The Mind of Donald Trump: Why Proving a Lie Will Not Necessarily Secure a Conviction for Jack Smith

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.

189 thoughts on “The Mind of Donald Trump: Why Proving a Lie Will Not Necessarily Secure a Conviction for Jack Smith”

  1. In case anyone is curious about what the typical DC juror is like, this clip captures it perfectly:

  2. This is a landmark case on intentional Public Frauds of consequence, and how a society depending on a steady flow of good-faith information for its public decisionmaking can best deter manipulative, mendacious falsehoods while upholding the free flow of quality information (that which stands up to scrutiny over time).

    There is a straightforward logical argument why the 1st Amendment does not go so far as to protect the deceptive infowarrior from legal challenge (via civil torts). Our founding principle is “the consent of the governed”, over which we fought and defeated the British monarchy. That consent is presumed to be informed by facts and reasoned arguments.
    If, on the other hand, that consent be obtained through trickery and deceit, what is left of that ideal?….it is hollowed out. The will of the most clever, self-promoting, dishonest, media-savvy actor subverts the public consensus, and bad decisions follow (those seen as regrettable in retrospect when the truth finally comes out).

    Going to war against Iraq in 2003 is a perfect example of public policy being steered invisibly by well-crafted public fraud.
    A small group of Shiite Iraqi activists led by Ahmed Chalabi planted rumors about WMDs and a secret Saddam-Al Qaeda alliance to nudge the US into overthrowing their arch enemy. U.S. media, seduced by the potential for drama and eyeballs, failed to uncover the hoax during the buildup to war. This is a case study in effective psyOps, and contains all the elements needing to be successful — appealing to America to avenge the psychological injury of 9-11, building Al Qaeda into the false narrative, planting fake intelligence into sympathetic CIA channels and media, the “mushroom cloud over NYC and DC meme”, the originators staying beneath the radar — and most importantly, the lie having “legs” during the critical decisionmaking timeframe.

    That the United States could be duped into an 8-year war essentially over domestic squabbling in Iraq is shameful. It’s a wake up call.

    Media journalists cannot be trusted to keep the infospace honest, especially now that so many have switched over to advocacy. So, how are fraudsters operating in the political realm going to be exposed and discredited in realtime — when knowing the truth still matters?

    The 1st Amendment is widely understood to mean that government officials NOT be the ones to separate fact from fiction.
    We know that such power is too concentrated, and thus easily abused to “belief-shape” the public.

    However, the 1st Amendment does not preclude the public acting on its own to police the infospace through civil torts.
    If you liked the way Nicholas Sandmann brought CNN and WaPo to heel, or the Sandy Hook parents denuded Alex Jones of his distempered grift, or the way Dominion Voting challenged the fabrications aired by Fox News Corp — then, you can see how defamation law points the way toward citizen power to police the infospace. Courts are the place where lies go to be deflated and truth prevails. A jury of 12 citizens acts as finder-of-fact, operating under strict rules of evidence, adversarial challenge of all evidence, and a neutral Judge there to referee and bring closure on a schedule (though currently way to slow to effectively blunt public frauds in realtime).

    The best outcome for this case will be for a dispassionate debate over the need to challenge public frauds in the timeframe of consequence, and fast-due-diligence civil torts as the best way to level the playing field and establish the truth (if it can be decided unanimously by a jury). Civil torts gives the public as Plaintiff the power to assert its need for honesty and candor in the lead-up to elections, policy choices and grave matters such as going to war. Establishing fast-response Public Frauds Courts is completely consistent with the 1st Amendment.

    The worst outcomes would be to give wide berth to those intent on perpetrating hoaxes for political gain — either those in government, or partisan opponents outside government hoping to burrow their way in.

    Public Frauds lawsuits would provide a major impediment to those aspiring to despotic, 1-party monopolistic rule in America — which we know requires a constant flow of propaganda to maintain power. Throwing the bums out during the next election is not good enough — it’s too slow a response, and cedes the despot the use of deceptive means during the election campaign.

    What we’re up against (with the advent of AI deep-fakes) poses the greatest threat to freedom. The ability to lie during campaigns with no pushback from sympathetic media giants sets the table for mendocracy – rule by the most effective liars. This case is an opportunity to strip DOJ of the power to police the infospace, while strengthening the public’s essential role for doing that — extending demafation law to cover public frauds.

    1. No one can be trusted “to police the infospace.” 12 jurors are no wiser than 12 bureaucrats.

      1. So, our Founders were idiots? Maybe you’re idea of a fair jury is to clone yourself 12 times?

        1. No jury, even it included Jesus Christ and Abraham Lincoln, is qualified to decide the truth of claims about public issues.

  3. (A) If it is a crime to lie about election results, American politicians from coast to coast should be thrown in prison.

    (B) Trump did not lie.

  4. The Left’s new “definition” of conspiracy: Any attempt to persuade others that your opinion is right — if your name is Trump, or if we don’t like that opinion.

    So the underlying “action,” used to rationalize a charge of “conspiracy,” is in fact *speech*. By any other name, it’s still the criminalization of speech. And it’s still an attempt to transform dissent into a “crime.”

  5. Although many of the prosecutors going after Trump are blessed with superior brains, these idiotic indictments provide little evidence that the prosecutors are using their brains. In fact, if they ever decide to sell their brains on Ebay, they should demand a premium for the low mileage.

  6. “find the votes” is the determinative phrase which proves Trump’s illegal behavior.
    I expect to be thrown in prison any day. My 6 year old told her principal I insisted she find her hairbrush.

    The other piece of evidence which will land Trump’s behind where Bill Cosby lived, consists of his advisers telling him he lost. The President of the U.S. only gets 3 out of jail cards. He is not allowed to disagree with his advisers 4 times, or his wife, children, Nancy Popo, etc.

    1. “find the votes” is the determinative phrase

      That you have distilled a phone call that lasted over an hour, to 3 words, which proves you to be a dishonest troll

      1. Trump also tries to strong arm Brad Raffensperger, saying and I paraphrase ‘You could be in real trouble yourself if you don’t do something”.

        LOL……so while everyone concentrates “find the votes”, there’s a lot more in that phone call that needs to be talked about, and will be in the court case.

    2. Is there a SARC/ON button missing here or is this imbecile a prevaricating buffoon?

      [ fahynd ]

      verb (used with object),found, find·ing.

      to come upon by chance; meet with: He found a nickel in the street.

      to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort: to find an apartment; to find happiness.

  7. Jonathan: It’s pretty clear the Trumpster is a scared and corned wild beast after his indictment by Jack Smith in DC last week. He has lashed out at Jack Smith and his team–even Judge Chutkan. On Friday former House Speaker said DJT looked like a “scared puppy” during his indictment hearing. It didn’t take long for DJT to respond. Yesterday he said: “I wasn’t scared. Nevertheless, how mean a thing to say! She is the Wicked Witch whose husbands journey from hell starts and finishes with her [a probably reference to the MAGA supporter’s attack on Paul Pelosi in his house back in October of last year]. She is a sick & demented psycho who will someday live in HELL!!!”.

    But Trump wasn’t finished. He was weirdly thrilled that that US women’s soccer team lost to Sweden. He called the loss “fully emblematic of what is happening to our once great Nation under crooked Joe Biden” and he accused the US payers of being “openly hostile” to the US. DJT said to the star US player Megan Rapinoe: “Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to HELL!!!”.

    Now I know what you are thinking. DJT sounds like the kind of trash talk we had to put up when we were kids out on the schoolyard. But coming from a former president of the US? Blaming Joe Biden for the US soccer loss and then attacking the star player? Really? If Joe Biden were to call Kevin McCarthy a “sick & demented psycho” your followers on this blog would be outraged. And rightly so. But Trumpster’s supporters just shrug their shoulders. Well, I won’t. Anyone else on this blog who will condemn DJT for HIS “demented” outbursts?

    1. Dennis – The answer to your question is “No.” Given what Trump has been put through, his remarks are surprisingly temperate.

      1. edwardmahl: Thx for responding to my poll. It was a rhetorical Q because I pretty much knew how you would respond. “Surprisingly temperate”? Really? When DJT threatens prosecutors, judges and potential witnesses–like “If you go after me, I’m coming after you” that’s also “surprisingly temperate”? This is what a mob boss says when he is facing trial!

        If you are paying attention, Jack Smith has filed a motion for a protective order in the case with Judge Chutkan. Protective orders are standard practice to prevent defendants in a criminal case from trying the case in the media–attacking witnesses or discussing sensitive information or potential testimony prior to trial ( See DC local rule 57.7 (b)). Both parties have filed briefs and reply briefs on the proposed protective order–and their will be a hearing, probably next week. In it’s reply brief Jack Smith quotes a social media post over the weekend by DJT attacking Mike Pence. DJT said: “WOW, it’s finally happened! Liddle’ Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor of Indiana until I came along and made him VP, has gone to the Dark Side…He’s delusional, and now he wants to show he’s a tough guy…”. Under court rules, cited above, you can’t make comments or threats on social media about a potential witness.

        Pay attention to Judge Chutkan’s ruling and her protective order. See if she agrees with you that all of DJT’s threatening statements and comments about potential witnesses are just, as you say, “surprisingly temperate”. I think you will be sorely disappointed.

        1. Trump has not threatened anyone by name. It’s not like naming a couple of supreme justices and telling them that we know where you live.

      2. edwardmahl: What TRUMP has been put through? What about what AMERICA has been put through–2016 election stolen from the people’s choice via help from Russian hackers, trashed a successful economy, two-digit unemployment, worst COVID response of any develped country with over one million Americans dying (due, in significant part to Trump’s utter incompetence and ego), tax cuts to benefit the wealthy that drove our national debt to record levels, trade war with China when he couldn’t bully it, causing shortages of computer chips and consumer goods, trashed relations with EU and NATO allies, cut a lousy deal with the Taliban, letting loose 5,000 of them from prison and drawing down our troops from 14,000 to 2,500, two impeachments, started an insurrection, childish insults directed to foreign leaders and anyone who displeases him, disrespected by other countries, sexually assaulted a woman and then defamed her and indicted 3 times. Can’t stop lying. Attacks a sitting federal judge, daring her to sanction him because he thinks he can fund-raise over his “victimhood”. But, to Dennis’s point, he just cannot, will not, shut up or go away–even blaming Joe Biden for the US womens’ team’s loss to Sweden. He is NO leader, NO role model, NO patriot and isn’t even a good person.

          1. From CBC News:

            “A bipartisan Senate report released Tuesday confirms the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to sow chaos. Senators warned that it could happen again this presidential election year.

            The heavily redacted report from the Senate Intelligence Committee is part of the panel’s more than three-year investigation into the Russian interference. The intelligence agencies concluded in January 2017 that Russians had engaged in cyber-espionage and distributed messages through Russian-controlled propaganda outlets to undermine public faith in the democratic process, hurt Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.

            Trump has repeatedly questioned the assessment, which was also confirmed by former special counsel Robert Mueller in his report last year. Mueller concluded that Russian interference was “sweeping and systematic,” but he did not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign.

            Mueller did specify, however, several examples in which the Trump campaign was receptive to apparent efforts to help from Russian actors. In subsequent testimony, Mueller answered in the affirmative to a Republican lawmaker’s questioning on whether he believed there was enough evidence to charge Trump with a crime — specifically, obstruction of justice — after the president left office.”

            1. Donald J. Trump is the single greatest president this country has ever had.
              #Trump 29024

              Joe Biden is pure scum. Impeach him, convict him, and let him die in prison. No one would cry a single tear bc the country KNOWS that is exactly where that POS, pathological corrupt lying liar belongs.

          LOCK HER UP!!

          With a straight face this crackpot claims the 2016 election was stolen by outside forces, but 2020 was not influenced at all by the shenanigans of our own government and “big tech”.

          New low for gigi—-you go girl, just keep spewing those lies.

    2. The US women’s soccer team did not lose. They won. If all the legitimate goals had been counted. Only the fake news media wants you to think they lost; there was such fraud in the refereeing it was unbelievable. The Assistant Coach of the US Team will have the final say on who won.

      1. I think the greater derivative constitutional issue here is the right to face your accuser….jack shit is using his office as the “accuser” when they pple incharge of probable improparopriaty in elections are not bringing the charges. Trump has the right to face his accusers. But we Pinkerton – it a conspiracy instead. And give the feds this pretend jurisdiction . If the states he used for his big “lie” cared….they would have standing. On their own….and Jack shit would not even have such jurisdiction…so why does he do this? Why?
        Let alone standing. If Texas didn’t have standing to challenge the irregularities of other states….how does Jack shit have standing to use their alleged results? To challenge any fraud….from “either” side. What makes him so special?

    3. Re: “But Trumpster’s supporters just shrug their shoulders. Well, I won’t. Anyone else on this blog who will condemn DJT for HIS “demented” outbursts?”

      I’m guessing few commenters here consider themselves “Trumpster supporters”, but rather supporters of the First Amendment. Related to “demented outbursts”, after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, in a podcast with Nancy Pelosi Hillary Clinton opined that Trump no doubt coordinated with Vladimir Putin in planning the assault. Pelosi of course strongly concurred.

      Pot, Kettle, Black…

  8. “he was charged because he “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.””

    Nope, he was charged because he engaged in conspiracies. He’s charged with conspiracies, not with false statements.

    1. Conspiracies to do what? To persuade those with authority to change recorded election results. When they presented no or weak evidence and untenable theories they failed to persuade. This was nothing but the exercise of first amendment rights to speak and petition.

    2. “. . . he engaged in conspiracies.”

      Nice canard.

      That “conspiracy” is Trump’s attempts to convince others that his opinions about the election were correct.

      So here’s Smith’s/Garland’s “novel” view of free speech: In politics, you can say whatever you want. But if you try to persuade others (of an opinion we don’t like), it’s a “crime.”

      No matter how you slice it, this prosecution is an attempt to create political “criminals.”

  9. So, when willAl Gore, Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, and all the others be indicted? Hillary Clinton is still touting that Russia installed Trump in an illegitimate election, even though she paid to promote this fiction to distract from her e-mail scandal involving the mishandling of classified information.

    What about when Obama said if you voted for him, the oceans would stop rising?

    1. Karen, you should read the indictment and understand the actual charges instead of being fooled by JT’s misleading columns.

    2. How would “reading the indictment” undercut Karen’s comment? It is clear by word and deed that Hilary obstructed the investigation into her email server. You could even call it a “conspiracy.”

      1. Karen was claiming a commonality among “Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, and all the others,” presumably linked to JT’s false claim that US v Trump is about “the government … criminaliz[ing] false statements in a campaign.” Reading the indictment should disabuse of that mistake on JT’s part.

      2. “reading the indictment”

        That is a thinly veiled ad hominem, trotted out by the blog’s resident deceiver. It amounts to: Since you (allegedly) did not read the *entire* document, you are ignorant. And therefore I can summarily dismiss your arguments.

        It’s a shopworn fallacy that’s been around for centuries.

    3. let’s take inventory:

      Al Gore – was in the closest election ever, with one state (FL) to decide the entire race, w/ less than 500 votes? Ultimately, he respected the SC’s decision.

      Hillary Clinton – conceded the NEXT day and attended Trump’s inauguration. Literally said “Let’s give DJT a chance.”

      Stacey Abrams – complained about voter rolls, said the election was unfair. What did she do…….said she’ll win NEXT time.

      Don’t be blind – there’s a difference between the three examples about and what DJT plotted to do. Wake up..

      1. The 2020 election was rife with bad behavior and election interference by the FBI, Media, and social media, to name just a few. Ballot harvesting was common, and ballots were not handled appropriately. Ballot stuffing and all sorts of irregularities could have changed any election. We have to include drop boxes, and mail-in ballots were not properly secured.

        Gore and Florida were spotlessly clean compared to 2020. Gore called for recounts only where it would benefit him. He lost, and post-election a left-leaning newspaper confirmed a recount that went to Trump. That went to the Supreme Court.

        Despite the election irregularities, it was almost impossible to get trials that were based on merit. Last I looked Trump/GOP won 18 and lost 7. The more one looks at what happened the more one realizes that the election was flawed, and we cannot say who the winner was if the irregularities did not occur.

        Hillary still says the election was unfair.

        Stacey Abrams was vocal like Trump and then lost again.

        The nation needs to wake up. We cannot afford elections that smell. The FBI cannot lie to help their candidate. Custody of ballots cannot be lost. Harvesting and ballot stuffing need to be stopped, One day voting at the precinct should be enforced with voter ID. many more irregularities occurred.

        The Dems don’t like what most countries realize protects election integrity, and then they complain when others say the election was rigged.

        1. Yikes dude. You are so out of touch with reality. Maybe stop watching Newsmax? Literally nothing you stated above is remotely accurate.

          As a check, can you tell me how many recounts Trump requested in Utah?

          1. Anonymous has one reply, stupidity. He doesn’t know it so he provides stupidity over and over again.

          2. I think J. Turley is a great mind, but he’s at some fault here for having a blog that rails on the left in EVERY post. I scrolled a long way down and found nothing that points at the right deserving criticism…..perhaps I did not go far enough. And we all know both sides can easily share the wealth.

            He’d be more fair if he discussed both sides and their issues, because the sycophants on here are just eating up every post. It’s almost as if he’s part of the problem, and someone in his position should be looking at all sides.

            Very disappointing. I will continue to read him because I always like to hear an alternate opinion – and sometimes he’s spot on – but talk about a one way street.

      2. Bill, here’s your imaginary gracious losers of the Democrat Party complaining about stolen elections; rigged voting machines; and objecting to seating of electors. The wordsmiths who tell you what to think ALWAYS lie, spin, twist, remove context to manipulate low IQ Democrat voters into believing it’s different when Democrats do it.

        It’s been said Democrats always blame Republicans for what they have done, or are doing. I’m not sure there is a truer statement in all of politics.

        1. Bill, do you now see the illegitimacy of your comment. I accept your apology whether you do or not.

          1. Not really, because you’re allowed to “talk sh*t” when you lose, including Trump.

            You’re not allowed to break the law. And before you say no laws were broken, that’s why we are having the court case.

            Make sense?

            1. So, Bill, you encourage unlawful action by the FBI, DOJ, and the President of the United States, Joe Biden. That is nice to know. You believe legal disputes should not be handled by the court system but solved by force and guns. Your “team” are the ones to riot through the streets during the summer, killing people and burning things down. You must love violence.

              Democracy and the Constitution have taken a back seat to your “team’s” desire for power.

              You created a false dialogue, proven in a video that preceded your comment, so you must not be seriously attached to the truth. So when you say “talk sh*t” when you lose”, you are not being honest. [Check out that video again to see how wrong your statement was.]

              “You’re not allowed to break the law. And before you say no laws were broken, that’s why we are having the court case.”

              No. We have a court case because Democrats misuse the courts and raw power. Trump didn’t violate FISA. The FBI did. When the government wanted disputed documents, they didn’t resolve the issue like they were supposed to. They used raw force instead of going to the courts, where they likely would have lost. Today charges have been created and in no way should have been brought, but your “team” did. Like the impeachments, when the trials go to a higher court where politics disappears, Trump will win, but your “team” will have done tremendous damage to the Presidency and the nation.

              All of this Democratic illegal action, violence, and the use of raw power is by your “team” while a corrupt President (Biden) sells our children’s futures down the drain.

              That is not very smart.

      3. Bill – Al Gore “respected” the SCt’s decision because he had no other choice. There was no further place to go. He did not respect: the voting machines; the vote tabulators; the early recounts that did not help him; and the certification of the election by the Florida SOS. He is the true precursor and model for Trump’s actions.
        Hillary Clinton says to this day that the election was “stolen”, and, even before the election, she set up the Russiagate hoax to defame and undermine Trump. The documents case is really an extension of the Russiagate hoax, suggesting that Trump allowed defense secrets to be exposed to spies.
        As to your characterization of Stacey Abrams, I quote AP from April 2020:
        “ATLANTA (AP) — When she ended her first bid to become Georgia governor in 2018, Stacey Abrams announced plans to sue over the way the state’s elections were managed. More than three years later, as she makes another run at the governor’s mansion, the lawsuit is going to trial.
        Filed in November 2018 by Abrams’ Fair Fight Action organization, the suit alleged that state officials “grossly mismanaged” the election, depriving some citizens, particularly low-income people and people of color, of their right to vote. The lawsuit originally called for a sweeping overhaul of the state’s elections, but its scope was considerably narrowed after the state made changes that addressed some allegations and others were dismissed by the court. The trial is set to begin Monday.”
        Don’t be blind – Democrats are the masters of the art of election denial.

          1. They refused Trump because there was no basis to hear it.

            The Gore case was ACTUALLY A CLOSE ELECTION.

            Wake up……..Trump did more than just speak and rail about losing. He tried to circumvent the transfer of power.

            Had Trump promised to push for new voting laws and got his cronies to adopt measure to benefit the GOP in voting………THAT’S LEGAL. He went beyond that and now he’s paying the price.

            1. “Trump did more than just speak and rail about losing. He tried to circumvent the transfer of power.”

              Bill, you screwed up on the issue of accepting the results of an election. A video of your heroes saying they didn’t lose the election isn’t good enough for you. You have to double down.

              Trump didn’t do anything illegal, and the transfer of power occurred on time. The silverware was left in the White House.

              I guess you like to (your words) “talk sh*t.”

        1. Don’t be blind – Democrats are the masters of the art of election denial.

          All done legally thru the courts, and she’ll respect (meaning will abide) by what they rule.

          Did Trump? LOL

          Try to introduce nuance into your analysis.

      4. “Al Gore – was in the closest election ever, with one state (FL) to decide the entire race, w/ less than 500 votes? Ultimately, he respected the SC’s decision.”

        What choice did he have??? There was no Wagner back then. LMAO strawman

        “Stacey Abrams – complained about voter rolls, said the election was unfair. What did she do…….said she’ll win NEXT time.”

        And how did that work out for her???
        She went around claiming to anyone that would listen, that she was the rightful governor of georgia. LMAO red herring

        “Hillary Clinton – conceded the NEXT day and attended Trump’s inauguration. Literally said “Let’s give DJT a chance.””

        To this day she incites people all over this country, claiming her coronation was stolen from her, even though SHE was the one who conspired to steal the election with Russiagate and defrauded the US of millions of dollars.
        LMAO gaslighting

        Congrats for hitting the modern liberal trifecta Bill

  10. “So, the lunatics have taken charge of the asylum.”

    – Richard A. Rowland



    The Supreme Court must act to strike down the perverse and unconstitutional acts of the Biden executive branch, in order to support the Constitution and to save the American restricted-vote republic which is in dire jeopardy.

    The only licit and constitutional requirement for Judicial Review is the completion of an act of the legislative branch or the completion of an act of the executive branch – the passage of legislation or the execution of an act.

    The persecution of President Donald J. Trump and biased interference in the 2024 presidential election, through the illicit, insidious and malicious juridical acts of the executive branch, are illegal and unconstitutional, and must be struck down by immediate Judicial Review.

    The doctrine of Judicial Review applies to State and Local governmental levels, including the Office of the New York County District Attorney.

    The Power of Judicial Review

    The Supreme Court can strike down any law or other action by the legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution. This power of judicial review applies to federal, state, and local legislative and executive actions. The Constitution does not specifically provide for the power of judicial review. It arises instead from an 1803 decision known as Marbury v. Madison.

    – Justia

    Judicial Review – Key takeaways

    The definition of judicial review is the power of the courts to determine if an act of Congress or the Executive is constitutional. The court may strike down a law or an executive action that is not in accord with the U.S. Constitution.

    The United States government is a system of checks and balances and separation of powers. The Judicial Branch is an independent branch of government with the power to check the legislative and executive branches through the powerful judicial practice of judicial review.

    – Vaia

    Judicial Restraint

    On one side are those who favor a strict constructionist approach that emphasizes judicial restraint. Strict constructionists believe that judges should not create policy and instead only judge limiting themselves to applying rules clearly stated in the Constitution. This approach to decision-making limits policymaking decisions by judges, instead relying on precedent and legislatures.

    Judicial Activism

    On the other side are those who advocate for judicial activism: the belief that the Constitution is a living document and that judges should be free to make policy and alleviate needs and correct instances of discrimination that are ignored in the political process.

    – Vaia

  11. “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.”

    Yes they are spreading those views. Some do not know any better. Some just believe whatever Trump and Fox tells them. Some just think it is one of those culture war things that make them part of the group.

    But only a small subset of them took actions like Trump did as part of the conspiracy. For example, the unindicted co-conspirators, those storming the Capitol, the fake electors. So let’s not bring the tens of millions into this to try to make it seem like Trump is just a passive rider in this attempted coup.

    1. The ongoing and continuing Obama Coup D’etat in America is the criminal act of a direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans and America.

      “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

      – Barack Obama

      “We will stop him.”

      – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page

      “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

      – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

      “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”

      – Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page

      “People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”

      – Bill Priestap

      The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:

      Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

      James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,

      James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,

      Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,

      Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,

      Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

      Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,

      Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,

      Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,

      Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney, Lisa O. Monaco et al.

      1. You know, I look at your list of people part of the Obama conspiracy and I see a few Trump appointees in there. Rod Rosenstein, Christopher Wray, Fiona Hill. Probably more as I don’t know who all these people are. Anyway, it just seems if Trump is elected again he is just going to appoint more of these anti-Trump conspiracists.

        1. Advise and Consent does the “appointing,” fool!

          Hopefully, Trump will pull a Lincoln, seize power, throw his opponents in jail and become a brutal dictator in favor of unregulated freedom, severely limited and restricted government, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (original).

          Just what the Founders/Framers ordered.

  12. It is impossible for President Donald J. Trump to obtain an impartial jury in Washington D.C.

    President Trump’s constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury will be denied.

    2020 Election Results in D.C.

    Joe Biden 92.15%

    Donald Trump 5.4%

    – Wiki

    6th Amendment

    …the accused shall enjoy the right to a…trial…by an impartial jury….

    1. If a Libertarian Party candidate who got 1 percent of the vote in every state were indicted, by this logic he could not get a fair trial anywhere because 99 percent of the people voted against him.

      1. The judge’s name is Tanya? That name is a flagrant “dog whistle” indicating that she is a Red Diaper Baby with a parentage of Marxist fanatics. Conseqently, she is an inappropriate & incompatible selection to sit in judgement of an American President.

      2. Can you say impartial jury?

        “…the accused shall enjoy…a…trial, by an impartial jury…”

        An impartial jury is not possible in D.C. regarding Trump.

        6th Amendment

        In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

      3. Jai Alai
        Nice logic there. You should join ATS’s troll team.

        99% of the people in those states have no f-ing idea who this theoretical Libertarian candidate is, much less do they have preconceived notions of his guilt. See the difference???

        50 years ago the democrats were the libertarians. Now their just the woke mob.

    2. Just because you voted for Joe Biden doesn’t mean you can’t sit on a jury and be impartial.

      The case is not being moved.

      Trump: F*ck around, find out.

  13. Pelosi calling for protests over Migrant Child Separation, June 2018

    “I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be when people realize that this is a policy that they defend….It’s a horrible thing, and I don’t see any prospect for legislation here.”

  14. Hitler and Stalin didn’t do anything to humans that God himself hasn’t done; killing them en masse by various means. When will genocidal God that you worship be put on trial?

    1. Killing people is merciful compared to what democrats do to their urban black constituents for generations. Note that not all urban constituents suffer the same fate…strange that.

  15. Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋
    If someone genuinely believes an election was unfair (as they have the right to believe in the US) and believes electoral votes can be downvoted (as they have a right to believe in the US), why are they prohibited from asking? And when you declined, did he have you arrested or prosecuted, as others are doing to him?

    Mike Pence
    Aug 2
    President Trump and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me to reject electoral votes and chaos would have ensued. To keep faith with the oath that I made to the American people and to Almighty God, I did my duty that day.

    1. Make Pence: Destruction of the Constitution by Communists is Better than Chaos.


      I’ll take Chaos any day over Mike Pence and His Fellow Communists’ Destruction of the Constitution of the United States of America.

      1. That you consider Pence to be a communist is a symptom of your extremism. He obeyed his oath to the Constitution; Trump did not. If you were a true constitutionalist, you’d condemn Trump, not Pence. You’re an extremist, which is why you like Trump.

        1. America is a communist nation.

          The Founders did not establish communism, the psycho, Karl Marx, did that 59 years later because there was not one scintilla of the current American communism in the Constitution.

          What happened, Einstein?

          Start with Comrade General Secretary Abraham “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and his wholly unconstitutional denial of fully constitutional secession (secession is not prohibited in the Constitution) through his generous application of brutality and violence.

    2. @EmeraldRobinson
      As I’ve said for years now, Mike Pence was the big snake inside the White House. Who took orders from the corrupt FBI to fire Gen. Flynn in order to kickstart the Russia Hoax?

      Now his treachery is out in the open.

        1. “1) Who Fired General Michael Flynn?

          Let’s begin with Mike Pence’s least favorite question: “Why did you insist that President Trump fire his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn in the opening days of the administration?” The official story is that Gen. Flynn had lied to Mike Pence about Flynn’s contacts with Russian diplomats. Nobody has bothered to ask Pence exactly how he was informed about Flynn’s private conversations. Think about it: somebody went to Pence with transcripts of Flynn’s calls, and told Pence that Flynn was a national security risk. Who would have access to such phone calls? Who would want to lie about the nature of those phone calls to get Flynn fired?

          It almost certainly must have been disgraced FBI agent Peter Strozk.

          It’s likely that Strzok was the one who pushed for VP Pence to fire Flynn because we know that Peter Strozk’s assistant was Katherine Seaman — the wife of Mike Pence’s chief of staff Josh Pitcock. We also have the text exchanges between Strozk and Page discussing infiltrating the Trump White House in great detail. (This was the subject of an extraordinary letter from Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson to AG Bill Barr.) What did Pence know about the FBI’s attempts to spy on the Trump White House? Is it even possible that Mike Pence was totally unaware that his chief of staff’s spouse worked directly for the chief of the counter-espionage unit of the FBI?

          We know that President Obama warned President Trump not to hire Flynn in 2016. We also know that Flynn himself believes that Obama advised Trump against hiring him because Flynn knew about the Obama administration’s role in spying on Trump’s presidential campaign. Removing Flynn as Trump’s National Security Advisor was a top priority for the Deep State.

          In other words, Mike Pence was the first person to set the Russia Hoax into motion.”


          1. Flynn was fired because Pence went on Face the Nation and made a false statement. And as a consequence someone was going to have to be sacked. Pence’s error was in relation to information that Flynn had gleaned that was not conveyed to pence sufficiently accurately to prevent him from providing an incorrect statement to the press.

            There are serious problems with Strzok, nor was Strzok and the FBI alone in gunning for Flynn.

            Flynn had served Obama as DNI and had the gual to not only be right when everyone else was wrong, but to have been Publicly right when everyone else was publicly wrong.

            Strzok bears personal responsiblility for the illegal attempt to criminally martyr Flynn, but to my knowledge he had no knowledge in getting him fired.

            Trump himself clearly did not understand the firing of Flynn, but he had a serious problem that he had to pick between his NSA and his Vice President before knowing either of them well.

Leave a Reply