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

[IzzyBlanche]

Of course the indictment will say that Trump is guilty. That's what it's for.

I feel that there are weakness in it that the defense will use to defend Trump at trial. JMO.

What weaknesses do you see?

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Do you have a link to these incriminating writings?

Not immediately. Since Jan 6th 2021 I have read (actually listened to audiobooks of) a minimum of fifteen books about Trump. Unless I did a lot of relistening, I can't offhand remember which books said what, since they were often discussing the same incidents. I can only tell you that from my own recollection it was mentioned in more than one book, that in private conversation Trump would say things that indicated he understood he had lost. Not in public, where his narcissism wouldn't let him admit defeat, but in private with staff, aides, or family, he did so.

All MOO

I'm gifting this article from the Washington Post that outlines all of the Republican officials who told Trump there was no election fraud.

It strains credulity that all these people told Trump this, and he chose to "honestly" believe crackpots like Sydney Powell instead.

https://wapo.st/44SZOb3

Were we discussing anyone else, I would agree that it strains credulity. With Trump I do not for an instant think he chose to believe the crackpots -- I think he chose to PRETEND to believe them, in the hopes that he might pull off staying in office one way (overturning the election via false electors or judges ruling for him in multiple cases) or another (by allowing the violent riots to lead, if they had, to a successful cancellation or alteration of the electoral vote certification.

Again, MOO

 

[RANCH]

What weaknesses do you see?

I'll re-post some links that will help.

Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional lawyer who served on Trump's defense team during his first impeachment, told Newsweek that the First Amendment is a sound argument for the former president to invoke "unless the government can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he actually knew and believed he had lost fairly."

Legal attorney Jonathan Turley agreed, saying that while he found the Justice Department's first indictment against Trump in the Mar-a-Lago confidential documents case to be "strong and well-supported," the second indictment lacks legal support and evidence.

"The implications of this filing for free speech are chilling," Turley told Newsweek. "If allowed to stand, the government could arrest any politician who fails to adhere to 'the truth' as laid out by the government."

Will Trump's First Amendment right implode Jack Smith Jan. 6 case?

Legal experts are divided over whether the new indictment infringes on former President Donald Trump's right to free speech.

www.newsweek.com

"Smith admits that politicians are protected in making false statements but then says Trump can be prosecuted because he failed to yield to the truth," Turley said. "While Smith could still flip witnesses or offer new evidence, this was a 'speaking indictment' that said little."

Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk went even further to argue that it's not just the right to speech that Trump is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but also "a right to petition the government for redress of grievances."

Will Trump's First Amendment right implode Jack Smith Jan. 6 case?

Legal experts are divided over whether the new indictment infringes on former President Donald Trump's right to free speech.

www.newsweek.com

Mr. Trump’s lawyers are likely to argue that “he honestly thought that the election had been mishandled and he wanted to correct it,” says Gabriel Chin, a law professor at the University of California, Davis. That means jurors will have to weigh Mr. Trump’s state of mind. “There are lots of situations where, depending on the mental state and the facts, somebody is either doing their job – or committing a crime.”

Trump indictment over 2020 election puts US in uncharted terrain

At a time of intense polarization, many Democrats may view Donald Trump’s indictment as long overdue, while Republicans may see a “weaponized” legal system.

www.csmonitor.com

 

[MyBelle]

This is from today, and it's not behind a paywall.

'"Former Attorney General Bill Barr said Wednesday he does not believe the defense that former President Donald Trump was following the advice of counsel in his Jan. 6 decision-making would hold up if the former president took the stand in court.
...
Barr also cast doubt on whether Trump’s aides had, in fact, told Trump he had lost the 2020 election unjustly.

All of the advisers who surrounded Trump, Barr claimed, had told him that the 2020 election “was not stolen by fraud.” Even conservative attorney John Eastman — who Trump’s legal team said pushed him to declare the election a fraud — gave such vague counsel to Trump that Barr said he was not sure he would characterize it as “advice.”'

Bill Barr: 'Would not come out very well' for Trump on the stand

"I doubt he remembers all the different versions of events he has given over the last few years," the former attorney general said.

www.politico.com

There is no way Trump is going to testify because he runs the risk of being caught in one of his many lies. It will be interesting to see how many of his attorneys quit before the trial even begins.

JMO

 

[LaborDayRN]

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.

But if you don't read the actual indictment, how will you find weaknesses in the prosecutions case?
ETA: correct spelling error

 

[Fairy1]

I guess we'll see what happens. But when we're considering the "two tiers" of justice that's been bandied about of late, let's be sure to include all possible examples of that, shall we?

 

[MyBelle]

Already turning uglier.....much worse than Watergate.

JMO

Newly Revealed Text Messages Show GOP Officials At Ground Zero Of Election Conspiracy Outlined By Trump Indictment

RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and former Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward played key roles in elements of the alleged conspiracy.

talkingpointsmemo.com

Special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of former President Donald Trump details a sweeping criminal conspiracy to reverse his loss in the 2020 election. Smith described a marked shift away from legitimate election challenges toward a strategy in which the President and those close to him used “knowing deceit in the targeted states to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function.” And Smith identified one day as the key turning point when the plot veered from political gamesmanship into deliberate falsehoods: November 13, 2020.

Text messages obtained by Talking Points Memo — most which have not previously been made public — paint a picture of what was going on behind the scenes in the White House during the crucial period the special prosecutor has zeroed in on. In particular, they reveal that Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and former Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward were among those who played key roles in elements of the alleged conspiracy from the moment Smith said it began.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I'll re-post some links that will help.

Will Trump's First Amendment right implode Jack Smith Jan. 6 case?

Legal experts are divided over whether the new indictment infringes on former President Donald Trump's right to free speech.

www.newsweek.com

Will Trump's First Amendment right implode Jack Smith Jan. 6 case?

Legal experts are divided over whether the new indictment infringes on former President Donald Trump's right to free speech.

www.newsweek.com

Trump indictment over 2020 election puts US in uncharted terrain

At a time of intense polarization, many Democrats may view Donald Trump’s indictment as long overdue, while Republicans may see a “weaponized” legal system.

www.csmonitor.com

Thank you.

This also from Gabriel Chin:

The most serious Trump indictment yet – a criminal law scholar explains the charges of using ‘dishonesty, fraud and deceit’ to cling to power

A grand jury indicted Donald Trump on conspiracy and obstruction charges related to his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

theconversation.com

Alan Dershowitz? The guy who palled around with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell?

Alan Dershowitz Cannot Stop Talking

Accused of a slew of terrible things, the defense has no intention of resting.

nymag.com

 

[Niner]

Okay - I started taking notes a while back - so I will definitely shorten this up a bit now.

Thursday, August 3rd:
*First Appearance Hearing (@ 4pm ET) - DC – Donald John Trump has been indicted & charged (8/1/23) with four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud & deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting & certifying the results of the presidential election"; conspiracy to impede the Jan. 6 congressional proceeding; a conspiracy against the right to vote & to have that vote counted; and obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct & impede, the certification of the electoral vote.
Five of the six alleged co-conspirators, based on details provided in transcripts of testimony to the Jan. 6 Committee and other records, appear to be: longtime Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani; lawyer John Eastman, who helped architect the "fake electors scheme"; attorney Sidney Powell, who helped lead Trump's post-campaign legal efforts; former Justice Dept. official Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump considered making his attorney general; and Kenneth Chesebro, another attorney pushing the "fake electors scheme." It is not clear who co-conspirator 6 is.
Trump's alleged role in the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the building in an effort to stop the confirmation of President Joe Biden's election victory, is under scrutiny from several federal government bodies. The most visible has been a congressional committee that spent 18 months looking into Trump's actions. They held a series of televised hearings laying out their case that his election fraud claims led directly to the riot. Following these hearings, the committee accused Trump of inciting insurrection & other crimes. Attorney: Evan Corcoran, John Eastman.
Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya.
3/25/23 Update: In a sealed order last week, Judge Beryl Howell rejected Trump's claim of executive privilege for Meadows & a number of others, including Trump's former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, his former national security adviser Robert O'Brien, former top aide Stephen Miller & former deputy chief of staff & social media director Dan Scavino. Former Trump aides Nick Luna & John McEntee, along with former top DHS official Ken Cuccinelli, were also included in the order. The ruling paves the way for testimony from Mark Meadows and others. Separately, a Trump lawyer appeared before a grand jury looking into the former president’s handling of classified documents. The recent ruling by Judge Beryl A. Howell paves the way for the former White House officials to answer questions from federal prosecutors, according to two people briefed on the matter. Judge Howell ruled on the matter in a closed-door proceeding in her role as chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, a job in which she oversaw the grand juries taking testimony in the Justice Dept.’s investigations into Trump. Judge Howell’s term as chief judge ended last week. See more info here:
[I]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03...rk-meadows-executive-privilege-jan-6.html[/I]
Word of the ruling came as the Justice Department pressed ahead in its parallel investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving office & whether he obstructed the government’s efforts to reclaim them. The twin federal investigations are being led by Jack Smith, the special counsel who was appointed after Mr. Trump announced his latest candidacy in November. 3/29/23 Update: Trump’s lawyers have filed an appeal on Judge Howell’s decision.
3/27/23 Update: A federal judge has ordered former Vice President Mike Pence to comply with a subpoena in the investigation into former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, according to a source familiar with the decision. The ruling from Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, requires Pence to testify before the grand jury tied to the probe led by special counsel Jack Smith. The ruling, which was issued Monday, remains under seal because it involves grand jury matters. The order was a partial victory for Pence & his argument that he was shielded from having to testify about Jan. 6 because of his constitutional role as part of the legislative branch. Pence's team has argued that the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution, which can protect lawmakers from being compelled to discuss legislative activity, granted him immunity from testifying. Judge Boasberg ruled that while Pence does have some limited protections because of that, the immunity does not prevent him from testifying about conversations related to alleged “illegality” on Trump’s part.
4/3/23 Update: A Federal appeals court panel has rejected Trump’s bid to block top aides from testifying to special counsel Jack Smith's Jan. 6 investigation. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Dept. of Justice Tuesday in ordering testimony from former chief of staff Mark Meadows & other top Trump White House staffers in the DOJ’s Jan. 6 investigation. A sealed Tuesday order denying an emergency motion from former President Trump’s team came after a flurry of late night activity in the case. Trump had appealed a sealed decision from then-D.C. District Court Judge Beryl Howell last week that rejected his claims of executive privilege over the officials, ordering them to testify. Aide Stephen Miller, former Dept. of Homeland Security official Ken Cuccinelli, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe & former national security adviser Robert O’Brien were also all directed to testify in Howell’s decision, as were John McEntee, then-director of the Presidential Personnel Office & Nick Luna, an assistant to Trump.
4/5/23 Update: Former Vice President Mike Pence will not appeal a judge’s ruling requiring him to testify before a grand jury considering ex-President Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol riot.
4/12/23 Update: Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s role on Jan. 6 has launched a probe into allegations the former president & his allies defrauded donors by touting false claims of election fraud. According to a report from The Washington Post, Smith’s office has issued a series of wide-ranging subpoenas to Trump advisers & former campaign staff requesting materials on the matter. Sources tell the Post that the investigation is honing in on $200 million dollars generated by Trump & various PAC’s during the period between Nov. 3, 2020 & Jan. 20, 2021. Prosecutors are seeking to identify if campaign staff & fundraising operatives misrepresented claims of election fraud in order to drive donations toward Trump.
4/27/23 Update: U.S. appeals court denies Trump’s emergency motion to block his former VP Mike Pence from testifying to the grand jury in the Jan. 6 criminal investigation, per notice of sealed ruling on the docket. Pence spent more than five hours in front of the grand jury on Thursday. The former vice president is considered a key witness in Smith's probe into Trump's actions leading up to January 6, 2021, including pressuring Pence to throw out the 2020 election results while Congress certified the Electoral College votes. Trump repeatedly claimed that Pence had the power to block Congress' certification progress, although Pence has disputed the argument. Pence also attempted to fight the DOJ's subpoena, & was granted limitations by the judge overseeing the grand jury about what could be discussed during his testimony. According to The New York Times, Pence was not forced to discuss any matters related to his role as president of the Senate on January 6, but he did have to testify about potential criminal actions by Trump.
4/29/23 Update: Pence's appearance comes as Smith is believed to be wrapping up his investigation & possibly preparing to indict Trump on charges that could include obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States and insurrection.
5/2/23 Update: As they investigate Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, federal prosecutors have also been drilling down on whether Trump & a range of political aides knew that he had lost the race but still raised money off claims that they were fighting widespread fraud in the vote results, according to three people familiar with the matter. Led by the special counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors are trying to determine whether Trump & his aides violated federal wire fraud statutes as they raised as much as $250 million through a political action committee by saying they needed the money to fight to reverse election fraud even though they had been told repeatedly that there was no evidence to back up those fraud claims. The prosecutors are looking at the inner workings of the committee, Save America PAC & at the Trump campaign’s efforts to prove its baseless case that Trump had been cheated out of victory.
5/23/23 Update: Trump's attorneys John Rowley & James Trusty have written to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland requesting a meeting to discuss the ongoing injustice that is being perpetrated by your Special Counsel & his prosecutors. This was in regards to the removal of government documents, not the riot.
6/8/23 Update: Steve Bannon has been subpoenaed by a Federal grand jury in Washington as part of the special counsel's investigation into Jan. 6th riot.
6/9/23 Update: U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg’s 19-page opinion — which the judge partially unsealed Friday, 6/9/23 at the urging of media organizations — cleared the way for special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors to question the former vice president about his conversations with a wide array of figures who leaned on him to reject Biden’s electors, possibly including Trump. The figures pressuring Mike Pence to reject Joe Biden’s electoral votes on Jan. 6 were asking him to act “unlawfully,” the chief judge of Washington D.C.’s federal district court ruled in a secret April decision. “The bottom line is that conversations exhorting Pence to reject electors on January 6th are not protected,” Boasberg wrote in the ruling, dated March 27, 2023 adding, “There is no dispute in this case that Pence lacked the authority to reject certified electoral votes.” Pence appeared for that closed-door testimony on April 27, 2023 & answered questions for more than six hours. The substance of the questions & answers remain almost entirely shielded from public view but nevertheless marked a historic moment in Smith’s unprecedented criminal probe of Trump & his allies’ efforts to subvert the 2020 election. Both Trump & Pence had fought to sharply restrict questions that Smith’s team could pose to the former vice president. Trump claimed his conversations with Pence were shielded by executive privilege — an argument Boasberg squarely rejected. Pence, however, took a different tack, arguing that he should be afforded the same immunity from DOJ questioning that members of Congress receive.
6/23/23 Update: Special counsel Jack Smith has compelled at least two Republican fake electors to testify to a federal grand jury in Washington in recent weeks by giving them limited immunity, part of a current push by federal prosecutors to swiftly nail down evidence in the sprawling criminal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The testimony comes after a year of relative dormancy around the fake electors portion of the investigation & as a parade of related witnesses are being told to appear before the grand jury with no chance for delay. Prosecutors initially obtained documents & interviews last spring from many of the Republicans who signed false certificates to the federal government, asserting they were the rightful electors for Trump in seven battleground states won by Joe Biden.
6/27/23 Update: Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger will be interviewed by investigators from special counsel Jack Smith’s office Wednesday in Atlanta, his office. Raffensperger’s interview with the special counsel’s office will be his first with the Justice Department. Smith subpoenaed Raffensperger in December for documents but not for him to appear or testify in person, a source familiar with the matter told NBC News at the time.
6/28/23 Update: Rudy Giuliani, a former top lawyer for Trump, met in recent weeks with federal prosecutors who are investigating the ex-president for his efforts to reverse his loss in the 2020 election, NBC News confirmed Wednesday. The news of Giuliani's voluntary interview with special counsel Jack Smith's prosecutors came as investigators prepared to meet Wednesday in Atlanta with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger as part of that criminal probe.
7/14/23 Update: Federal prosecutors investigating Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election have questioned multiple witnesses in recent weeks — including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner — about whether Trump had privately acknowledged in the days after the 2020 election that he had lost, according to four people briefed on the matter. The line of questioning suggests prosecutors are trying to establish whether Trump was acting with corrupt intent as he sought to remain in power — essentially that his efforts were knowingly based on a lie — evidence that could substantially bolster any case they might decide to bring against him. Mr. Kushner testified before a grand jury at the federal courthouse in Washington last month, where he is said to have maintained that it was his impression that Mr. Trump truly believed the election was stolen, according to a person briefed on the matter. The questioning of Mr. Kushner shows that the federal investigation being led by the special counsel Jack Smith continues to pierce the layers closest to Mr. Trump as prosecutors weigh whether to bring charges against the former president in connection with the efforts to promote baseless assertions of widespread voter fraud and block or delay congressional certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s Electoral College victory.
7/17/23 Update: Special counsel Jack Smith has informed Trump that he is a target in his investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. A grand jury is expected to meet again on Thursday in Washington DC as Trump faces the prospect of a new criminal indictment. On Tuesday, Trump said he expected to be arrested in connection with the federal investigation into efforts to undermine the 2020 presidential election that culminated in a riot at the US Capitol. Justice Dept. special counsel Jack Smith has declined to comment, so it is unclear what charges prosecutors might bring against Trump. And until an indictment is unsealed, we will not know specifically what each count will entail. The Wall Street Journal, citing a person familiar with the investigation, has reported Trump's target letter mentioned three specific charges: conspiracy to defraud the US, deprivation of rights, and tampering with a witness. The federal inquiry followed a 16-month investigation by the US House of Representatives Select Committee on the January 6 Attack made up of seven Democrats & two Republicans. In its final report last December, that panel recommended four separate charges for Trump and his associates: Insurrection, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the US, and conspiracy to make a false statement.
7/24/23 Update: A Trump ally has turned over thousands of documents to special counsel Jack Smith related to efforts to find supposed voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election – including materials that haven’t been previously disclosed to investigators looking into events surrounding January 6, 2021. Former New York Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik was part of the team led by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani trying to uncover fraud that would swing the election in favor of Trump.For months, Kerik had tried to shield some of the documents from investigators, citing privilege.
8/1/23 Update: Trump has been indicted & charged with four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud & deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting & certifying the results of the presidential election"; conspiracy to impede the Jan. 6 congressional proceeding; a conspiracy against the right to vote & to have that vote counted; and obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct and impede, the certification of the electoral vote. Five of the six alleged co-conspirators, based on details provided in transcripts of testimony to the Jan. 6 Committee and other records, appear to be: longtime Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani; lawyer John Eastman, who helped architect the "fake electors scheme"; attorney Sidney Powell, who helped lead Trump's post-campaign legal efforts; former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump considered making his attorney general; and Kenneth Chesebro, another attorney pushing the "fake electors scheme." It is not clear who co-conspirator 6 is. Trump is scheduled to appear at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington on Thursday, 8/3/23 after being indicted in connection with efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya.

 

[Inthedetails]

All what aides? I didn't see the attorney general in any of those links. WSJ is behind a paywall so I can't read those links. Is it in there?

I posted a list of people who advised Trump and told him he lost the election and there was no evidence of fraud. I posted the list twice, with reference where to find it in the indictment (page 7 of the indictment).

If Trump uses the defense "me dunno," I think it will be easy for the jury to convict. imo

The indictment: Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

But if you don't read the actual indictment, how will you find weaknesses in the prosecutions case?
ETA: correct spelling error

Bingo.

If the defense is going for first amendment, that won't work because it's not a first amendment case. The indictment clearly and bluntly states Trump, like all Americans, has the right to speak and even the right to lie. (page 2 of the indictment)

The defense needs to address the actual charges. For Trump's sake, I hope his lawyers are reading the indictment, lol.

jmo

 

[Vern]

The DOJ controlled what the grand jury used to come to their decision. That's obviously where you need to look to see what I'm saying. JMO.

Multiple grand juries in multiple jurisdictions --- some with Trump appointed prosecutors and judges participating in the judicial process' at hand ... Yep; political.

 

[Inthedetails]

The DOJ controlled what the grand jury used to come to their decision. That's obviously where you need to look to see what I'm saying. JMO.

Prosecutors always present to the grand jury. That is how it works and it's not unique to this case.

At trial, the defense makes their case, but in the grand jury, it's only the prosecutor....for every case that goes to grand jury. imo

It's not political, it's the legal system as specified by our law. imo

jmo

 

[Vern]

RSBM

Ramaswamy argued that Trump “isn’t the real cause for what happened on Jan. 6,” and that the cause was instead “systematic and pervasive censorship of citizens” ahead of the riot.

Apparently "pervasive censorship" must equate into "courts aren't agreeing Trump's stolen election lies and have ruled that not an iota of evidence exists(ed) to back up any of these fake news stolen election claims".

 

[Inthedetails]

"Former President Donald J. Trump is expected to appear at 4 p.m. on Thursday [August 3] in the U.S. federal courthouse at the foot of Capitol Hill."

"The level of security, both outside the building and inside, is likely to be among the most intense ever deployed at a federal courthouse, officials said."

"And the courtroom itself will be packed with security. Mr. Trump, as always, will be accompanied by his Secret Service detail. The marshals will be present to protect the judge and the special counsel Jack Smith should he attend the hearing, as he did in Miami."

Trump Prepares to Make Familiar Trip to Courthouse, This Time in Washington (Published 2023)

The former president’s appearance before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya on election subversion charges comes about six weeks after his arraignment over sensitive documents.

www.nytimes.com

(The link is a "gift" that NYTimes allows subscribers to share with others. The link will be good for 2 weeks to non-subscribers, though this particular info will be reported widely and it's not exclusive to NYTimes of course.)

edited to fix formatting.

 

[Vern]

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 don't see why the Defence couldn't bring it up, but I'm quite certain that it would all be swiftly rebutted by the Prosecutions tabling of the (how many??) 50ish already investigated/taken to court/tossed out for "no evidence" claims of election fraud.

IE: I dont think there would be significant delay as those investigations already happened, fraud was legally determined to have NOT occured, and 50 some odd court cases already exist to back up that there was no election fraud.

If so, it will be interesting to see the claims being made and the Defendant's own prior judicial cases used by the prosecution to refute his claims. Kind of like citing case precedents that are one's own case precedents. It would be interesting for sure.

 

[ilovewings]

I will say this about all of these indictments. I feel they are meant to prevent Donald Trump from being elected President in 2024.

The only problem is they are having the opposite affect. He is doing great in the polls. So far anyway. JMO.

Why Trump's poll lead went up after criminal indictments

Facing criminal charges has only strengthened the former president's lead in the Republican race.

www.bbc.com

I hate to be bearer of bad news, but these indictments are based on the behavior of Donald Trump- it is clear you believe otherwise- He is doing great at the polls but remember there was supposed to be a red wave at the last election according to the polls---- I believe the majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats do not want a thrice indicted (soon to be a four time indicted) ex president as their next president. Please remember this: where there's smoke there is fire!

 

[Inthedetails]

Multiple grand juries in multiple jurisdictions --- some with Trump appointed prosecutors and judges participating in the judicial process' at hand ... Yep; political.

Speaking of using the DOJ for political reasons, the indictment (page 6, item c) charges:

"The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations...."

Source: Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election

 

[Vern]

Speaking of using the DOJ for political reasons, the indictment (page 6, item c) charges:

"The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations...."

Source: Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election

I'm certain that no matter how many times it is linked, there are those who simply will not read it which is too bad because they might actually gain some knowledge.

Question regarding pardons: If Georgia brings forth an idictment based upon the election interferance he attempted (we have recordings of this brazen attempt) in that state trying to illegaly convince them to "find him the number of votes required to win" ... I'm pretty certain he can't pardon himself for State crimes he may be convicted (possibly jailed) for if convicted. True?

 

[Lilibet]

I hope Mr Trump has carefully read the indictment. And I hope anyone joining this discussion has read it. IMO No one who hasn’t read the indictment should participate in this discussion. I would welcome hearing from those arguing for Trump that they have actually read the entire indictment and not just summaries in news articles. If not, why not? If you have read it, thank you and carry on.