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

[BritsKate]

Respectfully, in some cases - and I don't know how much it matters in these particular cases - mens rea is a factor.

Mens rea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not understanding how that would negate the fact the ignorance of the law isn't a valid legal defense? Feel free to correct me if that wasn't your meaning.

Mens rea simply means, loosely, criminal intent or more specifically guilty mind. That can be evidenced in a myriad of ways like meeting in secret or deleting texts or googling good places to dump a body. It's incredibly broad and varies state by state too. Some states, as you'll read below, don't define mens rea as any more than that while other states are much more deliberate with their criminal code definitions.

Similarly, if someone were presenting a negligence defense, or self defense or mental illness contributing to a crime or any other affirmative criminal defense they often take the stand to tell the triers of fact what was in their mind at the time of the incident in order to negate criminal intent. That's already happened in this case and likely will again with the removal motions because the burden is then on the defendant to prove why their criminal cases should be moved to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

Imagine if our system allowed people to not be charged or convicted because they claimed ignorance of the law. Thomas Jefferson said: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse in any country. If it were, the laws would lose their effect, because it can always be pretended.”

I realize we're on opposite sides of the sympathy sprectrum here but if there are mitigating circumstances to diminish the defendants criminal responsibility I'm certain their attorneys will present it at trial. We all just have to wait to see how that'll play out.

JMO and FWIW

Despite the evident importance of proper definition of the mental element, criminal statutes are frequently silent on what sort of mens rea, if any, must be shown. In other instances, a wide variety of terms are employed without any clear indication of how they are to be interpreted. The tentative draft of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code reduces the mens rea terms to four: criminals must act “purposely,” meaning that they must have an actual, consciously formed intent to achieve the criminal consequence; “knowingly,” meaning a conscious awareness that their conduct will produce the consequence; “recklessly,” meaning conscious disregard of the fact that their conduct is creating an unreasonable peril; and “negligently,” meaning inadvertence to peril that would have been apparent to a reasonable person.

Mens rea | Definition & Facts | Britannica

Mens rea is a legal concept denoting criminal intent or evil mind.

www.britannica.com

 

[MyBelle]

Respectfully, in some cases - and I don't know how much it matters in these particular cases - mens rea is a factor.

Mens rea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Who knows? Everything is just a guess at this point. Until the trial starts, we won't know what evidence the Judge will even allow. Quite a few of the GA indictments were based on "evidence" from social media, emails and phone calls.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that political comments--including those on social media platforms--are protected under the First Amendment and the Feds must stop trying to coerce and control those platforms and the posters who post there.

If you have time, it is 74-pages. I found it to be an interesting read.

JMO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/0f6d7356-f470-4eb0-9609-fc4e34b47e5b.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_10

For the last few years—at least since the 2020 presidential transition—a group of federal officials has been in regular contact with nearly every major American social-media company about the spread of “misinformation” on their platforms. In their concern, those officials— hailing from the White House, the CDC, the FBI, and a few other agencies— urged the platforms to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites. And the platforms seemingly complied. They gave the officials access to an expedited reporting system, downgraded or removed flagged posts, and deplatformed users. The platforms also changed their internal policies to capture more flagged content and sent steady reports on their moderation activities to the officials. That went on through the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 congressional election, and continues to this day.

Enter this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs—three doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist, and two states—had posts and stories removed or downgraded by the platforms. Their content touched on a host of divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side-effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story...

The Plaintiffs maintain that although the platforms stifled their speech, the government officials were the ones pulling the strings—they “coerced, threatened, and pressured [the] social-media platforms to censor [them]” through private communications and legal threats. So, they sued the officials for First Amendment violations and asked the district court to enjoin the officials’ conduct.

 

[BritsKate]

Evidence from social media, phone calls, text messages and emails has been broadly accepted as evidence in civil and criminal trials for decades. More recently, we can add GPS to that list too. Not every digital record necessarily *will* be admitted because there's criteria in place that need to be met in order for it to even be considered admissable like its relevance and being able to prove its authenticity...

A perfect example of this is Jack Smith subpeonaing Trump's Twitter account because that data has information that can be used at trial to prove it was Trump using that device to access that account to send that message at that location. IP address, geolocation data, accessing password protected accounts, etc.

Discounting digital evidence as not credible strikes me a little like discounting circumstantial evidence as meaningless when fingerprints, DNA and blood spatter analysis are all examples of circumstantial evidence.

It's simply often the way we communicate in today's world and quite the boon for attorneys looking to prove their civil or criminal cases with all the breadcrumbs we leave. (I always joke that I don't have a ghost of a chance if anyone I know is murdered because my internet history will certainly implicate if not outright convict me. You all know what it's like. )

JMO

 

[Arkay]

Quite a few of the GA indictments were based on "evidence" from social media, emails and phone calls.

Emails, phone calls, and a person’s social media posts are not “evidence” but are in fact EVIDENCE. No air quotes.

They are direct evidence, in the person’s own words.

That these people were indicted using their own words as evidence is pure proof that what they said and did was criminal.

They just didn’t know it would all be found out.

A paper trail and audio trail like Trump and his co-conspirators left is excellent EVIDENCE, real indisputable EVIDENCE.

IMO and the opinion of four courts so far.

 

[SouthAussie]

Who knows? Everything is just a guess at this point. Until the trial starts, we won't know what evidence the Judge will even allow. Quite a few of the GA indictments were based on "evidence" from social media, emails and phone calls.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that political comments--including those on social media platforms--are protected under the First Amendment and the Feds must stop trying to coerce and control those platforms and the posters who post there.

If you have time, it is 74-pages. I found it to be an interesting read.

JMO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/0f6d7356-f470-4eb0-9609-fc4e34b47e5b.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_10

For the last few years—at least since the 2020 presidential transition—a group of federal officials has been in regular contact with nearly every major American social-media company about the spread of “misinformation” on their platforms. In their concern, those officials— hailing from the White House, the CDC, the FBI, and a few other agencies— urged the platforms to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites. And the platforms seemingly complied. They gave the officials access to an expedited reporting system, downgraded or removed flagged posts, and deplatformed users. The platforms also changed their internal policies to capture more flagged content and sent steady reports on their moderation activities to the officials. That went on through the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 congressional election, and continues to this day.

Enter this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs—three doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist, and two states—had posts and stories removed or downgraded by the platforms. Their content touched on a host of divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side-effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story...

The Plaintiffs maintain that although the platforms stifled their speech, the government officials were the ones pulling the strings—they “coerced, threatened, and pressured [the] social-media platforms to censor [them]” through private communications and legal threats. So, they sued the officials for First Amendment violations and asked the district court to enjoin the officials’ conduct.

It might be an interesting read, but by the last paragraph it sounds as if all of their prohibitions were vacated, except prohibition six which was modified.

IIRC, MO and LA (who filed the appeal) were two states that were really struggling with the reality, contagion, and deaths caused by covid.

Most of the document you attached seems to relate to misinformation about covid, and how the appellants thought that stifling the misinformation was a bad thing.

Some of the document seems to relate to Russian and Chinese interference in the election. The appellants seem to think that stifling this interference was a bad thing.

I don't know, maybe I am reading the document incorrectly ... but that is what I got from reading it.

imo

 

[RaechelK]

Mens rea might be an element that the prosecutors will need to prove in order to prove guilt in at least some of the 40-odd counts of the indictment. Words such as “knowingly” and “with intent” appear in some of those counts. Some of the defendants might be less culpable or not guilty because they did not have the requisite mens rea. I simply don’t know. But I’m looking forward to learning.

 

[MyBelle]

Emails, phone calls, and a person’s social media posts are not “evidence” but are in fact EVIDENCE. No air quotes.

They are direct evidence, in the person’s own words.

That these people were indicted using their own words as evidence is pure proof that what they said and did was criminal.

They just didn’t know it would all be found out.

A paper trail and audio trail like Trump and his co-conspirators left is excellent EVIDENCE, real indisputable EVIDENCE.

IMO and the opinion of four courts so far.

BBM. Freedom of speech is a protected freedom as the 5th Circuit just confirmed the lower court ruling in Missouri v Biden.

Courts haven't offered an opinion of the four indictments.

JMO

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM. Freedom of speech is a protected freedom as the 5th Circuit just confirmed the lower court ruling in Missouri v Biden.

Courts haven't offered an opinion of the four indictments.

JMO

Was there somewhere in that lengthy document that said that Freedom of Speech couldn't be used as evidence in a court of law?

As far as I can tell, the document's Modified Prohibition Six states that social media outlets should not be coerced into not publishing freedom of speech items.

All other Prohibitions were vacated (cancelled, rendered void).

 

[Arkay]

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

www.uscourts.gov

Freedom of speech is a protected freedom as the 5th Circuit just confirmed the lower court ruling in Missouri v Biden.

From reading several of your posts, I am aware that this is your stance on the entire topic.
You of course have the right to your opinion, as do I.
Factually though, while Freedom of Speech in enshrined in our Constitution, it is not absolute.
This has been discussed here ad infinitum.

The link above is from the US government as it relates to the meaning of Freedom of Speech and why it is not absolute. Examples are given.

FROM THE LINK ABOVE:

Speech that is designed to “incite imminent lawless action” is NOT allowed by this amendment. Brandenburg vs Ohio is the precedent if you care to read the link.

Certainly I, and I imagine you as well, do not wish to go in circles continually.

Trump et. al. were not indicted for their speech alone. It has been pointed out endlessly that their speech was part of a conspiratorial ring, and their statements and discussions were about lawless acts that they were intending to commit and did commit, such as pressuring State Secretaries to change votes, harassing and threatening poll workers, encouraging violence to the VP and to the Capitol, a conspiracy to put forth fake electors and so much more.
None of those aspects of speech were lawful and the 1st Amendment does not permit it.

JMO but also the Constitution

 

[MyBelle]

It might be an interesting read, but by the last paragraph it sounds as if all of their prohibitions were vacated, except prohibition six which was modified.

IIRC, MO and LA (who filed the appeal) were two states that were really struggling with the reality, contagion, and deaths caused by covid.

Most of the document you attached seems to relate to misinformation about covid, and how the appellants thought that stifling the misinformation was a bad thing.

Some of the document seems to relate to Russian and Chinese interference in the election. The appellants seem to think that stifling this interference was a bad thing.

I don't know, maybe I am reading the document incorrectly ... but that is what I got from reading it.

imo

Prohibition six is the most important because it pertains to the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC and the FBI. The topics weren't just about Covid, they included the 2022 election and Hunter Biden's laptop. The Court issued the modification, and it is very specific. The Court is very, very critical of the spokespeople and the attorneys. Heading the list is White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre followed by Counsel to the President, Stuart F. Delery.

I rarely read The Gateway Pundit or other conservative sites because many of them too right wingnut for me but no way should a President or his staff, including the FBI, try to prevent anyone from expressing their protected right to free speech by threatening them with punishment.

The Defendants/Appellants evidently want the SCOTUS to weigh in and I'm all for it.

JMO

The Court's Modification details are on pages 70 - 73 immediately preceding VII (pg. 74).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/0f6d7356-f470-4eb0-9609-fc4e34b47e5b.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_10

No. 23-30445 74

VII.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED with respect to the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI, and REVERSED as to all other officials. The preliminary injunction is VACATED except for prohibition number six, which is MODIFIED as set forth herein. The Appellants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED as moot. The Appellants’ request to extend the administrative stay for ten days following the date hereof pending an application to the Supreme Court of the United States is GRANTED, and the matter is STAYED.

**************
Specifically, prohibition six of the injunction is MODIFIED to state: Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech.

That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes.

Under the modified injunction, the enjoined Defendants cannot coerce or significantly encourage a platform’s content-moderation decisions. Such conduct includes threats of adverse consequences—even if those threats are not verbalized and never materialize—so long as a reasonable person would construe a government’s message as alluding to some form of punishment. That, of course, is informed by context (e.g., persistent pressure, perceived or actual ability to make good on a threat). The government cannot subject the platforms to legal, regulatory, or economic consequences (beyond reputational harms) if they do not comply with a given request. See Bantam Books, 372 U.S. at 68; Okwedy, 333 F.3d at 344.

The enjoined Defendants also cannot supervise a platform’s content moderation decisions or directly involve themselves in the decision itself. Social-media platforms’ content-moderation decisions must be theirs and theirs alone. See Blum, 457 U.S. at 1008. This approach captures illicit conduct, regardless of its form. Because the modified injunction does not proscribe Defendants from activities that could include legal conduct, no carveouts are needed.

There are two guiding inquiries for Defendants. First, is whether their action could be reasonably interpreted as a threat to take, or cause to be taken, an official action against the social-media companies if the companies decline Defendants’ request to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce protected free speech on their platforms. Second, is whether Defendants have exercised active, meaningful control over the platforms’ content-moderation decisions to such a degree that it inhibits the platforms’ independent decision-making...

Such breadth is plainly necessary, if not inevitable, here. The officials have engaged in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government. The harms that radiate from such conduct extend far beyond just the Plaintiffs; it impacts every social-media user. Naturally, then, an injunction against such conduct will afford protections that extend beyond just Plaintiffs, too. Cf. Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden, 63 F.4th 366, 387 (5th Cir. 2023) (“[A]n injunction [can] benefit non-parties as long as that benefit [is] merely incidental.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

As explained in Part IV above, the district court erred in finding that the NIAID Officials, CISA Officials, and State Department Officials likely violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. So, we exclude those parties from the injunction.

Accordingly, the term “Defendants” as used in this modified provision is defined to mean only the following entities and officials included in the original injunction: The following members of the Executive Office of the President of the United States: White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre; Counsel to the President, Stuart F. Delery; White House Partnerships Manager, Aisha Shah; Special Assistant to the President, Sarah Beran; Administrator of the United States Digital Service within the Office of Management and Budget, Mina Hsiang; White House National Climate Advisor, Ali Zaidi; White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor, formerly Andrew Slavitt; Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Digital Strategy, formerly Rob Flaherty; White House COVID-19 Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement, Dori Salcido; White House Digital Director for the COVID-19 Response Team, formerly Clarke Humphrey; Deputy Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, formerly Benjamin Wakana; Deputy Director for Strategic Communications and External Engagement for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, formerly Subhan Cheema; White House COVID-19 Supply Coordinator, formerly Timothy W. Manning; and Chief Medical Advisor to the President, Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, along with their directors, administrators and employees. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy; and Chief Engagement Officer for the Surgeon General, Katharine Dealy, along with their directors, administrators and employees.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), and specifically the following employees: Carol Y. Crawford, Chief of the Digital Media Branch of the CDC Division of Public Affairs; Jay Dempsey, Social-media Team Leader, Digital Media Branch, CDC Division of Public Affairs; and Kate Galatas, CDC Deputy Communications Director.

And the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and specifically the following employees: Laura Dehmlow, Section Chief, FBI Foreign Influence Task Force; and Elvis M. Chan, Supervisory Special Agent of Squad CY-1 in the FBI San Francisco Division.

 

[MyBelle]

Was there somewhere in that lengthy document that said that Freedom of Speech couldn't be used as evidence in a court of law?

As far as I can tell, the document's Modified Prohibition Six states that social media outlets should not be coerced into not publishing freedom of speech items.

All other Prohibitions were vacated (cancelled, rendered void).

I think the trial Judge decides what is allowed to be admitted as evidence.

JMO

 

[Auntie Cipation]

RBBM

I would also argue that stoking this mentality is part of a deliberate strategy employed by Trump et al to erode people's confidence in the judiciary. Authoritarian experts have been warning about Trump for years.

Authoritarians have a playbook. They go after marginalized communities; politicize independent institutions such as central banks or the judiciary, quash dissent, stoke violence, attack the media, promote disinformation and corrupt elections all with the express aim of achieving and maintaining power.

Any entity that can expose an authoritarian regime's corruption or abuses, attempt to check it's power or hold it accountable are seen as a threat to their power and an enemy to their cause. It's vital they convince their followers of that as well though. JMO

The Authoritarian Playbook - Protect Democracy

Today’s authoritarian playbook is a process that happens piecemeal and is hard to distinguish from normal political jockeying.

protectdemocracy.org

I'm only partway through it at the moment but I'm reading the book "Strongmen" by Ruth Ben-Ghiat and holy moly do they ever all follow the playbook! All the things done by Mussolini, Berlusconi, Qaddafi, Erdogan, etc etc, are all the same techniques, even word-for-word phrases, used by Trump. Horrifying! I admit to not having been very well educated on global politics of the last 100 years, but boy am I learning a lot now.

The place where I tend to go in circles about maybe some of these folks authentically thought they could legally redirect the outcome of the election is, Where Is The Evidence?

If they truly thought the results as certified didn't accurately reflect the will of the voters, then why (asking of them rhetorically) didn't the legal attempts (recounts, lawsuits) succeed? Their earnest belief should have morphed into "okay, I guess we were wrong" upon the revelation of zero evidence of fraud or misrepresentation of the votes.

Evidence is simply THE method we use for determining whether something has happened or not. No evidence means, for all intents and purposes, it didn't happen. IMO.

While none of us can speak for Trump or any of the other defendants, maybe some of the folks who empathize with them can answer the TLDR question for me:

BY WHAT REASONING did anyone think the repeated results showing Biden won were wrong? Was it as simple as "I think everyone loves this guy, therefore it's inconceivable to me that anything less than a vast majority voted for him? That sure seems to be how Trump himself feels (or pretends to -- I think he knows better), based only on my interpretation of his behavior and comments. Seriously, what was the logic? I honestly can only see disingenuous reasons for repeatedly insisting the outcome was wrong in spite of zero evidence of that.

 

[Lilibet]

BY WHAT REASONING did anyone think the repeated results showing Biden won were wrong? Was it as simple as "I think everyone loves this guy, therefore it's inconceivable to me that anything less than a vast majority voted for him? That sure seems to be how Trump himself feels (or pretends to -- I think he knows better), based only on my interpretation of his behavior and comments. Seriously, what was the logic? I honestly can only see disingenuous reasons for repeatedly insisting the outcome was wrong in spite of zero evidence of that.

Excellent question! I would say that “REASONING” has nothing to do with the belief that Trump won despite evidence to the contrary. Trump has tapped into the emotion of victimhood as all strongmen do. He has convinced his base that “only he can fix it.” And he has been saying since before the 2016 election that if he loses, the election was corrupt. So there is no logic involved for his base.

As for the ones who have been indicted, IMO they weren’t that naive. But Trump offered to provide what they firmly believe is important, the main item being a conservative Supreme Court. And there are other promises Trump has made that fit their worldview. So in a sense, they are also running on emotion…get Trump into office no matter what so he can do what they think is important, never mind the will of the majority. Very cynical emotions and yes, disingenuous. They knew exactly what they were doing.

JMO

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Excellent question! I would say that “REASONING” has nothing to do with the belief that Trump won despite evidence to the contrary. Trump has tapped into the emotion of victimhood as all strongmen do. He has convinced his base that “only he can fix it.” And he has been saying since before the 2016 election that if he loses, the election was corrupt. So there is no logic involved for his base.

As for the ones who have been indicted, IMO they weren’t that naive. But Trump offered to provide what they firmly believe is important, the main item being a conservative Supreme Court. And there are other promises Trump has made that fit their worldview. So in a sense, they are also running on emotion…get Trump into office no matter what so he can do what they think is important, never mind the will of the majority. Very cynical emotions and yes, disingenuous. They knew exactly what they were doing.

JMO

To me this pretty much rules out the question of whether they maybe thought they were doing legal things.

Because all these attorneys certainly know that the way things are decided in this country is via the legal process, NOT by using the strongman PR strategy of "say it enough times and people will believe it".

You can indeed PR your way into being elected, because people can make their voting choices based on a million different things.

But once it becomes a legal process, they know that legally, the election result would only be reversed if actual evidence was found, and while some of them claimed the evidence would be presented "any moment now", none ever was.

There is no way that "defiance of court decisions" and storming the capitol and insulting Pence were legal strategies. They were PR strategies to persuade the people, but it was too late, the people had already voted, and now what they wanted could only happen through the legal process.

Oh wait. There is another way they could retain power without following the legal process -- and that is called a coup.

So no, IMO there is no way that most of those defendants could compellingly claim they thought what they were doing is legal. Certainly not among the attorneys in the bunch.

IMO and MOO.

 

[BritsKate]

Seriously. I am going to go to my grave still being angsty that the First Amendment is so terribly misunderstood.

Trump et. al. were not indicted for their speech alone. It has been pointed out endlessly that their speech was part of a conspiratorial ring, and their statements and discussions were about lawless acts that they were intending to commit and did commit, such as pressuring State Secretaries to change votes, harassing and threatening poll workers, encouraging violence to the VP and to the Capitol, a conspiracy to put forth fake electors and so much more.
None of those aspects of speech were lawful and the 1st Amendment does not permit it.

JMO but also the Constitution

Not to make light of your well reasoned post, Arkay, but I literally laughed at the bolded portion. And were I not on warfarin, I would totally get that tattooed on me.

I honestly can only see disingenuous reasons for repeatedly insisting the outcome was wrong in spite of zero evidence of that.

That's where I'm at too. I think they had already determined the outcome and manipulated pieces and people to ensure it happened. And try as I might, I can't not see criminal intent in almost every action.

Excellent question! I would say that “REASONING” has nothing to do with the belief that Trump won despite evidence to the contrary. Trump has tapped into the emotion of victimhood as all strongmen do. He has convinced his base that “only he can fix it.” And he has been saying since before the 2016 election that if he loses, the election was corrupt. So there is no logic involved for his base.

You can go back even further though!

On election night in 2012, when President Barack Obama was reelected, Trump said that the election was a "total sham" and a "travesty," while also making the claim that the United States is "not a democracy" after Obama secured his victory.

Trump even wrote on Twitter, "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

Trump has longstanding history of calling elections 'rigged' if he doesn’t like the results

It's been days since President-elect Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 presidential race, and still, President Donald Trump has not accepted it.

abcnews.go.com

As for the ones who have been indicted, IMO they weren’t that naive. But Trump offered to provide what they firmly believe is important, the main item being a conservative Supreme Court. And there are other promises Trump has made that fit their worldview. So in a sense, they are also running on emotion…get Trump into office no matter what so he can do what they think is important, never mind the will of the majority. Very cynical emotions and yes, disingenuous. They knew exactly what they were doing.

This is such an important point. People may not realize it but the conservative legal circle in DC is *tiny*. Many of them know, work, and socialize with one another. Many of them share the same goals and have often aided one another to bring those goals to fruition. It's all interconnected. A huge piece was published about this yesterday actually - some of the names mentioned will be familiar as unindicted co-conspirators and witnesses.

What Ginni Thomas and Leonard Leo wrought: How a justice’s wife and a key activist started a movement

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, a trove of so-called "dark money" was about to be unleashed. Two activists prepared to seize the moment.

www.politico.com

So no, IMO there is no way that most of those defendants could compellingly claim they thought what they were doing is legal. Certainly not among the attorneys in the bunch.

Oh see, now you're giving Will Wooten a run for his money as to who I leave my husband for.

This gets me - I understand wanting to believe the best of the people on the lower end of this conspiracy - though I don't share that sentiment. But for the life of me, I cannot contemplate sympathy for those that engineered the scheme! If you ask me, all the people that engaged in this conspiracy simply wanted Trump to remain President by any means possible. And if it took criminality or violence to do it, that was justified.

John Eastman asked for a pardon. Ken Chesebro was on restricted grounds at the Capitol January 6th. These just aren't the actions of lawyers who are simply providing legal advice they knew to be right and proper.

I personally think, as attorneys, they should be held to a higher standard. They deliberately perverted and exploited laws while lying to the American people all to keep Trump in power. JMO

And Auntie, I keep meaning to mention you've got one of my all time favorite user names.

 

[Inthedetails]

To me this pretty much rules out the question of whether they maybe thought they were doing legal things.

Because all these attorneys certainly know that the way things are decided in this country is via the legal process, NOT by using the strongman PR strategy of "say it enough times and people will believe it".

You can indeed PR your way into being elected, because people can make their voting choices based on a million different things.

But once it becomes a legal process, they know that legally, the election result would only be reversed if actual evidence was found, and while some of them claimed the evidence would be presented "any moment now", none ever was.

There is no way that "defiance of court decisions" and storming the capitol and insulting Pence were legal strategies. They were PR strategies to persuade the people, but it was too late, the people had already voted, and now what they wanted could only happen through the legal process.

Oh wait. There is another way they could retain power without following the legal process -- and that is called a coup.

So no, IMO there is no way that most of those defendants could compellingly claim they thought what they were doing is legal. Certainly not among the attorneys in the bunch.

IMO and MOO.

I agree, but I'll add from observations in my personal life, many supporters simply will not vote dem. Period. Not more complicated than that.

They support Trump not because they like him but because if he's in office that means a Dem is not.

And, they really aren't following these court cases other than to know DT keeps getting hit with them, so it's believable to them that they are politically motivated. They are smart and educated, but don't want to spend any time reading court documents and they'd rather just go with whatever candidate the GOP is offering.

They aren't the crowd to go to a rally or spend any energy defending the guy, but in the voting booth, they vote straight R down the ballot.

jmo

 

[BritsKate]

It's too late to edit my previous post but I wanted to add some color where the indicted lawyers are concerned mainly for the benefit of people who aren't following closely...and apologies to those for whom this is redundant.

Robert Cheeley: Georgia based attorney. Worked on the fake elector scheme; presented false evidence to Georgia state senators; charged with perjury for lying to the Special Grand Jury.

Rudy Giuliani: Former Trump attorney who was heavily involved in the fake elector scheme; presented false testimony to the Georgia General Assembly leading to the terrorizing and death threats of poll workers (he has since conceded this lie in a civil suit) in addition to multiple false allegations of voter fraud; also directly phoned and pressured several Georgia lawmakers to call a special legislative session.

Sidney Powell: Kraken Lady! Apart from being the face of dozens of suits challenging the election outcome peddling false allegations of voter fraud, she also helped to engineer the breach to electoral equipment in Coffee County. Went on to make false statements in a deposition under oath to the House that she really had nothing to do with accessing voting machines in Georgia or Michigan.

John Eastman: Trump attorney who helped devise the strategy for Pence to reject electors from key states so state legislatures could install the slates of fake electors instead. (Invoked attorney client prilege when asked about this while testifying in his disbarment trial. See note at end.) Participated in several meetings to further advocate this strategy and was coordinating this part of the conspiracy with Chesebro, Giuliani, Cheeley. Asked for a pardon from then President Trump. (Another scheme that received a lot of pushback for other attorneys both in the White House and the campaign.)

Ray Smith: An attorney working with the Trump campaign who assisted with the fake elector scheme and also presented false evidence to Georgia lawmakers. He played a key role in communications to Georgia lawmakers as well.

Ken Chesebro: An attorney advising the Trump campaign lawyers. Wrote a series of memos laying the groundwork for the fake elector scheme and coordinated the employment of the scheme with Republican officials from across several states. (For what it's worth, there was a lot of pushback against this scheme from other Trump campaign attorneys and WH Counsel. And Chesebro himself conceded 'Georgia could be somewhat dicey' due to state requirements.) Was caught on video on restricted grounds on the Capitol January 6th with Alex Jones. Invoked his 5th Amendment right when asked his location on that day by the House committee.

Jeffrey Clark: Former AAG for Environmental Issues at the Department of Justice. He drafted a letter falsely stating the DOJ had "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome in multiple states, including Georgia". This letter was intended to be printed on DOJ letterhead, signed by the Acting Attorney General, and sent to Governor Kemp and state legislative leaders. (Clark was tapped by Trump to become Attorney General but Trump backed down after several White House and DOJ lawyers threatened to resign if he did so.)

Jenna Ellis: Wrote a memo on December 31st stating that Pence should just not open the envelopes from several states - including Georgia - because of false allegations the electors were in dispute. Attended several key meeting in multiple states to coordinate the conspiracy and often appeared with Giuliani to espouse false voter fraud allegations. Wrote another memo on January 5th suggested Pence count the votes alphabetically and just stop midway. (Is charged, in addition to RICO, for her attendance at the December 3rd Georgia Senate Judiciary Subcommittee.)
----------------
I realize it could be argued that these people were all working on different aspects of an overarching conspiracy and while that is very true, there is also a lot of contact between the co-defendants to coordinate and stategize and several were together in key meetings or appeared together at hearings as well.

Rudy Giuliani said he was indicted for being a lawyer but I don't think these people are lawyers. I believe they're criminals who are hiding behind their law degrees.

JMO

 

[Lilibet]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/11/politics/trump-wild-rhetoric-2024/index.html

CNN —
Donald Trump is conjuring his most foreboding vision yet of a possible second term, telling supporters in language resonant of the run-up to the January 6 mob attack on the US Capitol that they need to “fight like hell” or they will lose their country.

The rhetorical escalation from the four-times-indicted ex-president came at a rally in South Dakota on Friday night where he accused his possible 2024 opponent, President Joe Biden, of ordering his indictment on 91 charges across four criminal cases as a form of election interference.

“I don’t think there’s ever been a darkness around our nation like there is now,” Trump said, in a dystopian speech in which he accused Democrats of allowing an “invasion” of migrants over the southern border and of trying to restart Covid “hysteria.”

The Republican front-runner’s stark speech raised the prospect of a second presidency that would be even more extreme and challenging to the rule of law than his first. His view that the Oval Office confers unfettered powers suggests Trump would indulge in similar conduct as that for which he is awaiting trial, including intimidating local officials in an alleged bid to overturn his 2020 defeat.

 

[vls12345]

Fulton County Sheriff describes what Trump was like when getting his mug shot

Fulton County Sheriff Patrick "Pat" Labat was there to witness the entire process.

www.11alive.com

 

[Vern]

BBM. Freedom of speech is a protected freedom as the 5th Circuit just confirmed the lower court ruling in Missouri v Biden.

Courts haven't offered an opinion of the four indictments.

JMO

People's words, written statements and recordings are used against them all the time when those words, written statements or recordings pertain to the planning of, or the commission of crimes.

Freedom of speech does not absolve anyone, even Trump, from bearing the repercussions of that speech. Full stop.

FACT: This is settled law.

Supreme Court Ruling Rejects the Promise of Miranda Rights | ACLU

www.aclu.org

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can (and will) be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to the presence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you prior to any questioning.” These Miranda warnings, mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court in that eponymous 1966 case litigated by the ACLU, form part of the very fabric of law enforcement’s relationship with the public.

If freedom of speech were absolute and without repercussions, there'd be no need for advising criminals of such.

Recorded words and spoken statements have been used to form the basis of evidence for the laying of criminal charges for eons. Trump won't be the first to have his words, recordings and actions used against him and he surely will not be the last.

Secret Gotti Recordings Admitted as Evidence (Published 1991)

www.nytimes.com

Dahda v. United States

www.law.cornell.edu

Benanti v. United States, 355 U.S. 96 (1957)

Benanti v. United States

supreme.justia.com

{{meta.fullTitle}}

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1843&context=plr

And, in the famous case of Dahlia Dippolito, where her reocrded speech was used as evidence against her, the accomplishment of the "intended outcome of the criminal act" does not have to be successful for conviction of the intend crime. Thank gawd Trump's plot to subvert democracy in Georgia was unsuccessful - now he gets to be tried for his attempts to commit that crime as he should be.

How Dalia Dippolito is managing prison life and her legal team's hope for a new trial

After three trials and two convictions, the 37-year-old is currently being held at the Palm Beach County Jail. Her defense team is hoping to get a new trial.

abcnews.go.com

Freedom of speech does not absolve people of being held accountable forever from being prosecuted for intended criminal actions, and their speech can and will be used against them in a court of law.