And coming from Dershowitz, this is saying something.
Trump Trial
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
I'm just waiting for some progbot to call him a MAGA supporter.
The Latest Indictment of Trump
The latest indictment of Trump -- I believe there have been three in the past four months -- is not only clearly political, designed to obstruct his campaign, but it is seriously flawed as a legal matter. Reams have been published on this point, but I think the most complete is that of Will Scharf. I’ll summarize his key points but urge you to read it all.
The charges depend on Trump’s state of mind and “proving the requisite intent on the part of Trump and his alleged co-conspirators on all of these charges is likely impossible, at least in front of a fair jury in a fair courtroom.” More troubling is that “Jack Smith’s theory of the case necessarily requires criminalizing political speech,” a core protection of the First Amendment. Trump is surely not the first candidate to claim elections were stolen from them: In 1824 Andrew Jackson claimed John Quincy Adams cheated him out of the election. More recently Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams, to name but two, made that claim. “After the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections Democrats attempted to interfere with the electoral count process” and one can argue that Smith’s theory of the case would make those claims and acts criminal matters. The capper is Smith’s using a statute designed to deal with the Ku Klux Klan -- a statute criminalizing efforts to deprive people of their rights under the Constitution. Recent cases in the Supreme Court make clear that the statute is not violated unless the prosecution proves that Trump and his co-conspirators “acted with specific intent to deprive people of the right to have their votes counted’ (emphasis added). The count alleging fraudulent conspiracy is no better than the other counts:
Nor does the Obstruction Count justify the prosecution, for the same inability to prove intent to “obstruct an official proceeding” to benefit himself by means he knew to be unlawful.
Of course, whatever infirmities there are in this case, the most obvious is that the facts in this case were known in 2020, and timing it now while demanding a speedy trial has “all the appearances” of Smith arrogating to himself the right to pick the next president.
A similar but shorter take from Professor Alan Dershowitz, who is skeptical of Trump getting a fair trial in D.C. "The Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional, because there was no actual speech to defraud an election or interrupt congressional procedure. There are no actions he took. No one is prepared to testify there was. You are allowed to contest an election. You are allowed to doubt the results of the election.”
Others have argued that this case is essentially the rehash of the partisan J6 findings and an impeachment for which he was not convicted, and is therefore barred by the constitutional provision against double jeopardy. Criminal trial lawyers also observe that the nature of the charges permits Trump to seek from every agency of the government potentially exculpatory matters in their files, a process which would very substantially delay matters. (The prosecution has already admitted error when they claimed it has produced certain records to the defense which they had not.) Later last week, further shredding the constitutional rights of the defendant, Smith has asked the judge to order away Trump from disclosing witness testimony he received in discovery -- this after extensive poisoning public opinion and the jury pool with his own pre-indictment comments.
www.americanthinker.com
The latest indictment of Trump -- I believe there have been three in the past four months -- is not only clearly political, designed to obstruct his campaign, but it is seriously flawed as a legal matter. Reams have been published on this point, but I think the most complete is that of Will Scharf. I’ll summarize his key points but urge you to read it all.
The charges depend on Trump’s state of mind and “proving the requisite intent on the part of Trump and his alleged co-conspirators on all of these charges is likely impossible, at least in front of a fair jury in a fair courtroom.” More troubling is that “Jack Smith’s theory of the case necessarily requires criminalizing political speech,” a core protection of the First Amendment. Trump is surely not the first candidate to claim elections were stolen from them: In 1824 Andrew Jackson claimed John Quincy Adams cheated him out of the election. More recently Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams, to name but two, made that claim. “After the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections Democrats attempted to interfere with the electoral count process” and one can argue that Smith’s theory of the case would make those claims and acts criminal matters. The capper is Smith’s using a statute designed to deal with the Ku Klux Klan -- a statute criminalizing efforts to deprive people of their rights under the Constitution. Recent cases in the Supreme Court make clear that the statute is not violated unless the prosecution proves that Trump and his co-conspirators “acted with specific intent to deprive people of the right to have their votes counted’ (emphasis added). The count alleging fraudulent conspiracy is no better than the other counts:
Smith’s theory is that Trump and his alleged co-conspirators conspired to “defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government.” But in light of the requirements for proving fraud conspiracy under § 371, Smith needs to show that Trump and his team knew their theories were groundless when they promoted them to state legislators and other decision-makers in the electoral count process and encouraged those officials to take various official actions. And that Trump and his team agreed this was the plan -- promoting theories they knew were groundless, based on facts that they knew were false, to these legislators and officials.
The fact that Trump received advice to the contrary just doesn’t cut it, from a legal perspective, when it comes to proving a fraud conspiracy under § 371. This charge appears to be dead on arrival from a legal perspective.
Nor does the Obstruction Count justify the prosecution, for the same inability to prove intent to “obstruct an official proceeding” to benefit himself by means he knew to be unlawful.
Of course, whatever infirmities there are in this case, the most obvious is that the facts in this case were known in 2020, and timing it now while demanding a speedy trial has “all the appearances” of Smith arrogating to himself the right to pick the next president.
A similar but shorter take from Professor Alan Dershowitz, who is skeptical of Trump getting a fair trial in D.C. "The Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional, because there was no actual speech to defraud an election or interrupt congressional procedure. There are no actions he took. No one is prepared to testify there was. You are allowed to contest an election. You are allowed to doubt the results of the election.”
Others have argued that this case is essentially the rehash of the partisan J6 findings and an impeachment for which he was not convicted, and is therefore barred by the constitutional provision against double jeopardy. Criminal trial lawyers also observe that the nature of the charges permits Trump to seek from every agency of the government potentially exculpatory matters in their files, a process which would very substantially delay matters. (The prosecution has already admitted error when they claimed it has produced certain records to the defense which they had not.) Later last week, further shredding the constitutional rights of the defendant, Smith has asked the judge to order away Trump from disclosing witness testimony he received in discovery -- this after extensive poisoning public opinion and the jury pool with his own pre-indictment comments.
The Machinery of Government is Coated with Gunk
The juxtaposition of the Department of Justice’s handling of Hunter Biden with its outrageous treatment of Donald J. Trump justifies Scott Adams's view:
Even lies are protected speech: New Trump indictment bulldozes the First Amendment
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.
Two other factors work to Trump’s advantage for now. First, with President Biden getting drawn deeper into his son’s myriad scandals, Trump can more easily make his case about a double standard of justice. Devon Archer’s Monday testimony that Biden the elder joined or called in to Hunter’s business meetings at least 20 times is not a good look, no matter how the White House spins it. Related bribery allegations are becoming more concrete. And the Biden DOJ’s handling of Hunter’s plea deal faces mounting scrutiny, most recently from the judge on the case.
Second, Trump’s putative rivals for the GOP nomination, with one or two exceptions, are helping him make that case and can’t seem to muster the vitriol to truly attack him. While several have criticized the front-runner for his January 6 conduct, the candidates either leapt to his defense over the Smith indictment or exercised studious restraint. Vivek Ramaswamy submitted perhaps the strongest application for Trump’s cabinet, doubling down on his commitment to pardon Trump if elected and then absolving him of responsibility by declaring “the real cause was systematic & pervasive censorship of citizens in the year leading up to it.”
Rich Lowry wrote this past week about the “fear factor” that holds back Trump’s GOP rivals. If they can’t shake it, it could be fatal:
Rich noted Chris Christie doesn’t play this game — Pence also held his ground this week — but others will criticize Trump only politely (Will Hurd, Asa Hutchinson) or “without having to grasp the nettle” (Ron DeSantis).
www.nationalreview.com
Second, Trump’s putative rivals for the GOP nomination, with one or two exceptions, are helping him make that case and can’t seem to muster the vitriol to truly attack him. While several have criticized the front-runner for his January 6 conduct, the candidates either leapt to his defense over the Smith indictment or exercised studious restraint. Vivek Ramaswamy submitted perhaps the strongest application for Trump’s cabinet, doubling down on his commitment to pardon Trump if elected and then absolving him of responsibility by declaring “the real cause was systematic & pervasive censorship of citizens in the year leading up to it.”
Rich Lowry wrote this past week about the “fear factor” that holds back Trump’s GOP rivals. If they can’t shake it, it could be fatal:
Rich noted Chris Christie doesn’t play this game — Pence also held his ground this week — but others will criticize Trump only politely (Will Hurd, Asa Hutchinson) or “without having to grasp the nettle” (Ron DeSantis).
What Trump Has Going for Him | National Review
The indictment onslaught threatens his freedom, yet he remains unscathed in the primary battle.
www.nationalreview.com
Biden DOJ Attempts to Muzzle Trump Over His 'Threatening' Social Media Posts
"The Truth post cited is the definition of political speech, and was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for No Growth," a Trump spokesperson said in a statement.
The order would also place stricter limits on "sensitive materials," including grand jury witness testimony and materials obtained through sealed search warrants.
Prosecutors have said they are ready to hand over a "substantial" amount of evidence to Trump's legal team, with much of it including "sensitive and confidential information." They reportedly told the judge there could be a "harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case" if Trump began posting grand jury transcripts or evidence provided by the DOJ, which they are trying to keep out of public view.
“Asking is aspirational. Asking is not action. It’s core free speech. The press should be defending free speech,” Lauro told CNN’s Dana Bash.
“What President Trump was doing is within the reality and the realm of free speech. He’s asking his vice president, ‘What about taking this course of action?’ Ultimately, his vice president rejected all of the proposals that were made,” Lauro later added on CNN. “What President Trump did not do is direct Vice President Pence to do anything. He asked him in an aspirational way. Asking is covered by the First Amendment.”
Lauro made a similar argument in defending Trump’s now-infamous phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, whom Trump asked to “find 11,780 votes” in order to secure Trump’s victory, despite actually losing the state in the 2020 election.
In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Lauro called this request “an aspirational ask” and said “he’s entitled to petition even state government.”
“What he was asking for is for Raffensperger to get to the truth. He believed that there were in excess of 10,000 votes that were counted illegally, and what he was asking for is the secretary of state to act appropriately and find these votes that were counted illegally,” Lauro said on NBC. “That was an aspirational ask. He’s entitled to petition even state government.”
Lauro also made the case that the government won’t be able to prove Trump knew he lost the election.
“The government, the Biden administration, would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump did not believe that he had won the election. They will never be able to do that. And that’s why this prosecution is so ill-conceived,” Lauro said on NBC.
Lauro also took further aim at Pence in an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” where he said he “cannot wait” to cross-examine Pence, arguing that the former vice president’s testimony will bolster the defense’s argument that Trump truly believed the election was stolen and that he won.
“I cannot wait until I have the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Pence because what he will do is completely eliminate any doubt that Mr. Trump — President Trump firmly believed that the election irregularities had led to inappropriate results,” Lauro said.
Pence, however, said he has “no plans” to testify in an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that aired Sunday, but he also said that “people can be confident we’ll obey the law.” Pence did confirm that he testified before the grand jury that brought the case in Washington, D.C.
thehill.com
“What President Trump was doing is within the reality and the realm of free speech. He’s asking his vice president, ‘What about taking this course of action?’ Ultimately, his vice president rejected all of the proposals that were made,” Lauro later added on CNN. “What President Trump did not do is direct Vice President Pence to do anything. He asked him in an aspirational way. Asking is covered by the First Amendment.”
Lauro made a similar argument in defending Trump’s now-infamous phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, whom Trump asked to “find 11,780 votes” in order to secure Trump’s victory, despite actually losing the state in the 2020 election.
In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Lauro called this request “an aspirational ask” and said “he’s entitled to petition even state government.”
“What he was asking for is for Raffensperger to get to the truth. He believed that there were in excess of 10,000 votes that were counted illegally, and what he was asking for is the secretary of state to act appropriately and find these votes that were counted illegally,” Lauro said on NBC. “That was an aspirational ask. He’s entitled to petition even state government.”
Lauro also made the case that the government won’t be able to prove Trump knew he lost the election.
“The government, the Biden administration, would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump did not believe that he had won the election. They will never be able to do that. And that’s why this prosecution is so ill-conceived,” Lauro said on NBC.
Lauro also took further aim at Pence in an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” where he said he “cannot wait” to cross-examine Pence, arguing that the former vice president’s testimony will bolster the defense’s argument that Trump truly believed the election was stolen and that he won.
“I cannot wait until I have the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Pence because what he will do is completely eliminate any doubt that Mr. Trump — President Trump firmly believed that the election irregularities had led to inappropriate results,” Lauro said.
Pence, however, said he has “no plans” to testify in an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that aired Sunday, but he also said that “people can be confident we’ll obey the law.” Pence did confirm that he testified before the grand jury that brought the case in Washington, D.C.
Trump, attorney defiant in face of Jan. 6 charges
An attorney for former President Trump spent Sunday fiercely defending his client in a series of TV interviews that aimed to reset the narrative in the case related to Trump’s efforts to clin…
thehill.com
Why Trump Wasn’t Charged With Insurrection
Jack Smith's indictment suggests that his bosses at the White House and the DOJ have a different goal.
This must have been particularly frustrating for those who have long insisted that the 14th Amendment prohibits Trump from serving a second presidential term. The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was, of course, to grant citizenship to emancipated slaves. However, it also includes language in Section 3 that bars anyone who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States]” from holding office in the federal government. This passage was included to prevent former officials of the Confederacy from returning to Congress and creating more mischief. The problem with using this clause against Donald Trump is explained by constitutional law professor Josh Blackman in Reason:
It evidently never occurred to the victims of Trump Derangement Syndrome that “insurrection” is a legal term with an actual definition in the U.S. Code. In order to convict former President Trump of this crime, the Special Prosecutor must prove that he fits the following description in 18 U.S.C. § 2383: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.” Anyone convicted of insurrection can expect a long prison term and a hefty fine. It would be difficult to convict Trump under this statute, considering that not one participant in the Jan. 6 riot has been charged with insurrection.
A few have been charged with “seditious conspiracy.” Others are accused of “assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers.” The vast majority have been charged with far less serious offences, such as “entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds.” This behavior was inexcusable, but it certainly did not rise to the level of insurrection. Thus, Jack Smith was under such pressure to charge Trump for something relating to Jan. 6 he was reduced to indicting him for “lying” about the 2020 election. Yet, such criminalization of false statements, as law professor Jonathan Turley writes in the Hill, was declared unconstitutional 11 years ago by the Supreme Court in United States v. Alvarez:
But Smith need not be concerned about such trivia as the First Amendment or Supreme Court precedent. He was appointed Special Counsel primarily to keep Trump immured in a legal web from which it will be time consuming and costly to extricate himself. Smith will have very little difficulty accomplishing that in a trial presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee notorious for handing down harsher sentences to Jan. 6 defendants than recommended by Justice Department prosecutors. Moreover, because the trial will be held in Washington, DC — where 92.2 percent of the 2020 presidential vote went to Biden — the jury pool will certainly share Judge Chutkan’s prejudice.
Jack Smith's indictment suggests that his bosses at the White House and the DOJ have a different goal.
This must have been particularly frustrating for those who have long insisted that the 14th Amendment prohibits Trump from serving a second presidential term. The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was, of course, to grant citizenship to emancipated slaves. However, it also includes language in Section 3 that bars anyone who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States]” from holding office in the federal government. This passage was included to prevent former officials of the Confederacy from returning to Congress and creating more mischief. The problem with using this clause against Donald Trump is explained by constitutional law professor Josh Blackman in Reason:
It evidently never occurred to the victims of Trump Derangement Syndrome that “insurrection” is a legal term with an actual definition in the U.S. Code. In order to convict former President Trump of this crime, the Special Prosecutor must prove that he fits the following description in 18 U.S.C. § 2383: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.” Anyone convicted of insurrection can expect a long prison term and a hefty fine. It would be difficult to convict Trump under this statute, considering that not one participant in the Jan. 6 riot has been charged with insurrection.
A few have been charged with “seditious conspiracy.” Others are accused of “assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers.” The vast majority have been charged with far less serious offences, such as “entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds.” This behavior was inexcusable, but it certainly did not rise to the level of insurrection. Thus, Jack Smith was under such pressure to charge Trump for something relating to Jan. 6 he was reduced to indicting him for “lying” about the 2020 election. Yet, such criminalization of false statements, as law professor Jonathan Turley writes in the Hill, was declared unconstitutional 11 years ago by the Supreme Court in United States v. Alvarez:
But Smith need not be concerned about such trivia as the First Amendment or Supreme Court precedent. He was appointed Special Counsel primarily to keep Trump immured in a legal web from which it will be time consuming and costly to extricate himself. Smith will have very little difficulty accomplishing that in a trial presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee notorious for handing down harsher sentences to Jan. 6 defendants than recommended by Justice Department prosecutors. Moreover, because the trial will be held in Washington, DC — where 92.2 percent of the 2020 presidential vote went to Biden — the jury pool will certainly share Judge Chutkan’s prejudice.
Atlanta sets up ring of steel around courthouse to get ready for Trump's FOURTH indictment: Armed cops patrol barriers as city braces for ex-president to be charged in Georgia
- Trump's legal dramas could have a new setting this week: Atlanta, Georgia
- The downtown courthouse was fortified on Monday ahead of possible charges
Judge in Trump Mar-a-Lago classified documents case demands to know why the DOJ wants to use a grand jury from out of state as she hands Jack Smith multiple blows
- Judge Aileen Cannon demanded to know why Jack Smith used two grand juries
- Evidence was collected in DC, even though charges were brought in Florida
'The response shall address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district,' she wrote in a court filing.
Trump appeared in Miami federal court in June to plead not guilty to charges related to his handling of government documents and an alleged cover-up.
Since then, the indictment has been expanded to accuse him and two aides — Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveria — of trying to evade government efforts to retrieve some 32 classified documents.
Prosecutor Working With Jack Smith Donated Thousands to Biden, Cory Booker, the Democratic National Committee
David Rody, a prosecutor working with special counsel Jack Smith on the Trump indictment, is also a donor to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and the Democratic National Committee.
Rody is not a grassroots donor who gave $10 or $25 here and there, he donated thousands of dollars, meaning that he is obviously a partisan.
These people are abusing our legal system for political reasons and it’s so obvious.
Just the News reports:
Trump is right. This whole thing is a sham.
The Trump legal team asked that the government’s the proposed order be narrowed to “shield only genuinely sensitive materials from public view” or else their client may be restricted from discussing non-sensitive, potentially exculpatory evidence and could be precluded from seeking the help of “volunteer attorneys” or others “without paid employment arrangements.”
Trump’s lawyers also warned that the government seeks to restrict Trump’s First Amendment rights in a case about First Amendment rights and claimed that President Joe Biden has already “capitalized” on the indictment, pointing to a re-election campaign social media post showing him drinking from a “Dark Brandon” coffee mug hours before Trump was arraigned. Like Biden, Trump is running a 2024 campaign for another term in the White House.
Prosecutors filed the request for a protective order on Friday, seeking to have Trump’s lawyers maintain control of “sensitive materials.” Among the proposed stipulations, Trump could be shown the sensitive materials but the former president’s lawyers would be barred from providing copies to him, nor would Trump be allowed to take notes with certain types of personal identifying information.
Smith’s team said “much” of the evidence they planned to share with Trump’s legal team contained “sensitive and confidential information” and the disclosure of grand jury transcripts or other information “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”
Prosecutors raised concerns about Trump’s posts to social media regarding “witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him,” and said if the former president “were to begin issuing public posts using details — or, for example, grand jury transcripts — obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”
www.dailywire.com
Trump’s lawyers also warned that the government seeks to restrict Trump’s First Amendment rights in a case about First Amendment rights and claimed that President Joe Biden has already “capitalized” on the indictment, pointing to a re-election campaign social media post showing him drinking from a “Dark Brandon” coffee mug hours before Trump was arraigned. Like Biden, Trump is running a 2024 campaign for another term in the White House.
Prosecutors filed the request for a protective order on Friday, seeking to have Trump’s lawyers maintain control of “sensitive materials.” Among the proposed stipulations, Trump could be shown the sensitive materials but the former president’s lawyers would be barred from providing copies to him, nor would Trump be allowed to take notes with certain types of personal identifying information.
Smith’s team said “much” of the evidence they planned to share with Trump’s legal team contained “sensitive and confidential information” and the disclosure of grand jury transcripts or other information “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”
Prosecutors raised concerns about Trump’s posts to social media regarding “witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him,” and said if the former president “were to begin issuing public posts using details — or, for example, grand jury transcripts — obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”
Jack Smith Rebuffs Trump Bid For Narrower Protected Order; Judge Responds
Within hours of Donald Trump requesting a stripped-down protective order — narrower than one sought by prosecutors in the federal 2020 election criminal case against the former president — special counsel Jack Smith rejected the revised proposal, leading to a quick decision by the presiding...
Here Is Why Trump's Lawyers Say His Post-Election Conduct Was Constitutionally Protected
The indictment describes Eastman as one of Trump's co-conspirators. Civil rights attorney Harvey Silverglate, who is representing Eastman, argues that he did nothing to justify that characterization. "He acted in the highest traditions of the legal profession to advise his client, even if some of his theories were at the very boundary of the law," Silverglate wrote in a letter to The Boston Globe. "There is nothing unlawful, much less criminal, about coming up with creative, boundary-pushing legal theories."
While Pence rejected Eastman's theories, Lauro says, he was sympathetic to some of Trump's claims—in particular, his complaints about pandemic-inspired changes to election procedures. According to Lauro, Pence—who, like many others in Trump's circle, did not buy his stolen-election fantasy—nevertheless agreed that it was appropriate for Congress to consider allegations of election irregularities, although he did not agree that they justified sending supposedly disputed slates "back to the states."
While "people disagree about constitutional principles all the time," Lauro said on NBC, "it never leads to a criminal charge." Trump "acted under the advice of counsel when he petitioned" Pence, Lauro added, and that was protected "under the First Amendment."
In short, Lauro says, the Justice Department is attempting to criminalize differences of opinion about an empirical question (whether systematic fraud delivered a phony victory to Biden) and legal questions such as the propriety of "alternate" electors and the constitutionality of the intervention that Pence rejected. The government's case, he argues, is plainly inconsistent with the First Amendment, which protected Trump's right to complain about the election and his right to solicit the assistance of state and federal officials in addressing his complaints.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has a similar take. Writing in The Hill, Turley notes that the First Amendment protects political speech even when it is false and even when the speaker knows it is false, as the indictment acknowledges: "The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won."
Yet the case against Trump, Turley argues, "sets up the federal government as the arbiter of truth" and "essentially charges Trump with not accepting the 'truth.'" If Trump sincerely believed that the election was stolen, he says, "the indictment collapses," because that means he did not have the criminal intent required by the government's conspiracy charges.
"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," Turley writes. "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."
Did Trump Know Election Fraud was a Lie?
By Joe FriedAs a general rule, a prosecutor can’t establish criminality unless he demonstrates criminal intent. For that reason, Special Counsel Jack Smith is trying to establish that President Trump knew for a fact that he had lost the election. I have a problem with Smith’s reasoning because, to this day, I am certain that Trump did not lose the election. Here is some of the evidence.
Strange ballots in Fulton County
A review of Fulton County’s 147,000 mail-in paper ballots has been continuously blocked by the Georgia Secretary of State. However, a diligent nonprofit organization (VoterGA.org) managed to get some low-resolution ballot images of Fulton’s ballots. The findings are astonishing, and entirely verifiable:
- In Georgia, every scanned ballot has to produce two files: an image file (.tif) and an authentication file (.sha). Those two files are produced simultaneously. Yet, for more than 16,000 ballots, the authentication files were made hours or even days after the image files. How is that possible?
- 17,724 final certified recount presidential votes have no image (.tif) files. They have no support whatever. This appears to be another impossibility because the image is needed to create a “cast vote record,” which is needed to tabulate the vote. It is possible that Fulton County discovered a ballot shortage in the recount. Rather than concede that Trump may have won, someone stuffed 17,000 paper ballots into cardboard boxes. However, the person didn’t make a scanned image of each ballot because the dates on the scans would have revealed the hoax.
- 132,284 mail-in ballot images (.tif files) cannot be authenticated due to missing .sha files.
More ballots than voters in Pennsylvania
In violation of PA law (25 PA. Stat. §3154), the election was certified with a massive excess of ballots over voters. To be clear, I am talking about the excess of ballots over registered voters who actually voted (not the excess over all registered voters).
The 202,000 voter deficit was a key reason many Republicans, including at least 16 members of the Pennsylvania Assembly, wanted Vice President Mike Pence to delay announcement of the electors for 10 days. They naively thought there is supposed to be just one ballot for every voter. Details, details.
Months after the election was certified, the excess remained. A fine organization, Verity Vote, attempted to shed light on the matter by preparing a detailed analysis based on information obtained from numerous Right to Know requests. Verity Vote estimated that, as of early 2021, the voter deficit was about 121,000. Later, I submitted my own Right to Know requests. Based on the updated information produced from those requests, and generously interpreting the information in the most favorable way for the Secretary of State, my estimate was 91,000. Either way, the deficit is substantially more than Biden’s official winning margin.
Goldsmith, who served in the George W. Bush administration, warned Times readers that while they might enjoy the idea of Trump being indicted and possibly imprisoned, the other half of the country did not see it that way, and would seek revenge:
Read Goldsmith’s full article here.
www.breitbart.com
Read Goldsmith’s full article here.
New York Times Op-ed Warns of 'Terrible Consequences' of Prosecuting Trump
Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith, a noted critic of Trump, warned of "terrible consequences" for the country in the prosecutions.