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

[Arkay]

So Mike Pence is saying that President Trump believed in what his lawyers told him.

That helps Trumps case by showing he really believed that the election was stolen because he listened to his legal counsel.

JMO.

Pence says 'crackpot lawyers' told Trump what he wanted to hear

You and I and all of us here are very fortunate. We are literate and can read the entire 45-page indictment which goes into microscopic detail about all the White House lawyers, all the government officials, all the staff members who worked for him, people who had been on his campaign, attorneys general, multiple judges, his own Vice President and more, who uniformly told Trump that he had LOST THE ELECTION.

Many of them wanted Trump to win, but the numbers weren’t there.
Mike Pence stood to be re-elected too, but he knew the facts were that Trump lost, so he bravely followed the Constitution and his oath, while his life was in peril on January 6th.

I feel secure in saying that Jack Smith and his team, as well as the January 6th committee, know the law at least as well as we do.

IMO

 

[AZLocal]

ITA. Trump has been indicted for his actions with his co-conspirators! I wonder how many of those fraudulent electors were tricked into participating.

JMO

I am so grateful that a couple of people in Arizona had the courage and integrity to neutralize our illegal fake electors. In the 2022 election, Arizonans wholeheartedly rejected candidates claiming election fraud—just utterly spiked all of them. it’s just MOS, but this seems to have been driven by exhaustion over people trying to suppress our votes.

 

[Inthedetails]

I live and vote in Arizona. Gotta admit that while I don’t care for Rusty Bowers, he acted with integrity when he refused to perform illegal acts for Trump. I think it’s really Important for the country to understand that Bowers is a huge fan of Trump. Bowers is extremely right wing, so it’s really hard to understand why Trump supporters still think this is somehow engineered by Biden. Bowers did not and does not want Biden to win, but unlike some other Republicans, he refused to violate the law. I’m glad Bowers kept Trump from disenfranchising Arizonans.

Nice reminder that we can admire the honor of people even if we don't agree with them on politics. I'm also grateful Bowers stood strong for our country and Constitution and against the corruption attempts of Trump and co-conspirators. jmo

The indictment includes details about Arizona, starting on page 9. In summary, Trump knew it false that a substantial number of non-citizens voted in AZ. Trump and Co-Conspirator 1 called AZ Speaker of the House with false claims. The AZ Speaker asked for evidence. The evidence was never provided. Trump and Co-Conspirator 1 asked the AZ Speaker to replace the electors. The Speaker refused. Later, they asked the AZ Speaker to decertify the electors who had already sent their votes to Congress. The AZ Speaker refused.

More details are in the indictment: Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election

 

[Deleted member 39678]

You and I and all of us here are very fortunate. We are literate and can read the entire 45-page indictment which goes into microscopic detail about all the White House lawyers, all the government officials, all the staff members who worked for him, people who had been on his campaign, attorneys general, multiple judges, his own Vice President and more, who uniformly told Trump that he had LOST THE ELECTION.

Many of them wanted Trump to win, but the numbers weren’t there.
Mike Pence stood to be re-elected too, but he knew the facts were that Trump lost, so he bravely followed the Constitution and his oath, while his life was in peril on January 6th.

I feel secure in saying that Jack Smith and his team, as well as the January 6th committee, know the law at least as well as we do.

IMO

So Mike Pence's statement about the "crackpot lawyers" is a lie?

 

[AZLocal]

Nice reminder that we can admire the honor of people even if we don't agree with them on politics. I'm also grateful Bowers stood strong for our country and Constitution and against the corruption attempts of Trump and co-conspirators. jmo

The indictment includes details about Arizona, starting on page 9. In summary, Trump knew it false that a substantial number of non-citizens voted in AZ. Trump and Co-Conspirator 1 called AZ Speaker of the House with false claims. The AZ Speaker asked for evidence. The evidence was never provided. Trump and Co-Conspirator 1 asked the AZ Speaker to replace the electors. The Speaker refused. Later, they asked the AZ Speaker to decertify the electors who had already sent their votes to Congress. The AZ Speaker refused.

More details are in the indictment: Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election

Absolutely! I don’t agree with Bowers’ politics at all, but as the indictment made very clear, he resisted all illegal actions he was pressured by Trump to make. For that, I respect him as a fellow American.

 

[JerseyGirl]

So Mike Pence's statement about the "crackpot lawyers" is a lie?

They are “named” as co-conspirators:

Rudy Giuliani, Kenneth Chesebro, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark and Sidney Powell

https://www.axios.com/2023/08/02/indictment-describes-six-trump-helpers

 

[Deleted member 39678]

They are named as co-conspirator:

https://www.axios.com/2023/08/02/indictment-describes-six-trump-helpers

I'm asking if Mike Pence's statement about "crackpot lawyers" was a lie and Trump didn't believe what they were telling him. JMO.

 

[bestill]

This Mike Pence? - Mike Pence heckled at Georgia rally to ‘do the right thing’

I remember this speech and I thought then that he questioned the election results just like President Trump did. I will never forget watching what went down at the Capital. I also look forward to Trump's team presenting their case.

 

[Inthedetails]

"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...

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

www.newsweek.com

BBM

Yes, it is a "speaking indictment." The definition of the term "speaking indictment" is an indictment that provides more information than legally required and goes into narrative detail. In other words, it's a meaty document and, respectfully, it's not true, as quoted above, in my opinion, that it "said little." jmo

Also, the idea of redress of grievances, I'm assuming that refers to redress of the election results? If so, that is addressed on page 2 of the indictment:

"He (Trump) was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful."

Or does the petition part quoted refer to something else? I read the source provided and it's unclear to me.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/trump-indictment.pdf

 

[MyBelle]

We should all consider checking our sources and weighing the voices of those with knowledge and experience in the law against talking heads that generate money via spreading mis- and disinformation. We are in real trouble as a country if we lose the ability to think critically.

Very good point! Thanks for the reminder!

JMO

 

[Arkay]

I'm asking if Mike Pence's statement about "crackpot lawyers" was a lie and Trump didn't believe what they were telling him. JMO.

As @JerseyGirl just mentioned above, the “crackpot lawyers” are the CRACKPOT LAWYERS. The ones who did not have facts or evidence of election fraud, and who betrayed their positions as officers of the court to brazenly lie about dead voters, machines magically changing votes, (but only in the states that Trump lost), claiming more votes in swing states than there are people, and other DEMONSTRABLY false allegations.

These are the ones to whom Trump turned when the other people on his staff and in his employ told him he’d lost. He himself called one of their theories “crazy.”

I say this as a New Yorker who greatly admired Giuliani as my mayor, when he was a different person than he is now.

Not going to go in circles here. I trust that we both can read the same indictment.

JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

BBM

Yes, it is a "speaking indictment." The definition of the term "speaking indictment" is an indictment that provides more information than legally required and goes into narrative detail. In other words, it's a meaty document and, respectfully, it's not true, as quoted above, in my opinion, that it "said little." jmo

Also, the idea of redress of grievances, I'm assuming that refers to redress of the election results? If so, that is addressed on page 2 of the indictment:

"He (Trump) was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful."

Or does the petition part quoted refer to something else? I read the source provided and it's unclear to me.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/trump-indictment.pdf

Does this indictment mean that Trumps defense could look into possible election fraud?

 

[JerseyGirl]

Trump surrounded himself around the crackpots.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

As @JerseyGirl just mentioned above, the “crackpot lawyers” are the CRACKPOT LAWYERS. The ones who did not have facts or evidence of election fraud, and who betrayed their positions as officers of the court to brazenly lie about dead voters, machines magically changing votes, (but only in the states that Trump lost), claiming more votes in swing states than there are people, and other DEMONSTRABLY false allegations.

These are the ones to whom Trump turned when the other people on his staff and in his employ told him he’d lost. He himself called one of their theories “crazy.”

I say this as a New Yorker who greatly admired Giuliani as my mayor, when he was a different person than he is now.

Not going to go in circles here. I trust that we both can read the same indictment.

JMO

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.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Under his tenure, prosecutors brought a public corruption case against former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a Republican, in a case unanimously overturned by the US Supreme Court in 2016.

Jack Smith: The special counsel investigating Donald Trump

Jack Smith was a top war crimes prosecutor at The Hague before he began investigating Donald Trump.

www.bbc.com

 

[Inthedetails]

So Mike Pence's statement about the "crackpot lawyers" is a lie?

I don't know that statement by Pence (link it if you have it handy) but here's what the indictment says that might be about a "crackpot lawyer," bolded by me. jmo

"Co-Conspirator 3, an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the Defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded 'crazy.' Nonetheless, the Defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-Conspirator 3's disinformation." (item C, page 4)

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

Former President Donald Trump has been indicted on four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering, for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

www.pbs.org

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Mr. Smith and other prosecutors — some working on the Trump case — have followed a familiar playbook. The script earned Mr. Smith a reputation as a hard-driving, intense prosecutor, but a string of mistrials and overturned convictions led to sharp rebukes from federal judges, including U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

‘No white knight’: Jack Smith’s record rife with mistrials, overturned convictions, judicial rebukes

Special counsel Jack Smith, who has brought federal charges against former President Donald Trump, is an “overzealous” prosecutor who relies on ethically dubious tactics, including media leaks and enticing witnesses, say those who have been caught in his snare.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction unanimously in 2016. Chief Justice John Roberts said the government used a "boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute."

PolitiFact - Ask PolitiFact: Who is Jack Smith, the special counsel in the Trump classified documents case?

Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, has a de

www.politifact.com

 

[MyBelle]

Trump surrounded himself around the crackpots.

What surprises me is that the crackpots all risked their law licenses in order to promote the Big Lie.

I asked a family member who is an attorney about what happens when an attorney lies. The response: "all attorneys lie; the good ones don't get caught." I guess the crackpots arrogantly thought they would get away with it.

JMO

 

[Inthedetails]

Does this indictment mean that Trumps defense could look into possible election fraud?

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