech to tell supporters that the election was stolen by fraud and to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”, and to exhort them to “STOP the Steal”. How would they “fight like hell’ to “stop the steal”, other than by violence, and why were they told to come to the Capitol on January 6th, other than this was the day for the certification of Biden’s victory to be formally adopted? If they just wanted to “protest”, they could come any other day–so why Jan 6th–other than to try to stop Biden’s victory from being accepted formally, which went along with the plot to get Secretaries of State in swing states to falsify election results. Donald Trump owes the Babbitt family damages for her wrongful death–it’s his fault she was killed, because there’s no excuse for riling up MAGA fans to attack the Capitol, Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi. Does he feel any sense of shame for the loss of her life or the loss to her family? No, he doesn’t. No other President in our history ever behaved like this, and it’s not likely that any one ever would again. Trump simply cannot be allowed to get away with starting an insurrection. Jan 6th can never be repeated, and if he’s not brought to justice over this, then it could well happen again.
Smith will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. The statements Trump made were false;
2. That Trump knew they were false;
3. That they were not protected by the First Amendment, through its free speech and petition clauses; and
4. That they were prohibited by the laws cited in the indictment with sufficient specificity and clarity to survive a due process challenge.
In a just system he would likely fail in this. But a biased judge and jury will make his task easier.
From what I have heard from Trump’s lawyer John Lauro, it appears that he may be well-represented for a change.
Point 3 and 4 are legal questions that do not need to be proved and do not go to the jury. Judges and legal appeals decide those. 1 and 2 are easy to prove since they have a pile of witnesses to testify that Trump said he knew they were false. And since Trump will not testify, the jury will not hear otherwise.
Just HOW MANY times do you MAGA members need to have explained to you the simple fact that Trump is NOT being prosecuted for his lies–it’s the actions he took based on these lies–like threatening Secretaries of State with criminal prosecution if they didn’t “find” votes–like trying to bully Pence into refusing certified election results–it’s telling fans to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”–it’s getting fake electors to sign fraudulent electoral college certificates. THESE are the crimes–ACTIONS–not words.
Gigi
Why do you insist on making this so easy??
“like threatening Secretaries of State with criminal prosecution if they didn’t “find” votes–“.
You’re kidding, right? A threat has to be credible to begin to become criminal. I have as much chance of shooting you with my orbiting death ray as trump had of “prosecuting anyone. How is it any different than shumer threatening supreme court justices with reaping the whirlwind and wont know what hit them. LMAO strawman
And how was this illegal??? Trump wasnt charged with inciting violence. See above for shumers speech.
And there’s that he “got” them do it. Lmao. Just because trump has sway over what u decide to do every day when u wake up, doesnt mean he has that hold over everyone.
Crackpot
All that would be true with a different judge, a different jury in a different jurisdiction.
The FACT is that Smith did not state an actual crime – citing laws is NOT the same is providing a charge demonstrating that each element of the crime is present to the minimal standard needed to go to trial.
I expect the legal battle here may be fierce. Though the most serious conflicts will be before the supreme court – the DC court of appeals already demonstrated it has no clue regarding the first amendment in the J6 cases.
The likelyhood of the Supreme court allowing a conviction of a former president running for election over a political speech claim is near zero. the only open questions are – will SCOTUS wait for Smith to get a conviction before intervenining – which is the legal norm, and will the decision be 9-0.
Regardless, this is a dead bang loser. it is just a question of when.
Sammy: thank you. If the Trump playbook is how all future presidential elections will go forward, we won’t have a democracy. Trump is a sick narcissist–we all know that–but what about Republicans? McConnell and McCarthy both blamed Trump for the insurrection the next day, but then went and kissed his ring and are now attacking Jack Smith. Have Republicans chucked all that their party used to stand for–like respect for the rule of law, the peaceful transfer of power, respectfully disagreeing with your opponent, behaving like decent, respectable role models? We have Taylor-Greene flashing porn pictures of Hunter Biden on the floor of the House, just to embarrass our President. We have the House oversight committee and its endless clown show, trying to prove Joe Biden took bribes, even after their star witness fizzled and they know they can’t find any proof of quid pro quo. And most Republicans, with few exceptions, defend Trump even though he stole classified documents, started an insurrection, bribed a porn actress and tried to get election officials to falsify election results. Eisenhower must be turning over in his grave.
Trump will be vindicated by the Supreme Court. You cannot convict anyone on their thoughts. There are 80 million Americans that believe there was fraud, what is this Regime going to do? Convict them all? Trump’s speech on January 6th to the protesters actually said he wanted the protests to be peaceful and Patriotic! However, Slimball Jack Smith left that out of the indictment. He submitted his version to the courts. That in and of itself is criminal.
This is exactly what Trump wanted! He now can expose the fraud for what it was. His lawyers can subpoena all the election Representatives in the states that had gross miscalculations, you know like the dumping of thousands of ballots 3:30 in the morning and 90% were for Biden, yeah right! So now put them under oath to prove there was no fraud and explain that! Trump has the video’s showing that. Trump only has to prove a tiny bit of fraud!! The prosecution has to prove a lot more! Jack Smith being the failed corrupt prosecutor he is known as, opened a hugh can of worms for the Democraps! Not to mention the timeline of all these indictments! This is definetely election interference and Biden could never debate Trump, Biden knows it, his handlers know it and they need Trump gone.
For all those cheering on Jack Smith think about the country and where it’s going. It pretty damn cl ear this country is headed for a complete takeover to have a one party system and Communism! If you cannot see that, you have not paid attention to everything else this regime has done, and will continue to do to make Americans poorer, and want to depend on the government for everything! Good luck with that. No one on government help, gets anywhere in life, no one!! However, the politicians continue to get rich!!
Right now the Dems are flooding this country with illegals, why do you think they are doing that? They want to overwhelm the welfare system to the point of collaosing it and then make radical changes telling Americans it’s better to change the system. This is their way of a whole new economic system which will enslave all Americans. Then all your freedoms will be taken away. This has all been planned ahead at the so called ECONOMIC FORUMS!! The ultra rich planning on a one party system for the world. One government for the whole world! We will be their slaves! The GLOBAL RESET!! Open your eyes, see what is really going on. They need Trump gone. He is the only one stopping them. They know it, they fear him, and they want him gone!!
Trump once said that he’s real estate developer and builds things.
Jack Smith should find out if Trump is stocking up on cement for a new project. Something you can build a foundation on.
“Instead, he listened to a small group of lawyers who assured him that a challenge might succeed and that there was evidence of massive election fraud.”
The last thing that anti-Trumper Turley will EVER acknowledge is that there IS evidence of massive election fraud — that Trump happens to be correct on this matter, that last-minute changes to election law in a number of crucial states were unlawful, that power over holding elections was wrongfully taken away from state legislatures and wrongfully given to state supreme courts and/or secretaries of state.
So Professor Turley sets off on his analysis upon an erroneous set of facts and unfournded conclusions. Simply put: The prosecution will NOT be able to prove that the 2020 election wasn’t stolen, and therefore will not be able to prove that Trump made false statements or that he improperly challenged the supposed election results.
that Trump happens to be correct on this matter, that last-minute changes to election law in a number of crucial states were unlawful, that power over holding elections was wrongfully taken away from state legislatures and wrongfully given to state supreme courts and/or secretaries of state.
^^^this^^^
Several states violated election statutes. Large tranches of votes should not have been counted. Not a single court would hear theses cases
Yes lots of widespread voter fraud.
There ought to be a rule that a judge who is overturned on appeal some number of times should be automatically removed from the bench. Say five times in a row.
How about Jack Smith. He has been slapped down several times on appeal for stretching the law to get a conviction. SCOTUS was 8-0, with a blistering rebuke from the Chief Justice. The DoJ exhiled him to the Hague, because he played do fast and loose with the law. But he was perfect to bring back from the Hague, for precisely that reason. (remember when Comey said “no prosecuter would prosecute” Hillary’s classified document crimes. The same is true here, so they repatriated Smith back to US soil.)
“The government acknowledges that the Constitution protects false statements made in campaigns . . .”
The Smith indictment gives the gullible and the Apologists a sop to free speech.
Those who still have two eyes and are not dupes, know the meaning of that sop: I’m not doing what I’m about to do.
Look … The Opponents in this contest of Election 2024, want to see Donald Trump in an Orange Jump Suit in Manacles and Cuffs with the words Prisoner silk screened on its back, His Mugshot, topped off with his Orange Hair, and a Blank Face of defeat.
Ok – Lets say they get Their way. He’s still a force to be reckoned with, a proportion of the Populous will vote for him regardless.
The impact to the World will be very negative to America as a Democracy, the damage will be done, and further dissension will rise in the Republic (if you can still call it one after this).
I,M.O. – Donald should go out and buy an Orange Bill Blass Suit & Tie, have his Hair died Orange, and Campaign on a Orange Podium.
Give the Democrats WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE, deliver them the Satisfaction, and He will still get Elected President in 2024.
The heart of every Voter, wants a Winner. Donald Trump DELIVERS, Biden DOES NOT.
It’s the opportunity for America to Save Face in the eyes of the World. -That’s what is at Stake and what matter now.-
U.S. Credibility has been shattered by this nonsense that the Democrats have pursed. China, Russia, India are all telling you this,
get your sh__ together or else.
Well….we know Judges are not immune from avarice and advancing their own prospects for advancement.
This Judge is going to be confronted with a real dilemma ….do the right thing and sort out the Constitutional issues first then if need be have a trial on the remaining evidence…..and be seen as an impartial Jurist OR…..gamble that the Jury convicts Trump, the Appellate Courts side with her, and perhaps finally see if the Supreme Court sides with her…..and any of those reviews undo her then her only hope is in a Democrat sweep of the next few elections and there being a reward for her in a promotion to the Appeals Court or even be considered for the Big Bench.
This is one of those Profiles of Courage moments JFK wrote about.
Does she do the right thing….or fall short of her obligations imposed by the Law and Ethics Standards for Judges?
Of course change of venue is more than justified, and of course the judge will not allow it, for the same reason it’s justfied.
Bias, to the point of blinding hared.
The selection of this court and this judge was no accident, a corrupt administration wants a conviction to point to.
This is already unthinkable, what’s next?
With respect to Prof Turley’s expertise, the indictment explicitly affirms the freedom of (false) speech. Trump is not indicted for believing nonsense, nor even for knowingly lying. He is indicted for conspiring to subvert constitutional process by actions going well beyond merely lying.
Except there is no conspiracy charge.
What? Have you read the indictment? There are multiple conspiracy charges.
And what were those actions?
He allegedly lied in challenges to the election results. He asked officials to exercise their power in a certain way based on facts and legal theories that he allegedly knew to be false. The officials were not persuaded because they found no evidence for the facts and disagreed with the theories.
He also participated in a scheme to submit the votes of alternative electors, so prompt action could be taken if the officials accepted his challenges. This has been done before and has never been viewed as a crime.
The fake electors were submitted to the National Archives as real ones. Rs then tried to present those fake electors to Pence. This was not “oh they just did it in case they won their court cases just like Hawaii.” This was a deliberate attempt to illegally change the election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/07/fake-electors-trump-indictment/
Incorrect. See response in above comment. Please get your head out of the sand and acknowledge this this was way beyond “persuasion.” It was fraud.
Judge will obviously not recuse herself.
So another ground for appeal.
But Dems don’t seek justice; they want vengeance.
The process is the punishment.
“allowing the government to criminalize false statements in a campaign”
The case has nothing to do with statements in a campaign. The campaign ended on election day. Trump made a whole bunch of false statements during the campaign as he is a pathological liar, but the indictment has nothing to do with those.
You are an idiot. The pathological liar is Biden and all Democrats!! What planet are you living on?