DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024

[RANCH]

You mean beyond all the evidence that Rudy (aka Co-Conspirator 1) said he had and never produced, ever? I wonder why he doesn't come forward with the evidence. Any thoughts on that?

Or beyond all the court cases that were attempted but thrown out? Or the big audit in Arizona that found no fraud?

"Possible election fraud" has been investigated, as Trump had the right do to.....and fraud was not found.

Trump's team has the right, of course, to mount a defense. I'm not on the defense team so I don't know how they will approach it. We'll have to watch what happens.

jmo

I'm not saying there is evidence of election fraud,just that the defense may ask the court for time to look into it.

That could delay Jack Smith's desire to rush into a "speedy trial".

JMO.

Special Counsel Jack Smith Delivers Statement

www.justice.gov

 

[Inthedetails]

So it's possible that Trump believed his lawyers when they told him things about election fraud.

Seems like a possible defense to me. JMO.

I don't think that is a defense at all, imo, though he might try it. I don't think it would be successful, given the fact that he was advised of the truth by reliable sources. imo

The indictment lists people who told Trump the truth, that the election was not fraudulent and that he lost the election. They are:

Trump's Vice President, senior leaders of the Justice Department appointed by Trump, Director of National Intelligence, Department of Homeland Security cyber division that Trump signed into law while he was in office (Trump fired the director when the director didn't go along with Trump's election lies), senior White House attorneys, senior staffers on his 2020 campaign...and it goes on.

This info is on page 7 of the indictment: Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election

 

[Inthedetails]

I'm not saying there is evidence of election fraud,just that the defense may ask the court for time to look into it.

That could delay Jack Smith's desire to rush into a "speedy trial".

JMO.

Special Counsel Jack Smith Delivers Statement

www.justice.gov

I have no doubt that Trump's team will find reasons to request for many delays. Would a request be included to ask for time to investigate the election - that seems fruitless to me considering that's been done and done and done. jmo

jmo

 

[RANCH]

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told Newsweek that, despite the January 6 indictment being the "most politically explosive," it will also be the most difficult to return a guilty verdict.

"Prosecutors will have to prove some sort of knowledge of wrongdoing. They have to prove Trump knew that he was committing fraud. So if Trump says, 'I just relied on the advice of my attorneys, and I didn't know it was wrong or illegal,' then that's a defense in this case," Rahmani said. "If he can prove it was only aggressive lawyering, then he can be acquitted."

Jack Smith faces huge challenge in finding Donald Trump guilty—Here's why

Legal experts discuss the allegations laid out in the indictment accusing the former president of trying to overturn the 2020 election results.

www.newsweek.com

 

[RANCH]

I have no doubt that Trump's team will find reasons to request for many delays. Would a request be included to ask for time to investigate the election - that seems fruitless to me considering that's been done and done and done. jmo

jmo

I think the judge will need to be very careful in granting a speedy trial that would hinder the defense and limiting what his defense can investigate.

If the rulings go too far in favor of the prosecution it could end up being another case that Jack Smith has overturned. JMO.

 

[Inthedetails]

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told Newsweek that, despite the January 6 indictment being the "most politically explosive," it will also be the most difficult to return a guilty verdict.

"Prosecutors will have to prove some sort of knowledge of wrongdoing. They have to prove Trump knew that he was committing fraud. So if Trump says, 'I just relied on the advice of my attorneys, and I didn't know it was wrong or illegal,' then that's a defense in this case," Rahmani said. "If he can prove it was only aggressive lawyering, then he can be acquitted."

Jack Smith faces huge challenge in finding Donald Trump guilty—Here's why

Legal experts discuss the allegations laid out in the indictment accusing the former president of trying to overturn the 2020 election results.

www.newsweek.com

He was told the truth about the election (that it was legit and that he lost) by many people other than lawyers. See page 7 of the indictment. I also listed some of them in a post above.

It is not a good defense, imo, to claim he was ill-advised. He was advised by legit sources with the truth but he knowingly went in the direction of lying to overthrow the election. The indictment addresses this.

jmo

 

[Auntie Cipation]

So it's possible that Trump believed his lawyers when they told him things about election fraud.

Seems like a possible defense to me. JMO.

Perhaps he did. I suspect not, for two reasons.

One, he admitted multiple times in private (later revealed in the writings of multiple authors) that he knew he hadn't won.

Two, I'm quite certain (but IMO because I can't identify sources) that for every lawyer telling him "you actually won" and "this scheme will work", there were multiple lawyers advising him otherwise. He didn't want actual laws and facts, he wanted things to go as he decreed they should go.

What I do think is entirely possible is that he believed his "crackpot lawyers" had come up with a scheme whereby he might actually get away with illegally overturning the election and remaining in office.

And of course, even if he DID truly believe he had won and the election win HAD somehow been fraudently stolen from him, that would not justify the violence nor the process disruption of January 6 nor the attempting to finagle false electors. The law lays out the legal process for objecting to election results, and even if he truly believed he had won, legal options were the only acceptable response.

MOO

 

[RANCH]

He was told the truth about the election (that it was legit and that he lost) by many people other than lawyers. See page 7 of the indictment. I also listed some of them in a post above.

It is not a good defense, imo, to claim he was ill-advised. He was advised by legit sources with the truth but he knowingly went in the direction of lying to overthrow the election. The indictment addresses this.

jmo

Being told one thing by some people and the opposite by others? How does that tell us what Trump was thinking?

Unless the prosecution can get Trump himself saying that he knew the election was not stolen how will it be able to prove it to the jury? JMO.

 

[MyBelle]

You mean beyond all the evidence that Rudy (aka Co-Conspirator 1) said he had and never produced, ever? I wonder why he doesn't come forward with the evidence. Any thoughts on that?

Or beyond all the court cases that were attempted but thrown out? Or the big audit in Arizona that found no fraud?

"Possible election fraud" has been investigated, as Trump had the right do to.....and fraud was not found.

Trump's team has the right, of course, to mount a defense. I'm not on the defense team so I don't know how they will approach it. We'll have to watch what happens.

jmo

Trump might want to replace the attorney who told NPR the DOJ has been investigating Trump about this case for three and a half years. Jan. 6, 2021 was two and a half years ago.

JMO

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/02/1191627739/trump-charges-indictment-attorney-jan-6-probe

 

[Inthedetails]

Two, I'm quite certain (but IMO because I can't identify sources) that for every lawyer telling him "you actually won" and "this scheme will work", there were multiple lawyers advising him otherwise. He didn't want actual laws and facts, he wanted things to go as he decreed they should go.



MOO

snipped

Yes, he was advised truthfully. It's specifically addressed in the indictment who told him the truth.

He was well advised, but chose to discard the facts and truth, imo, and find conspirators to go along with him, imo.

jmo

 

[RANCH]

Perhaps he did. I suspect not, for two reasons.

One, he admitted multiple times in private (later revealed in the writings of multiple authors) that he knew he hadn't won.

Two, I'm quite certain (but IMO because I can't identify sources) that for every lawyer telling him "you actually won" and "this scheme will work", there were multiple lawyers advising him otherwise. He didn't want actual laws and facts, he wanted things to go as he decreed they should go.

What I do think is entirely possible is that he believed his "crackpot lawyers" had come up with a scheme whereby he might actually get away with illegally overturning the election and remaining in office.

And of course, even if he DID truly believe he had won and the election win HAD somehow been fraudently stolen from him, that would not justify the violence nor the process disruption of January 6 nor the attempting to finagle false electors. The law lays out the legal process for objecting to election results, and even if he truly believed he had won, legal options were the only acceptable response.

MOO

Do you have a link to these incriminating writings?

 

[RANCH]

snipped

Yes, he was advised truthfully. It's specifically addressed in the indictment who told him the truth.

He was well advised, but chose to discard the facts and truth, imo, and find conspirators to go along with him, imo.

jmo

That could be his defense. That he disregarded the facts and truth about losing the election and instead believed in what some of his "crackpot lawyers" told him per Mike Pence. JMO.

 

[Leilei]

So it's possible that Trump believed his lawyers when they told him things about election fraud.

Seems like a possible defense to me. JMO.

Pretty sure that ignorance of the law isn't a defense. Especially when you're the POTUS. JMO.

 

[Inthedetails]

Being told one thing by some people and the opposite by others? How does that tell us what Trump was thinking?

Unless the prosecution can get Trump himself saying that he knew the election was not stolen how will it be able to prove it to the jury? JMO.

As a courtesy to anyone who hasn't read the indictment: Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election

Of course, the indictment doesn't include absolutely everything that will be presented to the jury in court. As WSers, we know the prosecution is not required to share with the public everything that will eventually be presented in court.

But for now, we have the indictment. Fortunately it is not difficult to read or understand.

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

That could be his defense. That he disregarded the facts and truth about losing the election and instead believed in what some of his "crackpot lawyers" told him per Mike Pence. JMO.

Not very presidential or competent to admit he believed crackpots over legit advisors, but sure, maybe he will do just that. If so, I predict the jury will be un-impressed, imo.

jmo

 

[kaen]

So it's possible that Trump believed his lawyers when they told him things about election fraud.

Seems like a possible defense to me. JMO.

The important thing to note that his White House lawyers and his Attorney General lawyer told him that he lost, that there was no real evidence of fraud found. As Mr. Trump is want to do (in his business life, personal life and political life) he declined to listen to the people who were paid on behalf of the White House and the country to assess and advise. Mr. Trump so much did not like what these folks were saying that he tried to place one of the co-conspirators in the office of the Attorney General. As he made plans to put his co-conspirator in office, he was informed that many of the other lawyers in the AG's/DOJ would mass resign (see NPR story below) which would be problematic. There were more than a few lawyers telling him that there was no fraud AND that they were willing to go to the mat with their opinions.
It was then that he back tracked and did not place his co-conspirator in office. So....... he had his co-conspirator crack pot lawyers --one of whom Trump commented that she was potentially crazy AND he had solid lawyers who en masse told him that he had lost. You can't put up a defense that says that "I listened to the people I wanted to rather than listen to the people who were hired to do a job." and think that the other side of this coin will not be addressed in court.
Saying that he believed his lawyers is misleading because it only refers to the co-conspirators rather than the total of all the lawyers who advised him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...01/doj-trump-indictment-trump-coconspirators/

This is from NPR in June 2022(https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107...ail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting):

Ahead of the meeting with Trump, Donoghue assembled a conference call with assistant attorneys general and asked what they would do if Clark was installed as head of the department. He testified that those in the meeting "said they would resign en masse."

Hours later, the tense meeting began.

Rosen said Trump "turned to me and said — 'Well, one thing we know is you, Rosen, you aren't going to do anything. You don't even agree with the claims of election fraud, and this other guy at least might do something,'" referring to Clark.

"I said, 'Well, Mr. President, you're right that I'm not going to allow the Justice Department to do anything to try to overturn the election. That's true," Rosen recalled. "'But the reason for that is because that's what's consistent with the facts and the law, and that's what's required under the Constitution.'"

 

[RANCH]

As a courtesy to anyone who hasn't read the indictment: Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election

Of course, the indictment doesn't include absolutely everything that will be presented to the jury in court. As WSers, we know the prosecution is not required to share with the public everything that will eventually be presented in court.

But for now, we have the indictment. Fortunately it is not difficult to read or understand.

jmo

The indictment is only one side of the story. The prosecution will only present evidence that supports their case when this goes to trial.

I'm looking at the whole picture which includes possible defense strategies and weakness's in the prosecutions case. JMO.

 

[kaen]

Look who was in the room. More lawyers who spoke truth to power:

On Jan. 3, Clark told Rosen the "timeline had been moved up" and that Trump had offered him the top job and he was accepting it. Following that meeting, Rosen called then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to set up a meeting that night with the president. Included in the meeting were White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Steven Engel, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel....

Donoghue eventually joined the meeting and recalled Trump asking, "What do I have to lose?" in replacing Rosen with Clark.

"It was actually a good opening because I said, 'Mr. President, you have a great deal to lose,'" he testified. "I began to explain to him what he had to lose and what the country had to lose and what the department had to lose, and this was not in anyone's best interest. That conversation went on for some time. Everyone essentially chimed in with their own thoughts, all of which were consistent about how damaging this would be to the country."

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107217243/former-doj-officials-detail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting

 

[kaen]

Jenna Ellis, a lawyer not named as a co-conspirator.

Jenna Ellis, a lawyer who represented former President Trump, admitted in court that she made various misrepresentations on social media and major television appearances about the 2020 presidential election, leading a judge to issue a public censure on Wednesday.

Ellis, who was part of the former president’s efforts to challenge the legitimacy of his election loss, admitted to 10 misrepresentations about the election results, including statements made on Twitter and television programs on Fox News, Fox Business, MSNBC and Newsmax.

Trump attorney admits misrepresenting evidence of election fraud

Jenna Ellis, a lawyer who represented former President Trump, admitted in court that she made various misrepresentations on social media and major television appearances about the 2020 presidential…

thehill.com

 

[kaen]

Bill Barr reports that he told Trump there was no fraud and that he had lost.