#false slate of electors

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Forget hush money payments to porn stars hidden as business expenses. Forget showing off classified documents about Iran attack plans to visitors, and then ordering the pool guy to erase the security tapes revealing that he was still holding on to documents that he had promised to return. Forget even corrupt attempts to interfere with election results in Georgia in 2020.

The federal indictment just handed down by special counsel Jack Smith is not only the most important indictment by far of former President Donald Trump. It is perhaps the most important indictment ever handed down to safeguard American democracy and the rule of law in any U.S. court against anyone.

For those who have been closely following Trump’s attempt to subvert the results of the 2020 election, there was little new information contained in the indictment. In straightforward language with mountains of evidence, the 45-page document explains how Trump, acting with six (so far unnamed, but easily recognizable) co-conspirators, engaged in a scheme to repeatedly make false claims that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged, and to use those false claims as a predicate to try to steal the election. The means of election theft were national, not just confined to one state, as in the expected Georgia prosecution. And they were technical—submitting alternative slates of presidential electors to Congress, and arguing that state legislatures had powers under the Constitution and an old federal law, the Electoral Count Act, to ignore the will of the state’s voters.

But Trump’s corrupt intent was clear: He was repeatedly told that the election was not stolen, and he knew that no evidence supported his outrageous claims of ballot tampering. He nonetheless allegedly tried to pressure state legislators, state election officials, Department of Justice officials, and his own vice president to manipulate these arcane, complex election rules to turn himself from an election loser into an election winner. That’s the definition of election subversion.

He’s now charged with a conspiracy to defraud the United States, a conspiracy to willfully deprive citizens the right to vote, a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and obstructing that official proceeding. If you’re doing the math, that is four new counts on top of the dozens he faces in the classified documents case in Florida and the hush money case in New York.

So far Trump has not been accountable for these actions to try to steal an American election. Although the House impeached Trump for his efforts soon after they occurred, the Senate did not convict. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in voting against conviction in the Senate despite undeniable evidence of attempted election subversion by his fellow Republican, pointed to the criminal justice system as the appropriate place to serve up justice. But the wheels of justice have turned very slowly. Reports say that Attorney General Merrick Garland was at first too cautious about pursuing charges against Trump despite Trump’s unprecedented attack on our democracy. Once Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to handle Trump claims following the release of seemingly irrefutable evidence that Trump broke laws related to the handling of classified documents, the die was cast.

It is hard to overstate the stakes riding on this indictment and prosecution. New polling from the New York Times shows that Trump not only has a commanding lead among those Republicans seeking the party’s presidential nomination in 2024; he remains very competitive in a race against Joe Biden. After nearly a decade of Trump convincing many in the public that all charges against him are politically motivated, he’s virtually inoculated himself against political repercussions for deadly serious criminal counts. He’s miraculously seen a boost in support and fundraising after each indictment (though recent signs are that the indictments are beginning to take a small toll). One should not underestimate the chances that Donald Trump could be elected president in 2024 against Joe Biden—especially if Biden suffers any kind of health setback in the period up to the election—even if Trump is put on trial and convicted of crimes.

A trial is the best chance to educate the American public, as the Jan. 6 House committee hearings did to some extent, about the actions Trump allegedly took to undermine American democracy and the rule of law. Constant publicity from the trial would give the American people in the middle of the election season a close look at the actions Trump took for his own personal benefit while putting lives and the country at risk. It, of course, also serves the goals of justice and of deterring Trump, or any future like-minded would-be authoritarian, from attempting any similar attack on American democracy ever again.

Trump now has two legal strategies he can pursue in fighting these charges, aside from continuing to attack the prosecutions as politically motivated. The first strategy, which he will no doubt pursue, is to run out the clock. It’s going to be tough for this case to go to trial before the next election given that it is much more factually complex than the classified documents or hush money cases. There are potentially hundreds of witnesses and theories of conspiracies that will take much to untangle. Had the indictment come any later, I believe a trial before November 2024 would have been impossible. With D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan—a President Barack Obama appointee who has treated previous Jan. 6 cases before her court with expedition and seriousness—apparently in charge of this case, there is still a chance to avoid a case of justice delayed being justice denied.

If Trump can run out the clock before conviction and be reelected, though, he can get rid of Jack Smith and appoint an attorney general who will do his bidding. He could even try to pardon himself from charges if elected in 2024 (a gambit that may or may not be legal). He could then sic his attorney general on political adversaries with prosecutions not grounded in any evidence, something he has repeatedly promised on the campaign trail.

Trump’s other legal strategy is to argue that prosecutors cannot prove the charges. For example, the government will have to prove that Trump not only intended to interfere with Congress’ fair counting of the electoral college votes in 2020 but also that Trump did so “corruptly.” Trump will put his state of mind at issue, arguing that despite all the evidence, he had an honest belief the election was being stolen from him.

He also will likely assert First Amendment defenses. As the indictment itself notes near the beginning, “the Defendant has a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won.” But Trump did not just state the false claims; he allegedly used the false claims to engage in a conspiracy to steal the election. There is no First Amendment right to use speech to subvert an election, any more than there is a First Amendment right to use speech to bribe, threaten, or intimidate.

Putting Trump before a jury, if the case can get that far before the 2024 elections, is not certain to yield a conviction. It carries risks. But as I wrote last year in the New York Times, the risks to our system of government of not prosecuting Donald Trump are greater than the risks of prosecuting him.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the conduct of this prosecution will greatly influence whether the U.S. remains a thriving democracy after 2024.

#us politics #news #slate #false slate of electors #republicans #donald trump #conservatives #2023 #United States v. Donald Trump #trump administration #2020 election #Electoral Count Act #us constitution #14th amendment #ballot tampering #election subversion #Department of Justice #jack smith #ag merrick garland #biden administration #conspiracy to defraud the United States #conspiracy to willfully deprive citizens the right to vote #conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding #obstruction of congress #2024 presidential race #2024 elections #Judge Tanya Chutkan

[reasonsforhope]

Note: They're saying "alleged" because that's what journalists are supposed to do until there's a conviction. ABC isn't trying to cast doubt, they're trying to follow professional standards and also not get sued for libel.

"Former President Donald Trump, bent on staying in power, undertook a sweeping "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including repeatedly pushing lies about the results despite knowing that they were correct, and doubling down on those falsehoods as the Jan. 6 riot raged, a sweeping federal indictment alleges.

This is the third indictment faced by the former president, who -- as the Republican frontrunner in the 2024 presidential race -- continues to insist that the vote was rigged.

Prosecutors say the alleged scheme, which they say involved six unnamed co-conspirators, included enlisting a slate of so-called "fake electors" targeting several states; using the Justice Department to conduct "sham election crime investigations"; enlisting the vice president to "alter the election results"; and doubling down on false claims as the Jan. 6 riot ensued -- all in an effort to subvert democracy and stay in power.

The six alleged co-conspirators include several attorneys and a Justice Department official.

The sweeping indictment, based on the investigation by special counsel Jack Smith, charges Trump with four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights...

In the history of the country, no president or former president had ever been indicted prior to Trump's first indictment in April."

-via ABC News, August 1, 2023

WE FUCKING DID IT

#trump #jack smith #donald trump #trump indictment #united states #us politics #gop #election 2024 #mike pence #department of justice #justice system #good news #hope #jan 6 #jan 6 insurrection #insurrection

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Rachel Leingang at The Guardian:

An Arizona grand jury has charged 18 people involved in the scheme to create a slate of false electors for Donald Trump, including 11 people who served as those fake electors and seven Trump allies who aided the scheme. Kris Mayes, Arizona’s Democratic attorney general, announced the charges on Wednesday, and said the 11 fake electors had been charged with felonies for fraud, forgery and conspiracy. Beyond the fake electors themselves, high-profile Trump affiliates have been charged with aiding in the scheme: Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Christina Bobb and Mike Roman.

Those charged over their roles as false electors include two sitting lawmakers, state senators Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern. The former Arizona Republican party chair Kelli Ward and her husband, Michael Ward, have been charged, as has Tyler Bowyer, a Republican national committeeman and Turning Point USA executive, and Jim Lamon, who ran for US Senate in 2022. The others charged in the fake electors scheme are Nancy Cottle, Robert Montgomery, Samuel Moorhead, Lorraine Pellegrino and Gregory Safsten. The indictment says: “In Arizona, and the United States, the people elected Joseph Biden as president on November 3 2020. Unwilling to accept this fact, defendants and unindicted co-conspirators schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency to keep unindicted co-conspirator 1 in office against the will of Arizona’s voters. This scheme would have deprived Arizona voters of their right to vote and have their votes counted.”

Biden won Arizona by more than 10,000 votes, a close margin in the typically red state that immediately prompted allegations of voter fraud that persist to this day. The state has remained a hotbed of election denialism, despite losses for Republicans who embraced election-fraud lies at the state level. Trump has not been charged in the Arizona case. The indictment refers to Trump himself as “unindicted co-conspirator 1” throughout, noting how the former president schemed to keep himself in office, and how those around him, even those who believed he lost, aided this effort. Some involved have claimed they signed on as an alternate slate of electors in case court decisions came down in Trump’s favor, so they would have a backup group that could be certified by Congress should Trump prevail.

An Arizona grand jury handed down 18 indictments to those involved in the scheme to award 11 fake electors to give Donald Trump the state of Arizona in 2020, despite the fact that Joe Biden flipped the state in his narrow win. Donald Trump has been named unindicted co-conspirator #1.

The persons indicted for aiding and abetting efforts to help the fake electors: Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro, Christina Bobb, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and Boris Epshteyn.

Some of the notable fake electors charged include: former AZGOP chair Kelli Ward, TPUSA employee Tyler Bowyer, and 2022 GOP US Senate candidate Jim Lamon.

#Fake Electors #The Big Lie #2020 Arizona Elections #2020 Presidential Election #2020 Elections #Arizona #Donald Trump #Kelli Ward #Tyler Bowyer #Jenna Ellis #Kenneth Chesebro #Rudy Giuliani #Mike Roman #Christina Bobb #Mark Meadows #John Eastman #Jim Lamon #Boris Epshteyn

[ridenwithbiden]

On Friday, Kenneth Chesebro pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to file false documents in the Fulton County 2020 election conspiracy case, becoming the second high-level Donald Trump co-defendant to become a state’s witness in two days. Chesebro received an especially lenient sentence of five years’ probation, a small financial penalty, and 100 hours of community service.

With the guilty plea and cooperation deal Georgia prosecutors struck on Thursday with Team Trump attorney Sidney Powell, Chesebro’s plea deal should be viewed as an earthquake in the case against Trump. Given Powell’s close proximity to the former president and his legal advisers at crucial times in his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, her testimony will be particularly devastating not only as to defendant Trump, but to co-defendants Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman.

Chesebro’s testimony, meanwhile, implicates one of the key portions of the conspiracy both in Georgia and in the federal Jan. 6 case against Trump, specifically the efforts to create a slate of “false electors” to use during the Jan. 6 electoral count to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Now that both Chesebro and Powell are cooperating witnesses, the pressure on Giuliani and Eastman to plead and cooperate is exponentially higher.

That the significant cooperation under discussion involves four of Trump’s attorneys underscores the reality that the former president’s regularly touted defense that he was relying on the good-faith guidance of his attorneys during the attempted coup was, and is, nothing more than self-serving fantasy. In the courtroom—as compared with on television or in social media—he has never had the ability to offer that defense.

In court, the advice of counsel “affirmative defense” requires a defendant to prove two things: First, that he relied in good faith on his lawyer’s advice that the conduct in question at trial was legal, and second, that he made a full disclosure of all relevant facts to the attorney before receiving that advice.

Based on my four decades in the courtroom as both federal prosecutor and defense attorney, I can report that the assertion of the attorney-client privilege by a criminal defendant at trial is a black swan event—effective only with the consistent, overlapping trial testimony of both the attorney and the defendant, and the admission into evidence of any documents reflecting the communications or advice they testified about.

Putting aside the substantial evidence that Trump was warned by numerous White House lawyers that his efforts to overturn the 2020 election were in violation of the law, how does Trump establish the advice of counsel defense at trial?

As I have observed in prior articles, he is certainly not able to testify on his own behalf. There are surely no memos to the file, emails, or letters to the client evidencing such advice in writing. Finally in this regard, what lawyer is willing to testify he or she advised Trump it was, for example, lawful for him to ask the Georgia secretary of state to “find” enough votes for him to win that state?

Long before the Powell and Chesebro deals were announced, the absurdity of expecting any Trump attorney’s testimony to be anything but harmful to his cause was made crystal clear by Michael Cohen. More recently, when Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran was forced to testify against the former president based on the “crime fraud” exception to the attorney-client privilege, the testimony he gave and the internal memos he was compelled to produce, proved not to be shields for the former president, but swords to be wielded against him—as it is with Powell and Chesebro, and so it will be with others.

After all, what can you expect when your standard for choosing at least some of your lawyers is their willingness to turn a blind eye to whatever your weak ego and malicious intentions require?

In sum, while Georgia and DOJ attorneys have each received great potential benefits from the Powell and Chesebro deals, it was in no way structured to protect against a defense they know Trump cannot employ.

Finally, speaking of structure, the great deals Powell and Chesebro struck, getting probation while facing up to 20 years in jail on a RICO conviction, are certainly a blessing for them—they even get to finally tell the truth.

But District Attorney Fani Willis’ seeming generosity is a sign of shrewd judgment, not weakness.

Prosecutors have both the carrot and the stick to get what they want, and the two deals Willis just made were large carrots, signaling to the other defendants that she is someone they can deal with, and that there are potentially acceptable pathways out of the mess they are in. At the same time, she has just made her case against other, more significant defendants meaningfully stronger and her stick that much larger.

Of course, Willis is a long way from where she needs to be, but those who had originally feared she had overindicted the 19-defendant RICO case might now be a little less concerned and a little more impressed.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Michael de Adder, Washington Post :: [Robert Scott Horton]

* * * *

Letters From An American

Tonight, just before midnight, the state of Georgia indicted former president Donald J. Trump and 18 others for multiple crimes committed in that state as they tried to steal the 2020 presidential election. A special-purpose grand jury made up of citizens in Fulton County, Georgia, examined evidence and heard from 75 witnesses in the case, and issued a report in January that recommended indictments. A regular grand jury took the final report of the special grand jury into consideration and brought an indictment.  

“Trump and the other Defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump lost” the 2020 presidential election, the indictment reads, ”and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump. That conspiracy contained a common plan and purpose to commit two or more acts of racketeering activity in Fulton County, Georgia, elsewhere in the State of Georgia, and in other states.” 

The indictment alleges that those involved in the “criminal enterprise” “constituted a criminal organization whose members and associates engaged in various related criminal activities including, but not limited to, false statements and writings, impersonating a public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury.” 

That is, while claiming to investigate voter fraud, they allegedly committed election fraud. 

And that effort has run them afoul of a number of laws, including the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which is broader than federal anti-racketeering laws and carries a mandatory five-year prison term. 

Those charged fall into several categories. Trump allies who operated out of the White House include lawyers Rudy Giuliani (who recently conceded in a lawsuit that he lied about Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss having stuffed ballot boxes),  John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, Jenna Ellis, and Trump’s White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. 

Those operating in Georgia to push the scheme to manufacture a false slate of Trump electors to challenge the real Biden electors include lawyer Ray Stallings Smith III, who tried to sell the idea to legislators; Philadelphia political operative Michael Roman; former Georgia Republican chair David James Shafer, who led the fake elector meeting; and Shawn Micah Tresher Still, currently a state senator, who was the secretary of the fake elector meeting. 

Those trying to intimidate election worker and witness Ruby Freeman include Stephen Cliffgard Lee, a police chaplain from Illinois; Harrison William Prescott Floyd, executive director of Black Voices for Trump; and Trevian C. Kutti, a publicist for the rapper formerly known as Kanye West. 

Those allegedly stealing data from the voting systems in Coffee County, Georgia, and spreading it across the country in an attempt to find weaknesses in the systems that might have opened the way to fraud include Trump lawyer Sidney Powell; former Coffee County Republican Committee chair Cathleen Alston Latham; businessman Scott Graham Hall; and Coffee County election director Misty Hampton, also known as Emily Misty Hayes.  

The document also referred to 30 unindicted co-conspirators.

Trump has called the case against him in Georgia partisan and launched a series of attacks on Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Today, Willis told a reporter who asked about Trump’s accusations of partisanship: “I make decisions in this office based on the facts and the law. The law is completely nonpartisan. That's how decisions are made in every case. To date, this office has indicted, since I’ve been sitting as the district attorney, over 12,000 cases. This is the eleventh RICO indictment. We follow the same process. We look at the facts. We look at the law. And we bring charges."

The defendants have until noon on August 25 to surrender themselves to authorities.

Letters From An American

Heather Cox Richardson

#Robert Scott Horton #Washington Post #Michael de Adder #political cartoon #Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #Fani Willis #RICO #Georgia #Indicted #TFG

[contemplatingoutlander]

Former President Donald J. Trump and 18 others, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mark Meadows, face conspiracy charges related to attempts to overturn the state’s results and subvert the will of voters

Former President Donald J. Trump and 18 others, including some of his former lawyers and top aides, have been indicted by an Atlanta grand jury in a sweeping racketeering case focused on Mr. Trump’s efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election in Georgia. The indictment — handed up after a single, extra-long day of testimony — is an unprecedented challenge of presidential misconduct by a local prosecutor. It brings charges against some of his most prominent advisers, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, his former personal lawyer, and Mark Meadows, who served as White House chief of staff at the time of the election. [...] The investigation was led by Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney. It focused on five actions taken by Mr. Trump or his allies in the weeks after Election Day, when Joseph R. Biden Jr. narrowly won Georgia. Those actions include phone calls that Mr. Trump made to pressure state officials to overturn the result, as well as harassment of local election workers by Trump supporters, false claims of ballot fraud, a plan by Trump allies to create a slate of bogus electors and a data breach at an elections office in rural Coffee County, Ga. [...] Kenneth Chesebro and John Eastman, architects of the plan to use fake Trump electors to circumvent the popular vote in a number of swing states, were among a number of lawyers who advised Mr. Trump who were indicted. So was Mike Roman, a former Trump campaign aide who helped coordinate the elector scheme. Jeffrey Clark, a former senior official in the Department of Justice who embraced false claims about the election and tried to embroil the department in challenging the Georgia vote, was also indicted. Other lawyers who aided Mr. Trump’s efforts who were indicted include Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis. A number of Georgia Republicans were also indicted, including David Shafer, the former head of the state party, and Shawn Still, a state senator. Cathy Latham, a party leader in a rural county who served as one of the bogus Trump electors, was also indicted. All 19 defendants are being charged under Georgia’s racketeering statute, and each of them has at least one additional charge. Racketeering laws are often used to prosecute people involved in patterns of illegal activity, and can be useful in targeting both foot soldiers and leaders in a corrupt organization.

#trump #georgia indictment #19 people were indicted #fani willis #mark meadows #rudi giuliani #the new york times

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

DERSHOWITZ: Gore's team and I contested 2000 vote. Why go after Trump?

Trump "supposedly" lost GA by approximately 10,000+ votes. Stacey Abrams spent 3 years pretending to be GA's governor after losing by 30,000+ votes.🤔

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Al Gore, his legal team and I tried to find uncounted presidential votes, lobbied officials and fought in the courts in 2000. The only difference now? The candidate's name is Donald Trump... That's why this prosecution is an outrage

By Alan Dershowitz For Dailymail.Com12:17 EDT 16 Aug 2023 , updated 12:56 EDT 16 Aug 2023

Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer, Harvard Law School Professor and author of 'Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law'

Electoral challenges have long been part of American history. 

Only now are they being criminalized.

I was one of the lawyers involved in objections to Florida's presidential vote in 2000.

A margin of less than 600 ballots determined that Governor George W. Bush rather than Vice President Al Gore won the state and, thus, the electoral college vote.

I was convinced then and I am convinced now that this result was wrong.

No one was indicted, disbarred, disciplined or even much criticized for those efforts, yet here we stand today.

President Donald Trump and 18 other defendants has been charged with election fraud, conspiracy, racketeering and more, under a law designed to take down criminal organizations, known as the RICO Act.

Should Al Gore have been charged in 2000?

What about me?

I represented the voters of Palm Beach County, many of whom voted by mistake for Pat Buchanan rather than Gore because of the infamous butterfly ballots and hanging chads that prevented their votes from being accurately counted.

During the course of our challenges, many tactics similar to those employed in 2020 were attempted.

Lawyers wrote legal memoranda outlining possible courses of conduct, including proposing a slate of alternate electors, who would deliver our preferred election results to Congress.

A margin of less than 600 ballots determined that Governor George W. Bush rather than Vice President Al Gore (above) won the state and, thus, the electoral college vote.

I represented the voters of Palm Beach County, many of whom voted by mistake for Pat Buchanan rather than Gore because of the infamous butterfly ballots (above) and hanging chads that prevented their votes from being accurately counted.

Electoral challenges have long been part of American history, only now are they being criminalized. I was one of the lawyers involved in objections to Florida's presidential vote in 2000. (Above) Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer, Harvard Law School Professor and author of 'Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law'

Now, Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani, along with others, are accused of conspiracy to commit forgery and false statements for drafting their list of alternate electors.

In 2000, Florida state officials were lobbied to secure recounts in selected counties in which we thought the tally would favor us. We were trying to find at least 600 votes that would change the result.

This new indictment features Trump's phone call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, which was captured in an audio recording. In the conversation, Trump asks Raffensperger to 'find' 12,000 votes.

In my mind, this call is among the most exculpatory pieces of evidence. Trump was entitled as a candidate to ask a Georgia state official to locate votes that he believes were not counted.

In 2000, attempts were made to influence various Florida officials to recount the votes.

Now, the former president's request that Georgia's Republican Speaker of the House reconsider the count is being charged as soliciting a public official to violate his oath.

Florida state officials were lobbied to secure recounts in selected counties in which we thought the tally would favor us. We were trying to find at least 600 votes that would change the result. (Above) Paln Beach, Florida County elections officials conduct presidential vote recount on November  11, 2000

President Donald Trump and 18 other defendants has been charged with election fraud, conspiracy, racketeering and more, under a law designed to take down criminal organizations, known as the RICO Act.

But if similar behavior was legal in 2000, how could it be illegal in 2023?

In the end, all those efforts in Florida failed when the Supreme Court in a five-to-four vote ordered the recounts stopped thereby turning the election over to President George W. Bush.

I wrote a book entitled Supreme Injustice, condemning the Supreme Court's decision and insisting that the election had been stolen from Gore and improperly handed to the candidate who received fewer votes.

The book was a bestseller, featured in front page reviews in the New York Times and other major publications. Most Americans thought that those challenging the Florida vote had acted in good faith, even though the courts ruled against them.

What's different today is that many observers do not believe that Trump and his advisors were sincere when they declared that he had won the election. But that doesn't make what they did a crime.

The Georgia indictment hinges on the allegation that Trump was lying in order to corruptly prevent the inauguration of the candidate who won the election fair and square.

Conspiracy and RICO violations are specific 'intent' crimes. In order to secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove a personalized agreement to join a criminal activity.

That will be an incredibly difficult case to make, especially regarding Trump himself who — to my knowledge – has never wavered from his belief that the election was stolen.

In the end, all those efforts in Florida failed when the Supreme Court in a five-to-four vote ordered the recounts stopped thereby turning the election over to President George W. Bush.

Most Americans thought that those challenging the Florida vote had acted in good faith, even though the courts ruled against them. (Above) Demonstrations at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC where justices determined whether the Florida recount could continue

He is wrong, but again, that is not enough to prove him guilty.

The First Amendment and general criminal law principles protect the right to be wrong, especially if that right is based on an honest mistake or belief.

Many point to the claim that Trump associates allegedly stole voting machine data, but that accusation is hotly contested. The jury will have to assess the credibility of each side.

The fundamental truth of this indictment is that if the evidence of specific crimes were compelling, there would be no need to charge under the onerous 'intent' requirements of RICO and conspiracy laws. The proof is not compelling, because these electoral challenges have precedent.

Once again, as with the preceding three Trump indictments, the law is being stretched to its limits in order to snare a former president.

'Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime,' is the infamous Soviet-era boast attributed to Joseph Stalin's chief of the secret police.

Is this really what our country has become?

When prosecutions are rooted in the fickle ground of politics and not the solid rock of justice everything will crumble.

#political persecution #election fraud #election interference #alan dershowitz #al gore #get trump #free trump #banana republic #free speech #georgia #dirty cops #impeach fani back to cali #go back to cali fani! #fulton county

[kp777]

Trump fake elector scheme: where do seven states’ investigations stand?

Seven states that the former president lost saw slates of fake GOP electors falsely claim Trump had won their electoral votes. These fake electors included high-profile Republicans, such as sitting officeholders and state party leaders.

Two prosecutors, in Michigan and Georgia, have already filed charges against fake electors. Others have confirmed investigations but provided few details. One state prosecutor said local laws did not address this kind of crime, which is unprecedented.

#fake electors #the big lie #electoral college #republicans #donald trump

[taiwantalk]

this is "big". you would think that trump would never want anything written down but, hey, people working for trump don't have their own army of michael cohen to do the dirty works and leave no paper trail by command like RICO.

#trump #paper trail #rico #michael cohen

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

By Joseph Ferguson & Thomas A. Durkin, Loyola University Chicago

After three indictments of former President Donald Trump, the fourth one in Georgia came not as a surprise but as a powerful exposition of the scope of Trump’s efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 presidential election.

New conservative legal scholarship spells out how and why those actions – which were observed by the public over many months – disqualify Trump from serving in the presidency ever again. And our read of the Georgia indictment, as longtime lawyers ourselves, shows why and how that disqualification can be put into effect.

The key to all of this is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “No person shall … hold any office, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Trump took that oath at his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017.

Both Trump’s Georgia indictment, and his federal indictment in Washington, D.C., cite largely public information – and some newly unearthed material – to spell out exactly how he engaged in efforts to rebel against the Constitution, and sought and gave aid and comfort to others who also did so.

Legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, conservatives themselves and members of the conservative Federalist Society, have recently published a paper declaring that under the 14th Amendment, Trump’s actions render him ineligible to hold office.

We believe the Georgia indictment provides even more detail than the earlier federal one about how Trump’s actions have already disqualified him from office, and shows a way to keep him off the ballot in 2024.

DISQUALIFICATION IS AUTOMATIC

Trump’s supporters might argue that disqualifying him would be unfair without a trial and conviction on the Jan. 6 indictment, and perhaps the Georgia charges.

But Baude and Paulsen, using originalist interpretation – the interpretive theory of choice of the powerful Federalist Society and Trump’s conservative court appointees, which gives full meaning to the actual, original text of the Constitution – demonstrate that no legal proceeding is required. They say disqualification is automatic, or what’s known in the legal world as “self-executing.”

Recent public comments from liberal constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe and conservative jurist and former federal Judge Michael Luttig – who has characterized the events before, during and since Jan. 6 as Trump’s “declared war on American democracy” – suggest an emerging bipartisan consensus supporting Baude and Paulsen.

BACKED BY HISTORY

This is not a theoretical bit of technical law. This provision of the 14th Amendment was, in fact, extensively used after the Civil War to keep former Confederate leaders from serving in the federal government, without being tried or convicted of any crime.

Few former Confederates were charged with crimes associated with secession, rebellion and open war against the United States. And most were pardoned by sweeping orders issued by President Andrew Johnson.

But even though they had no relevant convictions, former Confederates were in fact barred from office in the U.S.

In December 1865, several who had neither been convicted nor been pardoned tried to claim seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. But the House clerk refused to swear them in. It took an act of Congress – the 1872 Amnesty Act – to later restore their office-holding rights.

There is no requirement in the Constitution that the disqualification be imposed by any specific process – only that it applies to people who take certain actions against the Constitution.

A PATH THROUGH THE STATES

For the U.S. in 2023, we believe the most realistic avenue to enforce the 14th Amendment’s ban on a second Trump presidency is through state election authorities. That’s where the Georgia indictment comes in.

State election officials could themselves, or in response to a petition of a citizen of that state, refuse Trump a place on the 2024 ballot because of the automatic 14th Amendment disqualification.

Trump would certainly challenge the move in federal court. But the recent disqualification proceedings against former North Carolina Congressman Madison Cawthorn provides a road map and binding legal precedent affirming the 14th Amendment as a valid legal ground for disqualification of a candidate for federal office.

The Georgia indictment against Trump and allies exhaustively details extensive acts of lying, manipulation and threats against Georgia officials, as well as a fraudulent fake elector scheme to illegally subvert the legitimate 2020 Georgia presidential vote tally and resulting elector certification.

Trump’s failure to accomplish what is tantamount to a coup in Georgia and other swing states set the stage for the violent insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021, that sought to achieve the same result – Trump’s fraudulent installation to a second term.

In fact, the Georgia scheme is included in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal indictment as one of the methods and means in “aid” of the larger Jan. 6 federal conspiracy against the United States.

Baude and Paulsen acknowledge that “insurrection and rebellion” are traditionally associated with forced or violent opposition. But we see the broader set of actions by Trump and his allies to subvert the Constitution – the Georgia vote count and fake elector scheme included – as part of a political coup d'etat. It was a rebellion.

GEORGIA AS A BELLWETHER

So what makes the Georgia scheme and indictment compelling for purposes of disqualifying Trump from the 2024 Georgia ballot?

There are minimally six aspects revealed in the latest indictment that we believe justify Georgia – under Section 3 of the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment – keeping Trump off the ballot:

1. The racketeering scheme was a multifaceted attempt to subvert Georgia’s own part of the 2020 electoral process;

2. The officials on the receiving end of the unsuccessful racketeering scheme were elected and appointed Georgia officials. …

3. … whose actions to reject election subversion vindicated their own oaths to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States as well as Georgia’s;

4. Most of these officials were and are Republicans – including Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger, Governor Brian Kemp and former Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan;

5. These officials will, in 2024 as in 2020, collectively determine who is qualified to be on Georgia’s presidential ballot; and

6. These officials’ testimony, and related evidence, is at the heart of the proof of the Georgia racketeering case against Trump.

In other words, the evidence to convict Trump in the Georgia racketeering case is the same evidence, coming from the same Georgia officials, who will be involved in determining whether, under the 14th Amendment, Trump is qualified to be on the 2024 presidential ballot – or not.

Little if any additional evidence or proceedings are needed. The Georgia officials already hold that evidence, because much of it comes from them. They don’t need a trial to establish what they already know.

How could Trump avoid this happening? A quick trial date in Atlanta with an acquittal on all counts might do it, but this runs counter to his strategy to delay all the pending criminal cases until after the 2024 election.

With no preelection trial, there will likely be no Trump on the 2024 Georgia ballot, and no chance for him to win Georgia’s 2024 electoral college votes.

Once Georgia bars him, other states may follow. That would leave Trump with no way to credibly appear on the ballot in all 50 states, giving him no chance to win the electoral votes required to claim the White House.

#us politics #news #the conversation #Joseph Ferguson #Thomas A. Durkin #op eds #republicans #donald trump #conservatives #trump administration #georgia #Georgia election probe #Georgia racketeering case #racketeering #rico charges #conspiracy #false slate of electors #14th amendment #us constitution #William Baude #Michael Stokes Paulsen #federalist society #disqualification from holding public office #us history #1872 Amnesty Act #confederate states of america #us civil war #us Congress #Madison Cawthorn #jan 6 insurrection

[reasonsforhope]

Donald Trump charged in Georgia for efforts to overturn the 2020 election

Link here, because WaPo's security measures stop Tumblr previews. Non-paywall link here.

"Former president Donald Trump and 18 others were criminally charged in Georgia on Monday in connection with efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in the state, according to an indictment made public late Monday night [on August 14, 2023].

Trump was charged with 13 counts, including violating the state’s racketeering act, soliciting a public officer to violate their oath, conspiring to impersonate a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery in the first degree and conspiring to file false documents.

The Recap

The historic indictment, the fourth to implicate the former president, follows a 2½-year investigation by Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D). The probe was launched after audio leaked from a January 2021 phone call during which Trump urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) to question the validity of thousands of ballots, especially in the heavily Democratic Atlanta area, and said he wanted to “find” the votes to erase his 2020 loss in the state.

Willis’s investigation quickly expanded to other alleged efforts by Trumpor his supporters, including trying to thwart the electoral college process, harassing election workers, spreading false information about the voting process in Georgia and compromising election equipment in a rural county. Trump has long decried the Georgia investigation as a “political witch hunt,” defending his calls to Raffensperger and others as “perfect.”

The Details

“Trump and the other Defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump,” the indictment states.

A total of 41 charges are brought against 19 defendants in the 98-page indictment. Not all face the same counts, but all have been charged with violating the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Willis said she has given those charged until Aug. 25 to surrender.

Among those charged are Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor who served as Trump’s personal attorney after the election; Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows; and several Trump advisers, including attorneys John Eastman, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro...

Prosecutors brought charges around five subject areas: false statements by Trump allies, including Giuliani, to the Georgia legislature; the breach of voting data in Coffee County; calls Trump made to state officials, including Raffensperger, seeking to overturn Biden’s victory; the harassment of election workers; and the creation of a slate of alternate electors to undermine the legitimate vote. Those charged in the case were implicated in certain parts of what prosecutors presented as a larger enterprise to undermine the election."

-via The Washington Post, August 14, 2023

#trump #donald trump #trump indictment #fani willis #district attorney #united states #us politics #good news #2020 election #january 6 #georgia #fulton county #criminal justice #racketeering #rudy giuliani #sidney powell #john eastman #fuck trump

[reading-writing-revolution]

In an interview with The Washington Post published Thursday, Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis revealed her office has been on the receiving end of credible allegations that major crimes were committed, and that “if indicted and convicted, people are facing prison sentences.” She also said that an official decision on whether to call Trump before a special grand jury will likely be made “late this fall.”

Thus far, the Post notes, those identified as criminal targets of the Georgia probe include former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and more than a dozen individuals who “created unofficial documents proclaiming Trump as the winner of Georgia’s electoral votes, even though he lost the state.” When it was revealed last month that the former New York City mayor turned ex-Trump attorney was a target of the investigation, attorney Norman Eisen told The New York Times: “There is no way Giuliani is a target of the DA’s investigation and Trump does not end up as one. They are simply too entangled factually and legally in the attempt to use fake electors and other means to overturn the Georgia election results.” (Both Giuliani and the fake electors have denied wrongdoing.) In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday, Trump said he has yet to receive any letters informing him he is a target of a criminal investigation; he also denied taking part in a multistate plot to send fake electors to Washington, and falsely claimed that alternate elector slates are “common.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 2, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

AUG 3, 2023

There have been more developments today surrounding yesterday’s indictment of former president Trump for conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding as he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election and install himself in office over the wishes of the American people. 

Observers today called out the part of the indictment that describes how Trump and Co-Conspirator 4, who appears to be Jeffrey Clark, the man Trump wanted to make attorney general, intended to use the military to quell any protests against Trump’s overturning of the election results. When warned that staying in power would lead to “riots in every major city in the United States,” Co-Conspirator 4 replied, “Well…that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”

The Insurrection Act of 1807 permits the president to use the military to enforce domestic laws, invoking martial law. Trump’s allies urged him to do just that to stay in power. Fears that Trump might do such a thing were strong enough that on January 3, 2021, all 10 living former defense secretaries signed a Washington Post op-ed warning that “[e]fforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory.” 

They put their colleagues on notice: “Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.” Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo recalled today that military leaders told Congress they were reluctant to respond to the violence at the Capitol out of concern about how Trump might use the military under the Insurrection Act. 

Political pollster Tom Bonier wrote: “I understand Trump fatigue, but it feels like the president and his advisors preparing to use the military to quash protests against his planned coup should be bigger news. Especially when that same guy is in the midst of a somewhat credible comeback effort.”

On The Beat tonight, Ari Melber connected Trump Co-Conspirator John Eastman to Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Just before midnight on January 6, 2021, after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, Eastman wrote to Pence’s lawyer to beg him to get Pence to adjourn Congress “for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full forensic audit of the massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here.” On the floor of the Senate at about the same time, Cruz, who voted against certification, used very similar language when he called for “a ten-day emergency audit.” 

An email sent by Co-Conspirator 6, the political consultant, matches one sent from Boris Epshteyn to Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, suggesting that Epshteyn is Co-Conspirator 6. The Russian-born Epshteyn has been with Trump’s political organization since 2016 and was involved in organizing the slates of false electors in 2020. Along with political consultant Steve Bannon, Epshteyn created a cryptocurrency called “$FJB, which officially stands for “Freedom. Jobs. Business.” but which they marketed to Trump loyalists as “F*ck Joe Biden.” By February 2023, Nikki McCann Ramirez reported in Rolling Stone that the currency had lost 95% of its value.

Since the indictment became public, Trump loyalists have insisted that the Department of Justice is attacking Trump’s First Amendment rights to free speech. Indeed, if Giuliani’s unhinged appearance on Newsmax last night is any indication, it appears that has been their strategy all along. Aside from the obvious limit that the First Amendment does not cover criminal behavior, the grand jury sidestepped this issue by acknowledging that Trump had a right to lie about his election loss. It indicted him for unlawfully trying to obstruct an official proceeding and to disenfranchise voters. 

Today, Trump’s former attorney general William Barr dismissed the idea that the indictment is an attack on Trump’s First Amendment rights. Barr told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins: “As the indictment says, they're not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better. But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech. And all fraud involves speech. Free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.” 

Rudy Giuliani has his own troubles in the news today, unrelated to the attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. His former assistant Noelle Dunphy is suing him for sexual harassment and abuse, and new transcripts filed in the New York Supreme Court of Giuliani’s own words reveal disturbing fantasies of sexual domination that are unlikely to help his reputation. (Historian Kevin Kruse retweeted part of the transcript with the words, “Goodbye, lunch.”) 

The chaos in the country’s political leaders comes with a financial cost. According to Fitch Ratings Inc., a credit-rating agency, the national instability caused by “a steady deterioration in standards of governance over the last 20 years” has damaged confidence in the country’s fiscal management. Yesterday it downgraded the United States of America’s long-term credit rating for the second time in U.S. history. 

Fitch cited “repeated debt-limit political standoffs and last-minute resolutions,” “a complex budgeting process,” and “several economic shocks as well as tax cuts and new spending initiatives” for its downgrade. The New York Times warned that the downgrade is “another sign that Wall Street is worried about political chaos, including brinkmanship over the debt limit that is becoming entrenched in Washington.”

The timing of the downgrade made little sense economically, as U.S. economic growth is strong enough that the Bank of America today walked back earlier warnings of a recession. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen noted that the key factors on which Fitch based its downgrade had started in 2018 and called the downgrade “arbitrary.” The editorial board of the Washington Post  called the timing “bizarre.” But the timing makes more sense in the context of the fact that House Republicans could not pass 11 of 12 necessary appropriations bills before leaving for their August recess.

The White House said it “strongly disagree[d]” with the decision to downgrade the U.S. credit rating, noting that the ratings model Fitch used declined under Trump before rebounding under Biden, and saying “it defies reality to downgrade the United States at a moment when President Biden has delivered the strongest recovery of any major economy in the world.” But it did agree that “extremism by Republican officials—from cheerleading default, to undermining governance and democracy, to seeking to extend deficit-busting tax giveaways for the wealthy and corporations—is a continued threat to our economy.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Trump indictment #political #Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #conspiracy #Trump Indictment #co-conspirators

[cyarsk52-20]

therecount Michigan has become the first state to criminally charge people connected to a multi-state scheme designed to keep Donald Trump in office after his 2020 loss.

On Tuesday, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) announced the state was charging all 16 people who signed on to be a false, alternate slate of electoral college delegates on behalf of Trump. The “fake electors” plan was a key part of the effort to halt Joe Biden’s certification on January 6th, 2021: by providing multiple slates of electors from Biden-won states like Michigan, those involved in the effort aimed to give then-Vice President Mike Pence standing to declare that Biden did not have clear claim to the states’ electoral votes — and therefore his election could not be officially certified.

The plan, which was aided by some Trump lawyers like Rudy Giuliani, was among the more brazen of those devised in the months after Trump’s loss. That was reflected in the charges: the state charged each of the individuals — including one of Michigan’s two current RNC Delegates — with eight felony counts, including conspiracy and election law forgery.

This is the first time a state has criminally charged those involved in a fake electors scheme. The announcement came the same day Trump announced he has been informed he is a “target” of the Justice Department’s federal investigation into January 6th.

📸: Jake May/The Flint Journal via AP

#Instagram

[mariacallous]

As the final votes are counted, political observers have begun to release their takes on what the election results mean. As usual, many of these analyses are highly self-interested. It is very appealing to find evidence that one’s pet issue has swayed the course of the nation. My question is a slightly different one: not what do I wish the parties would learn, but what lessons are they likely to take from the election?

Put bluntly, it is difficult for the contemporary parties to learn anything. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are not the coherent institutions they once were, with active local chapters that held meetings and powerful national institutions that held the purse strings. As political scientists have come to describe it, the parties today are “hollowed out”: amorphous ideological groupings populated by media organizations, consultants, issue advocates, and donors.

The hollowing of the parties is very bad for our politics, not least because it makes it hard for parties to learn from electoral experience—mistakes and successes—and shift gears to win more votes. The direction of the contemporary Republican Party is chosen to a meaningful extent by Fox News and other conservative media outlets, and those media are, in turn, driven by their bottom line. Outrage and conspiratorial thinking sell, whether or not they win elections. On the Democratic side, the preoccupation of the donor class with high-profile national races has long left down-ballot races desperately underfunded—even though a vast amount of our politics is determined in states and localities. These are obvious electoral liabilities, but because strategic decisions are not made within a robust party structure, it is very hard for the left or the right to adjust course.

So, neither party is actually well positioned to learn anything from the election, simply because neither party coalition is institutionally strong enough to act as a party. But, given this major limitation, what might the partisan coalitions learn this year?

On the Republican side, the most obvious lesson is to run higher quality candidates—but while Republicans might choose a less erratic and gaffe-prone slate, there is little reason to hope that those contenders will be committed to election integrity. Large swathes of the right have radicalized to an extent incompatible with electoral democracy; tellingly, it is now news-worthy when a prominent Republican quickly and graciously concedes an election. The year’s electoral defeats are unlikely to be enough to alter the party’s course. It could make the problem worse. Candidates unwilling to accept that they have lost an election are, if anything, more dangerous if they campaign with a moderate demeanor, a professional staff, and a stump speech that doesn’t set off alarm bells.

For Democrats, the 2022 election marks an unexpected overperformance. More important, Election Day appears to have unfolded with fewer (though some) false claims of fraud and without the lurking nightmare of violence at polling stations. A comforting but wrong lesson would be that it is time to let up on the vital work of preserving election integrity. There remains immense work to be done to shore up election administration and to protect voting rights, particularly if electoral defeat encourages Republicans to lean even harder into voter suppression in the lead-up to 2024. But success can breed apathy, and that may well be the lesson Democrats take this year.

Parties should respond to an election by considering how to be the choice of more of the voters. But lessons are hard to learn in politics, and our parties today are exceptionally weak institutions. Under these conditions, the plausible but dangerously wrong lessons of 2022 may well be, for the right, a more palatable authoritarianism, and for the left, a new complacency.