GA - Ex-POTUS Donald Trump and others indicted, 13 counts in 2020 election interference, violation of RICO Act, Aug 2023 *4 guilty* #3

[Leilei]

I agree with Mr. Taylor.

JMO

About 49% of Republican voters surveyed said the Fulton charges against Trump are very serious or somewhat serious. But a whopping 94% said they think politics played a role in District Attorney Fani Willis’ decision to indict him and the other defendants.

“I can see if she wanted to bring limited charges against Trump,” Cherokee County resident Joe Lawhon said. “But to bring in the whole crowd and to make it a three-ring circus?”

Mark Taylor of Ben Hill County supports Trump for president and said the charges do not concern him.

“I feel like he’s going to make Georgia look like a bunch of idiots,” Taylor said. “He’ll make a complete circus out of what they’re trying to do.”

AJC poll: Georgia Republicans say politics behind Fulton charges

Georgia Republican voters overwhelmingly believe the charges filed against Donald Trump in Fulton County this month are politically motivated, a new Atlanta Journal-Constitution survey found.

www.ajc.com

Residents of two extremely red counties in Georgia, one of whom admits that he supports the Former Guy for President, do not represent everyone in the state, thankfully. They both can take it up with the SGJ for listening to and considering the evidence and making the recommendation to indict, although I doubt that either one of them spend much, if any, time in Fulton County. IMO.

 

[BritsKate]

Just a couple of things in regards to the removal motions -

- The only way an appeal is usually successful is if the judge made a mistake in the application of the law or errors were made in procedure which is why I believe Meadows appeal won't be successful. (But conservative majority Courts do strange things these days.) It's why I pointed out just how meticulous and diligent Jones decision was. (Link at the bottom for those who missed it - it really is well worth a read.)

- I always think of removal like a self-defense claim - the burden is on the defendant to provide an affirmative defense. That means, often, testifying or providing enough witnesses to get around having to, or both, in order to support their claim that the Federal Court should have jurisdiction of their case.

I really don't understand why lawyers were so certain Meadows wouldn't take the stand because I don't know how you provide evidence to the court without testifying or witnesses since the burden is on them and if anyone else knows, let me know! (It's been driving me crazy trying to figure it out.) That aside though, Meadows DID testify and he badly damaged himself and his co-defendants with his testimony - including getting caught in a lie.

John Eastman has been testifying in his disbarment proceedings in California and invoked attorney client privilege when asked about the plot to replace Vice President Pence with Senator Grassley for the certification. (Kinda like telling the police officer who pulled you over for a broken tail light not to look in the trunk/boot if you ask me.) I gasped, gaped and guffawed (Yep. All 3.) that the California Bar Counsel was actually reading straight from the Georgia indictment when crossing him. Eastman had to concede or refute certain facts that will undoubtedly come up during trial.

These folks are providing a record of statements that can and will be used against them.

These are reasonably intelligent professional men and women but their hubris will likely be their undoing. Can anyone even begin to imagine Trump taking the stand to support a removal claim? My money is on it not happening - I think he may file for removal just to throw another spanner in the works but I really don't see how he could possibly ever testify - he's just too undisciplined and far, far too arrogant. I guess my point is that hubris isn't limited to Trump alone and because it is a RICO case one bad apple can indeed spoil the bunch. And probably will.

I look forward to hearing why Jeffrey Clark believed effectively lying to Georgia state election officials was part of his federal duties. And how Latham, Shafer and Still explain how pretending to be a federal officer magically makes them one.

I think many them truly feel their actions were justified because they can't even see past their own sense of entitlement. Their legal filings thus far certainly imply it. JMO

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.69.0.pdf

 

[waldojabba]

Senator Graham calls SoS Raffensperger a liar...without using those words, of course. Other attorneys also have strong words for Willis.

JMO

Flynn's attorney, Jesse Binnall, said in a statement that the report "reveals even more corruption by a politically-motivated prosecutor with one goal: to take down President Trump and his associates, and interfere in the 2024 election."

"It’s all just fruit of the same poisonous tree that we’ve seen time and time again — and is designed to destroy the country and undermine the values that make this nation great," Binnall added, saying it was "what’s at stake in 2024."

Grand jury in Georgia Trump case recommended indicting Lindsey Graham, David Perdue, Kelly Loeffler and Michael Flynn

The current and former senators and former national security adviser were among 21 people who ultimately were not charged in the election interference case.

www.nbcnews.com

I would ask Jesse Binnell, or anyone, to actually point to the language/ findings in the report that support his rhetoric.
I have read the report and find nothing that supports his statements.
Binnells sound bites are just talking points to echo the witch hunt/politically motivated dialogue out there.
These people are very skilled at disinformation imo and staying on message however untrue it may be.
Bottom line for me - For sure there is rhetoric on both sides. On these boards we are privileged to have access to the actual legal documents presenting the facts as they are currently known so we can see things with clarity if we so choose.
I worked in the south for years and imo I am not blind to why this could happen in Georgia. I believe the locals involved thought they were operating to protect what they saw as the “greater good”. They knew they were not operating legally, they just did not think they would ever be held accountable.
Ime/imo there is a strong desire in many areas in Georgia by many people to go back to the way things “used” to be. My Trump voting Georgia relatives are among these people. They believe in white supremacy and do not believe in equal rights for everyone.
If Trump can give them back the old ways they are really not interested in whether he broke the law. These Trump voters are not “idiots” they just have an agenda.
The challenge in choosing an impartial jury will be to weed out these people who are incapable of being impartial bc imo they will present that way.
Just my opinion.

 

[JerseyGirl]

Trump defends Graham and allies as Georgia jury report reveals they avoided charges

The grand jury also recommended charges against former GOP Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia

www.the-independent.com

The grand jury’s full report was released on Friday, prompting backlash from Mr Trump.

“The Georgia Grand Jury report has just been released. It has ZERO credibility and badly taints Fani Willis and this whole political Witch Hunt. Essentially, they wanted to indict anybody who happened to be breathing at the time. It totally undermines the credibility of the findings, and badly hurts the Great State of Georgia, whose wonderful and patriotic people are not happy with this charade of an out of control ‘prosecutor’ doing the work of, and for, the DOJ. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!” Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

 

[Leilei]

Trump defends Graham and allies as Georgia jury report reveals they avoided charges

The grand jury also recommended charges against former GOP Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia

www.the-independent.com

The grand jury’s full report was released on Friday, prompting backlash from Mr Trump.

“The Georgia Grand Jury report has just been released. It has ZERO credibility and badly taints Fani Willis and this whole political Witch Hunt. Essentially, they wanted to indict anybody who happened to be breathing at the time. It totally undermines the credibility of the findings, and badly hurts the Great State of Georgia, whose wonderful and patriotic people are not happy with this charade of an out of control ‘prosecutor’ doing the work of, and for, the DOJ. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!” Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

I can't wait for this trial to start, just to watch him have to sit down and shut up or risk being fined/jailed for contempt. IMO as always

 

[BritsKate]

Trump defends Graham and allies as Georgia jury report reveals they avoided charges

The grand jury also recommended charges against former GOP Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia

www.the-independent.com

The grand jury’s full report was released on Friday, prompting backlash from Mr Trump.

“The Georgia Grand Jury report has just been released. It has ZERO credibility and badly taints Fani Willis and this whole political Witch Hunt. Essentially, they wanted to indict anybody who happened to be breathing at the time. It totally undermines the credibility of the findings, and badly hurts the Great State of Georgia, whose wonderful and patriotic people are not happy with this charade of an out of control ‘prosecutor’ doing the work of, and for, the DOJ. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!” Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

I know I shouldn't be expecting logic but how does the Special Grand Jury report badly taint Ms. Willis when it doesn't actually say anything?!? It's literally a list of names, crimes, and votes!

They (the Special Grand Jury) wanted to indict anybody who happened to be breathing at the time (though that too is arguable) but the DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHOSE NOT TO. So how the hell does it 'taint' her? (I know - he's banking on people not reading or understanding what's in the report - it doesn't make it any less infuriating though.)

I just can't wait until we get to a point in our world where he's no longer relevant. JMO

ETA: I really never dreamed of a world where I longed for Reagan and Bush Republicans who didn't ban books or reject facts or encourage people against vaccines or weaponize their followers against our public servants or cast political opponents as enemies of the United States and so many other things. Sigh.

 

[Inthedetails]

(I know - he's banking on people not reading or understanding what's in the report - it doesn't make it any less infuriating though.)

Snipped

Agreed.

I am skeptical that he himself read it, tbh. Not joking.

jmo

 

[RaechelK]

I am curious about the legal arguments to be made regarding the elector issues. I don’t think that Kenneth Chesebro in particular, and probably also John Eastman, intended to influence the Georgia election *illegally.* I think they were going out of their way to advocate for methods to influence the election *legally.* That’s not a crime.

The Electoral Count Act was amended in 2022 to make it more precise, which tells me that the legal arguments by Trump’s attorneys were filling in some gray areas. There was room for interpretation. They were zealously advocating for their client. That’s not criminal.

I realize that this is a RICO indictment so each act in isolation does not have to be a crime, and I realize that both attorneys are charged with doing more than simply writing memos and briefs.

Just some of my current thinking, all subject to change as I learn more.

 

[Lilibet]

These are reasonably intelligent professional men and women but their hubris will likely be their undoing. Can anyone even begin to imagine Trump taking the stand to support a removal claim? My money is on it not happening - I think he may file for removal just to throw another spanner in the works but I really don't see how he could possibly ever testify - he's just too undisciplined and far, far too arrogant. I guess my point is that hubris isn't limited to Trump alone and because it is a RICO case one bad apple can indeed spoil the bunch. And probably will.

BUBM

Oh @BritsKate, you’ve used one of my favorite words TWICE in one paragraph (be still my heart!) to indicate why these people have done what they did and think they can get away with it! Now, I know everyone knows what “hubris” means, but I’m a word nerd and digging deep into definitions enhances the discussion IMO. So, without further ado, I give you HUBRIS…

What does hubris mean?

Definition of hubris in the Definitions.net dictionary. Meaning of hubris. What does hubris mean? Information and translations of hubris in the most comprehensive dictionary definitions resource on the web.

www.definitions.net

BBM

overbearing pride or presumption

Excessive pride, presumption or arrogance (originally toward the gods).

Hubris (; from Ancient Greek ὕβρις (húbris) 'pride, insolence, outrage'), or less frequently hybris (), describes a personality quality of extreme or excessive pride or dangerous overconfidence, often in combination with (or synonymous with) arrogance.

The term arrogance comes from the Latin adrogare, meaning "to feel that one has a right to demand certain attitudes and behaviors from other people". To arrogate means "to claim or seize without justification... To make undue claims to having", or "to claim or seize without right... to ascribe or attribute without reason".
The term pretension is also associated with the term hubris, but is not synonymous with it.

According to studies, hubris, arrogance, and pretension are related to the need for victory (even if it does not always mean winning) instead of reconciliation, which "friendly" groups might promote.

Hubris is usually perceived as a characteristic of an individual rather than a group, although the group the offender belongs to may suffer collateral consequences from wrongful acts.

Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments, or capabilities. The adjectival form of the noun hubris/hybris is hubristic/hybristic.

The term hubris originated in Ancient Greek, where it had several different meanings depending on the context. In legal usage, it meant assault or sexual crimes and theft of public property, and in religious usage it meant transgression against a god.
BBM

In Trump’s case, his hubris even fits the legal usage in Ancient Greece, meaning “assault or sexual crimes” (E.Jean Carroll) and “theft of public property” (documents at Mar a Lago).

JMO

 

[BritsKate]

I am curious about the legal arguments to be made regarding the elector issues. I don’t think that Kenneth Chesebro in particular, and probably also John Eastman, intended to influence the Georgia election *illegally.* I think they were going out of their way to advocate for methods to influence the election *legally.* That’s not a crime.

The Electoral Count Act was amended in 2022 to make it more precise, which tells me that the legal arguments by Trump’s attorneys were filling in some gray areas. There was room for interpretation. They were zealously advocating for their client. That’s not criminal.

I realize that this is a RICO indictment so each act in isolation does not have to be a crime, and I realize that both attorneys are charged with doing more than simply writing memos and briefs.

Just some of my current thinking, all subject to change as I learn more.

Chesebro is the one that came up with the fake elector scheme in the first place. He even, helpfully, personally contacted Republican officials in multiple states to ask them to execute the plan and suggested language they use which - anyway you dice it - is interfering in a state's electoral process. Which isn't for the executive branch to do let alone a campaign attorney or someone advising campaign attorneys.

The ECA had nothing to do with it. They deliberately perverted and exploited norms in procedure and weaknesses in current FEDERAL law to ensure certification was subverted and Trump remained in power. I'd argue they went so far as to break federal laws too and I believe it's just a matter of time before they're indicted by Jack Smith seeing as they're already in Trump's indictment as unindicted co-conspirators. JMO

In one of the most explosive findings of the hearings thus far, the committee revealed evidence that law professor John Eastman told Trump two days before the insurrection that his scheme to keep the president in power was against the law. Greg Jacob, Vice President Mike Pence’s counsel, recounted a White House meeting on Jan. 4, 2021, in which Eastman said told Trump that his plan to thwart the counting of the Electoral College violated federal statute.

The panel also showed written evidence that Eastman knew he was pushing a fallacious argument. Rep. Pete Aguilar, the California Democrat who led the hearing Thursday, showed an earlier Eastman memo that recognized that the vice president didn’t have the unilateral authority to reject electors: “Nowhere does it suggest that the President of the Senate gets to make the determination on his own,” Eastman wrote.

In another bombshell from the hearing, the committee showed a Jan. 11, 2021, email from Eastman requesting a pardon from Trump for his role in the attempts to stop the transfer of power to Biden.

I infer consciousness of guilt from his request for a pardon. I'd be willing to bet a jury will too.

By early December, Chesebro’s thinking had shifted radically. A memo first described in the special counsel’s indictment, and publicly revealed Tuesday by The New York Times, showed that Chesebro began to view the pro-Trump electors as part of a strategy to derail the transfer of power altogether — not simply as a backup plan for the courts.

“I’ve mulled over how January might play out, and it seems feasible that the Trump campaign can prevent Biden from amassing 270 electoral votes on January 6, and force the Members of Congress, the media, and the American people to focus on the substantive evidence of illegal election and counting activities in the six contested states,” Chesebro wrote.

“I’m not necessarily advising this course of action,” he added, describing it as a “bold, controversial strategy.” Chesebro also used the memo to suggest that Trump’s elector slates meet secretly to avoid protest. At the same time, he wrote, the campaign should be prepared to characterize the meetings as “routine” contingency planning for potential legal victories.

If I were a prosecutor I'd be arguing that memo shows his attempt to distance himself from what he knows is criminal and by telling people it should remain a secret or be passed off as something legitimate and routine absolutely shows consciousness of guilt.

Chesebro notes that no state legislatures had certified these alternate slates — Trump and his allies were still leaning on GOP legislators to take that step — but that the pro-Trump electors should meet anyway to cast contingent ballots. However, in some states, valid electors were required to meet in specific venues or under the guidance of specific state officials like the governor or secretary of state.

He noted the rules could make assembling alternate slates “very problematic” in Nevada and “somewhat dicey” in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

He strongly advocated that Pence take the position that he had ultimate authority to determine which electoral votes to count or ignore. Even if it couldn’t prevent Biden’s election, Chesebro reasoned, Pence’s declaration could help obtain leverage that might be used to broker some alternative outcome.

Most notably, Chesebro’s memo laid out a pre-Jan. 6 timeline that would help facilitate the plan. It began with a Jan. 3-5 plan for friendly GOP lawmakers to hold hearings highlighting the ambiguities of the Electoral Count Act — the law that has governed the transfer of power since 1887 — and the vice president’s role in counting electoral votes. The goal was to feature testimony from allied legal scholars to “buttress the substantive basis for the President of the Senate later refusing to count votes from those states, absent more needed scrutiny.”

Remember what I said about them deliberately exploiting and perverting the rules and laws? They had a predetermined outcome in mind - keeping Trump in power - and looked for means and methods to make it happen. But on that note, let me point out that Chesebro and Eastman are charged with violating Georgia state law so the ECA and federal law won't - and I argue also shouldn't - come into it anyway. JMO, All BBM by me, and links to quoted portions as well as a link to the indictment are below.

John Eastman Told Trump That Pence Jan. 6 Plan Was Illegal

John Eastman also requested a pardon from Trump in the days after the Capitol riot, the Jan. 6 Committee revealed.

time.com

‘Co-Conspirator 5’: Ken Chesebro and the evolution of Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 strategy (LOTS at this link I didn't copy and paste)

Trump Indictment Georgia 081423 | PDF | Arraignment | Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act

Trump Indictment Georgia 081423

www.scribd.com

ETA: I mean seriously does this sound like legal advice or even something legal to anyone? Yet another judge certainly didn't think so either:

On December 13, 2020, Chesebro emailed Rudy Giuliani and others with a proposal for Pence to recuse himself from certifying the election results. He argued that a vice president who has just run for re-election has a conflict of interest, and he suggested that instead Chuck Grassley or another senior senate Republican should assume the role of certification. In this proposed strategy, when the senator opened the Arizona envelopes and found two conflicting elector slates, he would halt the certification and suggest that Arizona's Republican-controlled state legislature appoint electors instead. Grassley told Roll Call on January 5 that "We don't expect [Pence] to be there", though Grassley's office quickly walked back the statement and claimed that neither he nor his staff had been aware of the proposal. On March 28, 2022, Judge David O. Carter, after considering Chesebro's email during a court case, ruled: "President Trump's team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action. The draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act".

Kenneth Chesebro - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MyBelle]

I am curious about the legal arguments to be made regarding the elector issues. I don’t think that Kenneth Chesebro in particular, and probably also John Eastman, intended to influence the Georgia election *illegally.* I think they were going out of their way to advocate for methods to influence the election *legally.* That’s not a crime.

The Electoral Count Act was amended in 2022 to make it more precise, which tells me that the legal arguments by Trump’s attorneys were filling in some gray areas. There was room for interpretation. They were zealously advocating for their client. That’s not criminal.

I realize that this is a RICO indictment so each act in isolation does not have to be a crime, and I realize that both attorneys are charged with doing more than simply writing memos and briefs.

Just some of my current thinking, all subject to change as I learn more.

BBM. I agree with you. It was a legal strategy based on precedents.

My family that lives in Georgia said the issue for several years--even before Trump was elected--has been about the validity of voter signatures and outdated registrations tied to absentee ballots.

JMO

 

[RaechelK]

Thank you for your detailed response. I want to read it carefully including references, but I won’t be able to do that until later.

This whole case is making me scratch my head as to how it could have happened. On the surface, it seems that at least some of the people who have been indicted did not intend to break criminal laws. Kenneth Chesebro in particular has caught my attention. I understand he represented the Gore campaign back in 2000 with the Florida fiasco. I sense that what happened in 2020, perhaps, is that Mr. Chesebro initially gave his legal opinion in good faith. His memos seem to be hesitant, he’s tossing out possible ways to approach the situation. I think as facts changed, e.g. the challenges to the Georgia election results failed, he was less enthusiastic. But by then, the plan he suggested seemed to have taken on a life of its own.

John Eastman seems like he was willing to push his pet theories to the extreme and suffer the consequences.

I honestly feel sorry for some of the defendants. I’m not convinced yet that the actions of all 19 rise to the level of "criminal."

I didn’t start following these various cases closely until very recently so I have much to learn.

 

[BritsKate]

Thank you for your detailed response. I want to read it carefully including references, but I won’t be able to do that until later.

This whole case is making me scratch my head as to how it could have happened. On the surface, it seems that at least some of the people who have been indicted did not intend to break criminal laws. Kenneth Chesebro in particular has caught my attention. I understand he represented the Gore campaign back in 2000 with the Florida fiasco. I sense that what happened in 2020, perhaps, is that Mr. Chesebro initially gave his legal opinion in good faith. His memos seem to be hesitant, he’s tossing out possible ways to approach the situation. I think as facts changed, e.g. the challenges to the Georgia election results failed, he was less enthusiastic. But by then, the plan he suggested seemed to have taken on a life of its own.

John Eastman seems like he was willing to push his pet theories to the extreme and suffer the consequences.

I honestly feel sorry for some of the defendants. I’m not convinced yet that the actions of all 19 rise to the level of "criminal."

I didn’t start following these various cases closely until very recently so I have much to learn.

I can't tell you if its related or not - but Chesebro and his wife divorced in 2014. Up until 2016 he was actually a registered Democrat. From 2016 on though he represented a lot of Republicans and their causes.

He and Jeffrey Clark both had a good reputation once upon a time and Eastman was a law professor and dean. But 'corruption begets corruption'.

I admittedly struggle to see this bunch in a sympathetic light considering they deliberately acted in concert to ensure the voices of millions of voters were silenced, election officials - and their families - were threatened and harrassed, poll workers were terrorized out of their own homes and for the first time in our nation's history, the peaceful transfer of power did not occur. And there has been no acceptance of any wrongdoing and no concern or remorse evident for those actions. And it was all based on a lie.

The damage they did to the very fabric of the country and it's reputation across the world, the erosion of people's faith in our government and elections that they've contributed to and the injury they did to democracy itself, is incalculable.

JMO

 

[anneg]

I know I shouldn't be expecting logic but how does the Special Grand Jury report badly taint Ms. Willis when it doesn't actually say anything?!? It's literally a list of names, crimes, and votes!

They (the Special Grand Jury) wanted to indict anybody who happened to be breathing at the time (though that too is arguable) but the DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHOSE NOT TO. So how the hell does it 'taint' her? (I know - he's banking on people not reading or understanding what's in the report - it doesn't make it any less infuriating though.)

I just can't wait until we get to a point in our world where he's no longer relevant. JMO

ETA: I really never dreamed of a world where I longed for Reagan and Bush Republicans who didn't ban books or reject facts or encourage people against vaccines or weaponize their followers against our public servants or cast political opponents as enemies of the United States and so many other things. Sigh.

I just can't wait until we get to a point in our world where he's no longer relevant. JMO

I just hope it will be in my lifetime! (keep in mind I'm older than Trump)

 

[Inthedetails]

I can't tell you if its related or not - but Chesebro and his wife divorced in 2014. Up until 2016 he was actually a registered Democrat. From 2016 on though he represented a lot of Republicans and their causes.

He and Jeffrey Clark both had a good reputation once upon a time and Eastman was a law professor and dean. But 'corruption begets corruption'.

I admittedly struggle to see this bunch in a sympathetic light considering they deliberately acted in concert to ensure the voices of millions of voters were silenced, election officials - and their families - were threatened and harrassed, poll workers were terrorized out of their own homes and for the first time in our nation's history, the peaceful transfer of power did not occur. And there has been no acceptance of any wrongdoing and no concern or remorse evident for those actions. And it was all based on a lie.

The damage they did to the very fabric of the country and it's reputation across the world, the erosion of people's faith in our government and elections that they've contributed to and the injury they did to democracy itself, is incalculable.

JMO

Chesebro divorced in 2014? Interesting.

"But around 2014 his life took a startling turn.

He invested in bitcoin and appears to have struck gold...New-found wealth coincided with a dramatic volte-face in his political affiliations."

He changed from liberal leaning to rightwing.

‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot?

Kenneth Chesebro – low-profile, bright, seemingly decent – is not your average Trump guy. So how did he become the architect of the election subversion scandal?

www.theguardian.com

 

[MyBelle]

Thank you for your detailed response. I want to read it carefully including references, but I won’t be able to do that until later.

This whole case is making me scratch my head as to how it could have happened. On the surface, it seems that at least some of the people who have been indicted did not intend to break criminal laws. Kenneth Chesebro in particular has caught my attention. I understand he represented the Gore campaign back in 2000 with the Florida fiasco. I sense that what happened in 2020, perhaps, is that Mr. Chesebro initially gave his legal opinion in good faith. His memos seem to be hesitant, he’s tossing out possible ways to approach the situation. I think as facts changed, e.g. the challenges to the Georgia election results failed, he was less enthusiastic. But by then, the plan he suggested seemed to have taken on a life of its own.

John Eastman seems like he was willing to push his pet theories to the extreme and suffer the consequences.

I honestly feel sorry for some of the defendants. I’m not convinced yet that the actions of all 19 rise to the level of "criminal."

I didn’t start following these various cases closely until very recently so I have much to learn.

Please keep in mind there is no way to prove the testimony of anyone before the Jan. 6 Committee was truthful. There was a lot of political bias and grandstanding which is what politicians always do. Not all the transcripts have been turned over for archiving. White House is dragging its feet

I think Chesebro's goal on Jan. 6 was for Pence not to count the electoral votes for the states that had asked for more time after evidence of ballot irregularities had been uncovered and thus, audits were needed. Cheseboro seemed to have a goal of it going to the SCOTUS as had the Gore/Bush Florida mess.

iirc, Pence's staffers told the committee they were with him @ 8:30 that morning drafting an announcement that he would not agree to the plan. It was issued while Trump was still speaking at the rally.

JMO

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/22/politics/january-6-transcripts-security-white-house-loudermilk/index.html

 

[waldojabba]

Snipped

Agreed.

I am skeptical that he himself read it, tbh. Not joking.

jmo

If I had to guess, I believe Trump’s lack of interest in books/ reading, his spelling errors etc, probably stems from some type of learning disability. Ime/ imo, many people who process information differently, frequently over compensate with a very outgoing personality that tends to be dismissive of actual details. I have people similar in my extended family. Just my opinion of course

 

[SouthAussie]

iirc, Pence's staffers told the committee they were with him @ 8:30 that morning drafting an announcement that he would not agree to the plan. It was issued while Trump was still speaking at the rally.

JMO

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/22/politics/january-6-transcripts-security-white-house-loudermilk/index.html

So, are you saying that Pence and Trump had not discussed the matter - multiple times - prior to Pence drafting a memo, with Pence refusing each and every time?


“I think it’s important that the American people know what happened in the days before January 6,” Pence said. “President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that.”

Dec. 25, 2020: When Pence called Trump to wish him a Merry Christmas, Trump requested that Pence reject electoral votes on Jan. 6. Pence responded, as he had in previous conversations, “You know I don’t think I have the authority to change the outcome.”

Jan. 1, 2021: Trump called Pence and “berated him because he had learned that the Vice President had opposed a lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that, at the certification, the Vice President had the authority to reject or return votes to the states under the Constitution.” Pence told Trump he didn’t think there was any constitutional authority for that. In response, Trump reportedly told Pence, “You’re too honest.”

Jan. 3, 2021: Trump again told Pence “that at the certification proceeding, the Vice President had the absolute right to reject electoral votes and the ability to overturn the election.” Pence said he disagreed and noted that “a federal appeals court had rejected the lawsuit making that claim the previous day.”

Jan. 4, 2021: Trump held a meeting with Eastman and Pence, along with Marc Short, who was Pence’s chief of staff, and Greg Jacob, who was Pence’s counsel. The purpose of the meeting, the indictment states, was to convince Pence “based on the Defendant’s knowingly false claims of election fraud, that the Vice President should reject or send to the states Biden’s legitimate electoral votes, rather than count them.”

(and the descriptions go on further ..... )

What Trump Asked of Pence - FactCheck.org

In an interview hours after former President Donald Trump was indicted for an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election, one of his attorneys said that all Trump had ultimately asked his vice president to do was "simply pause” the Electoral College count at the U.S. Capitol...

www.factcheck.org

 

[Lilibet]

Please keep in mind there is no way to prove the testimony of anyone before the Jan. 6 Committee was truthful. There was a lot of political bias and grandstanding which is what politicians always do.

I watched every bit of the J6 Committee hearings. Everyone who testified there had already given depositions under oath on video and they were also sworn in to testify truthfully before the Committee. You seem determined to sow seeds of doubt about their truthfulness and imply instead that they perjured themselves before the Committee.

I’m not sure if you watched the hearings, but from each of the Representatives on the Committee I saw fairness, dignity and restraint. There was no grandstanding, as we see from Jim Jordan and his ilk. There was a desire to show the public what their investigation had revealed. And it was chilling. Everyone should watch the hearings and decide for themselves.

JMO

 

[Arkay]

So, are you saying that Pence and Trump had not discussed the matter - multiple times - prior to Pence drafting a memo, with Pence refusing each and every time?


“I think it’s important that the American people know what happened in the days before January 6,” Pence said. “President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that.”

Dec. 25, 2020: When Pence called Trump to wish him a Merry Christmas, Trump requested that Pence reject electoral votes on Jan. 6. Pence responded, as he had in previous conversations, “You know I don’t think I have the authority to change the outcome.”

Jan. 1, 2021: Trump called Pence and “berated him because he had learned that the Vice President had opposed a lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that, at the certification, the Vice President had the authority to reject or return votes to the states under the Constitution.” Pence told Trump he didn’t think there was any constitutional authority for that. In response, Trump reportedly told Pence, “You’re too honest.”

Jan. 3, 2021: Trump again told Pence “that at the certification proceeding, the Vice President had the absolute right to reject electoral votes and the ability to overturn the election.” Pence said he disagreed and noted that “a federal appeals court had rejected the lawsuit making that claim the previous day.”

Jan. 4, 2021: Trump held a meeting with Eastman and Pence, along with Marc Short, who was Pence’s chief of staff, and Greg Jacob, who was Pence’s counsel. The purpose of the meeting, the indictment states, was to convince Pence “based on the Defendant’s knowingly false claims of election fraud, that the Vice President should reject or send to the states Biden’s legitimate electoral votes, rather than count them.”

(and the descriptions go on further ..... )

What Trump Asked of Pence - FactCheck.org

In an interview hours after former President Donald Trump was indicted for an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election, one of his attorneys said that all Trump had ultimately asked his vice president to do was "simply pause” the Electoral College count at the U.S. Capitol...

www.factcheck.org

Absolutely, @SouthAussie.

In addition, Brad Raffensperger has, of course, the entire audio of Trump pressuring him to “find” votes in Georgia to make it seem Trump had won the state.

Political bias is unfounded because most of those who testified for the Jan 6 committee were conservative Republicans who had voted for and supported Trump, until he decided to declare himself President for Life.

The evidence is in the entire Jan 6 committee hearings. Pence, Raffensperger, Rusty Bowers, Trump’s former lawyers, former Cabinet members, former White House officials…a whole slew of people who were originally Trump people but would not abide with Trump breaking the law.

IMO and the evidence.