home

Charges Added to Trump's Florida Indictment

Another day and Donald Trump descends further into the legal abyss. The Grand Jury in the Southern District of Florida has returned a Superseding Indictment adding 3 charges and an additional defendant, Carlos de Oliveira, a property manager at Mar-a-Lago.

The original indictment ...accused Mr. Trump of violating the Espionage Act by illegally holding on to 31 classified documents containing national defense information after he left office. It also charged Mr. Trump and Walt Nauta, one of his personal aides, with a conspiracy to obstruct the government’s repeated attempts to reclaim the classified material.

The revised indictment add[s] three serious charges against Mr. Trump: attempting to “alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal evidence”; inducing someone else to do so; and a new count under the Espionage Act related to a classified national security document that he showed to visitors at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.

[More...]

The classified document allegedly is a "battle plan" related to attacking Iran. The meeting in Bedminister was attended by Trump and two persons assisting Trump's former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows's with writing his memoir. It was audio-recorded with Trump's permission. The recording has Trump bragging about showing them the secret document.

Trump claimed on Fox News he was just "puffing" (like a drug dealer puffs up to his buyer the amount he can get, the amounts he has sold, the frequency his supplier delivers, the quality of his drugs, and how much money he's made dealing).

Two days after the Government requested security camera footage, intending to check Nauta's denial about moving boxes of documents around, De Oliveira and Trump have a 24 minute telepone conference. Since Oliveira doesn't have the skills to do that, he brings "Trump employee #4", Yuscil Taveras, a tech expert at Mar-a-lago in charge of the server, to a room called the "audio closet", where the server containing the security camera footage is housed.

Mr. Taveras objected and said he did not know how to delete the server and did not think he had the right to do so, the indictment said. At that point, the indictment said, Mr. De Oliveira insisted again that “the boss” wanted the server deleted, asking, “What are we going to do?”

Trump still has two more Indictments on the horizon. A third Indictment is expected to be returned by a state grand jury in Georgia investigating Trump and his lawyers' bogus claims the election was stolen from him. And a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia is wrapping up its investigation into the January 6th storming of the Capitol.

My question is: At what point is Trump going to crack from all the pressure? Especially if he is confronted with four distinct Indictments.

Whether it remains two cases or expands to four cases, and regardless of whether he ultimately wins or loses, the personal, financial and emotional toll on him and his family will be enormous. It always is when the Justice Department uses the awesome powers of the federal government to place someone in its cross-hairs.

Complex cases with mountains of evidence drag on for months, sometimes years, particularly in multi-defendant cases. This wreaks havoc in the daily lives of the defendants and their families.

First, there is the uncertainty as to the future, the inability to make plans, the "what if"s, the worry about the effect on the defendant's spouse, partner or children. It eats away at the joy in life. I cannot think of a single federal criminal defendant whose life wasn't up-ended by the process. Sure, many can cope with the stress by compartmentalizing it. They may continue working, spending evenings and weekends and holidays with their families, but the charges and fear of the potential consequences are always the elephant in the room. They can never get far enough away from it to fully relax and enjoy life the way they did before learning they were under investigation for or charged with a serious crime.

Question 2: Will a global resolution of the two pending cases and two cases either still under investigation or completed with a sealed result be possible without some kind of prison sentence?

I bet if I asked 50 federal prosecutors whether they think it's likely Trump could avoid prison if (1) he agreed to drop out of the presidential race and (2)signed a piece of paper saying he'd never run for office again, I'd bet all of them would say no.

Ramping it up a notch: What if he agreed to plead to a felony in each case and forfeit a ton of money and pay restitution to any victims -- could he avoid prison?

I don't need prosecutors to weigh in on this one. I think a global resolution along this line is possible, if he pays up front. The problem is Trump. Reportedly, he is a cheapskate as well as a narcissist. He might be incapable of accepting that anyone besides him is entitled to the money and assets he's accumulated. In other words, his ego may prevent his brain from being able to correctly calculate that such an offer would be the deal of the century, and he might actually turn it down.

I hope his lawyers provide him with Table D-4 from the Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics for the period of March, 2022 to March, 2023. Every federal district, bankruptcy and appeals court submits its case statistics every quarter. I think Trump could understand the table if explained by his lawyers: 98% of federal cases in the United States were resolved without a trial in these 12 months. Only 2% of federal defendants elected to go to trial. Of the 2% of cases that went to trial, the government got a conviction in 98% of them.

Example: False Statements (to a federal official): There were 517 cases charging this offense filed between March 2022 and March 2023. Ten cases went to trial (approximately 2% of the 517). Eight defendants were convicted at trial (.015 or 1.5% of the 517 cases). Two defendants (.004 or .04%) out of those 517 were acquitted at trial.

The odds that prosecutors would lose all four cases against Donald Trump if he went to trial are infinitesimal, in my view.

Trump also has a problem in that the Government has already spoken to everyone he knows -- from relatives, to lawyers and aides to acquaintances. All were given proffer letters or promises of immunity or deals to plead to an offense with no jail time. I assume this includes Giuliani. While occasionally a defendant is given credit for "ratting down", mostly they have to "rat up". And there's no one above Trump in these cases. Tag, he's it.

Trump is no doubt gazing into his crystal ball right now, as his army of revolving-door lawyers struggle to come up with a viable defense strategy.

If it were anyone but Trump (or Giuliani), I'd predict a global resolution where Trump is granted a "Rule 20" to have one of the two federal cases transferred to the district where the other case is pending, to plead guilty. He'd have to plead guilty in both cases but he could get a concurrent sentence. He'd have to pay restitution in the New York cas
I'll end here, but my next post on the topic (already written) is a very snarky view of what Trump might try to do to ensure a pardon for himself.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    There might (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 29, 2023 at 08:14:12 PM EST
    have been an option to work a deal out if the only case was the documents case. And that is only if he didn't sell information to our enemies.

    On the J6 indictments I can't see anything but going to jail. His minions are all spending time in jail so should he.

    Chris Christie said Trump spends every night in terror of that jail cell door closing in on him. I suspect he is right but he also will take his chances with a trial IMO due to that fear even if the odds are greatly against him.

    Big Difference (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 01:53:35 PM EST
    Rudy Giuliani: "We have theories. We don't have evidence."

    Jack Smith. "We don't have theories. We have evidence."

    Wake me up when the jackass is wearing stripes. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by desertswine on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 05:20:59 PM EST


    ... doing real time behind bars just warms the cockles of my heart, all the way down to the sub-cockles.

    Parent
    That's the Golden Ticket (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 06:05:09 PM EST
    I can;t believe that its taken more than.. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by desertswine on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 06:55:08 PM EST
    two and a half friggin years just to get to this point while that giant bag of mucuus is still running around creating chaos.  He should have been in the cooler 2 1/2 years ago along with Giuliani, Meadows, Eastman and the rest of his mobster clan.  Besides, I'm hot and getting crabby.

    Parent
    The wheels (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 06:13:09 AM EST
    of justice grind ever so slowly for sure. I am sure we have more years of this. I imagine it will be probably 3 more years before everything is done. There are going to be a lot of trials and pleas yet to come because of the large circles of criminals. There's a lot more involved than just Trump.

    Parent
    On (none / 0) (#52)
    by FlJoe on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 06:35:35 PM EST
    the other hand, kudos to Jack Smith for taking a mere 8.5 months until "bang bang, Jack Smith's legal hammer came down upon his head" and a rather big hammer it was.

    I have been waiting for this moment for my entire adult life late is wayyy better then never.

    Apparently also we got a lucky draw on this case

    Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee known for being tough on Jan. 6 defendants, has been assigned to preside over Donald Trump's indictment.


    Parent
    If Trump is not indicted by Friday (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 06:02:11 PM EST
    I'm going to write some very stern FaceBook posts.

    They finished for the day (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 03:02:10 PM EST
    Also the GJ foreperson stayed behind.  And Smith is also there.

    This is looking good.

    I just attached this to the wrong comment (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    Down thread

    I hear that Deranged Jack Smith, in order to interfere with the Presidential Election of 2024, will be putting out yet another Fake Indictment of your favorite President, me, at 5:00 P.M.



    Parent
    Oh happy day (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 04:17:19 PM EST
    Oh happy indictment day

    It's official.   Turn on your tv if you have one.

    Booyah! (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    Four counts.

    Parent
    Six co-conspirators. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 04:42:08 PM EST
    Mostly lawyers.

    Parent
    I'm thinkin (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 04:54:16 PM EST
    They can flip or be included in another superduper indictment in a few weeks.


    Parent
    I'm (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 04:55:07 PM EST
    feeling history.

    Parent
    We live (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    in interesting times is an understatement.

    I am old enough to remember Watergate as I'm assuming most here are too. It's the bookkends of a party. I wonder if the GOP will survive.

    Waiting now for the whine from the GOP. Some have given up defending Trump like Haley. It seems that Chris Christie getting traction has affected a couple of them.

    Parent

    Bigger Than Watergate (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by john horse on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 04:05:25 AM EST
    I am old enough to remember Watergate as I'm assuming most here are too. It's the bookkends of a party. I wonder if the GOP will survive.

    Trump's attempted coup was far worse than anything Nixon did.  I agree that the GOP has been on a downward spiral.  It is sad to see this party turn into a fascist cult.  

    Lets not forget that Trump still has a shot to get elected in 2024.  If so, I wonder if our republic will still survive.

    Parent

    I absolutely love that Count 4 charges (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 09:12:00 PM EST
    a conspiracy to deprive the American electorate of the federally protected "right or privilege" to vote, which includes the right to have our votes counted honestly. In this count, the conspiracy is alleged to have violated 18 USC 241, which was enacted in 1870 as part of the first anti-Klan "Enforcement Act" (meaning, enforcement of the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments). Its original purpose, in other words, was to put teeth in the federal government's protection for the right to vote. I wrote a paper on this statute in law school for an advanced criminal law seminar focused on the development and historical uses of conspiracy law.

    At this juncture (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 04:08:03 PM EST
    there can be NO plea deak that includes an agreement not to run or hold office. That just feeds the MAGA theory that this is all a conspiracy to keep him from office. As much as that agrees with me, it would be a horrible mistake. The Democrats would be flayed with that story for next two decades.

    Trump Just Can't Play The Game (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by john horse on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 05:38:21 PM EST
    A friend of mine once told me about the two types of people he interacted with at the halfway house he worked at.  The house had a rule that you had to report back by 6.  One group of probationers would weigh the consequences of reporting late and would always report by 6. The other group just couldn't play the game and report would past deadline. Trump is more like the later group.  He doesn't follow the rules that the rest of us follow because he doesn't think they apply to him.

    Those critiques are bogus because (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 07:53:05 PM EST
    1. "Conspiracy to defraud the United States" was defined by the Supreme Court in 1924 -- and which remains the settled meaning -- as encompassing agreements designed "to cheat the government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery .... It is not necessary that the government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane, or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention." The statutes (mail and wire fraud) that target schemes to defraud private victims have a narrower scope, under the recent Supreme Court cases to which his comments refer. But those are not the statutes charged in this indictment.
    2. The language of the 1870 Civil Rights conspiracy statute is not limited to violent action, and does not require proof of violence. That Tr*mp is not accused of stoking or participating in violence, but only of (arguably lawfully) encouraging and taking advantage of it, is immaterial. As I noted in my earlier comment, and as McCarthy alludes to in his own comment, there is solid precedent that the rights protected by this law include the right of voters to have their votes counted honestly. A scheme to give seven states' Electoral College votes to the loser of the popular election in those states clearly comes within both that precedent and the language of the statute.


    In a Nutshell (none / 0) (#122)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 08:47:04 PM EST
    The indictment document calls Trump and the Co-Conspirator's attempts to set up slates of fake electors and pressure Mike Pence to think they had any validity a "Fraud".  What McCarthy, Dershowitz and Turley fail to do is address this behavior.  Yes, I think it comes under what most people regard as being a fraud.  

    Parent
    What most people today regard as "fraud" (none / 0) (#144)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 09:16:35 AM EST
    is immaterial, in a criminal legal setting. A criminal statute means what the words employed by the legislature (Congress, in the case of federal crimes) meant at the time of enactment; the meaning of statutory law cannot evolve over time as spoken language evolves in ordinary usage. That would make the criminal statute unconstitutionally vague. Interestingly, the two statutes we are discussing are both of mid-19th Century vintage: 1867 (conspiracy to defraud the U.S.) and 1870 (civil rights conspiracy).

    Parent
    I Was Responding to the Claim From John Yoo (3.00 / 1) (#153)
    by RickyJim on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    It is a black-letter law that criminal statutes must be sufficiently clear that ordinary people can grasp exactly what conduct is forbidden and "in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."

    Yoo is the latest one to try to cast shade in National Review on the most recent Smith indictment. One point that all the Trump defenders repeat is that the government must show beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew he had lost the election.  Apparently, they think it is not enough to show that Trump had no rational basis to believe he had won.

    Parent
    I am trying to offer the TL readership (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    a technically accurate -- and hopefully understandable, even though technical and somewhat difficult -- explanation of federal criminal law, as it applies to this indictment. This is a subject on which I think I can fairly claim expertise. I am not offering political spin. I cannot say the same for Andrew McCarthy or John Yoo (who, despite being a professor of administrative law, international business law, and "national security" law at Berkeley, and (like John Eastman) a former law clerk for Justice Thomas, is not a criminal law expert). My professional bias is to be pro-defense, regardless of who the accused may be. Feel free to disregard or dispute my opinions based on partisan propaganda and misdirection if you like. I'm just trying to help.
       On the subject of knowledge, by the way, there is plenty of evidence of direct admissions from his own mouth, quoted by aides and associates, that Tr*mp knew full well he had lost, and that his repeated statements to the contrary were not (and are not) sincere or made in good faith. I do not think that a jury will have any difficultly concluding that this is so, beyond a reasonable doubt, even assuming it is part of the government's burden to prove his actual knowledge. And if Tr*mp somehow didn't actually "know" it, then the "willful blindness" doctrine, which I discussed the other day, will fill that gap.

    Parent
    Trump's doppelganger.. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 09:42:52 AM EST
    appeared outside at his court appearance yesterday.

    Off topic (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 08, 2023 at 07:02:58 PM EST
    Ohio is giving republicans another reason to worry tonight in the special election.

    NO is a big win.  (That's good)

    Yes, they (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 08, 2023 at 07:18:17 PM EST
    are getting reamed. Will they learn a lesson from this? If evidence from other states mean anything it will be no.

    Parent
    What I do not understand is how a state (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 08, 2023 at 09:37:36 PM EST
    that can turn out 2-1 in a statewide election to protect abortion rights can also elect J.D. Vance to be a U.S. Senator over Rep. Tim Ryan.

    Parent
    Correction: 2-1 was the early returns (none / 0) (#186)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 08, 2023 at 10:07:32 PM EST
    Final vote more like 57-43. But still....

    Parent
    Never (none / 0) (#187)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 09, 2023 at 03:57:12 AM EST
    underestimate the stupidity of the voting public, if there is no tribal tag applied (Republican, Democrat) they will actually vote for their own interest.

    Parent
    And, (none / 0) (#188)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 09, 2023 at 09:01:26 AM EST
    the  criminal defendant, twice impeached, ex-president  has said he loves the "poorly educated".

    Parent
    Never (none / 0) (#189)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 09, 2023 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    underestimate the stupidity of the voting public, if there is no tribal tag applied (Republican, Democrat) they will actually vote for their own interest.

    Parent
    He looks bad in that Breitbart interview (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 29, 2023 at 04:32:55 PM EST
    Indictments might be raising his poll numbers and his blood pressure and anxiety.

    This (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 29, 2023 at 06:06:20 PM EST
    That (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 29, 2023 at 08:11:06 PM EST
    had too many commercials for me to watch. However the little bit I watched he just repeated the same tired talking points about the presidential records act.

    Parent
    I was actually talking (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    about the way he looked.  To me.

    A bit frail.

    Parent

    He looks (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    the same to me as always but the panicky Truth Social posts tell me more. Unfortunately it seems they work with the cult.

    Parent
    I am a bit confused how the new count (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 29, 2023 at 07:54:16 PM EST
    relating to the classified Iran attack plan (Count 32) has venue properly in S.D.Fla. for willfully retaining a classified document in Florida and failing to deliver it to proper authorities (see p. 32) between January 2021 and January 2022 (see p. 37), when the same indictment (intro para 33-36, pp 14-17) accuses him of having (and improperly disclosing) that document in Bedminster NJ between May 2021 and Sept. 2021.

    I think the disclosure (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 29, 2023 at 08:13:11 PM EST
    would have to be charged in NJ.  Where it occurred?

    Parent
    Yes, but the individual classified doc counts (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 29, 2023 at 08:47:41 PM EST
    are for improperly "retaining," not for "disclosing" documents. My point was that the Iran doc was not "retained" in Florida, according to the time line in the indictment, at least not for most of the period at issue. Perhaps it is enough if it was "retained" in FL for the first few months of the charged time period, before being transported to NJ.

    Parent
    It (none / 0) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 04:40:25 AM EST
    has been reported (charged?) that some of the boxes were transported back and forth between FL and NJ.

    If you notice, the dates on this newest document end in January not in June or August which seems to indicate that they were among the first tranche that Trump "voluntarily" turned over (from his possession at Mar-a-Lago) Apparently in the original indictment he was given a pass on these.

    Once the Bedminster tape came to light, Smith had  slam dunk "knowledge and intent" evidence wrapped up with a bow as long as he added this document to the charges.

    Parent

    For the record (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 05:24:02 PM EST
    when I replied there
    I thought I was replying to some else.  Not Peter G.

    You of course know that.

    Parent

    And we appreciate it (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 11:06:07 AM EST
    "I'm being indicted for you."

    -- Donald Trump, at a rally in Pennsylvania.

    Jim Caviezel (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 11:12:45 AM EST
    Is going to need to gain a few pounds to play him in  The Passion of the Trump.

    Maybe he can borrow that suit from Brendan Frasier.

    Parent

    Truly it is the best thing that's happened (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    all year, so thanks Trump!

    Jeralyn has defended so many people that I trust her assessment  of the toll just being under indictment has on people, maybe even Trump. I hope that is not the only satisfaction I get after he has taken such a toll on the country for the last 8 years, but I'll take it for now.

    Parent

    One of the pundits (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 03:33:02 PM EST
    I was watching made the point that no family members ever come to court with Trump. I had not thought about that but looking at other local criminal cases it seems a family member almost always goes to court  with the accused. I'm sure Melania doesn't care as long as he continues to pay her hairdresser. The children I guess don't want to get tangled up in his crimes. So he goes by himself.

    Parent
    Yes thanks (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 04:03:28 PM EST
    Now go to jail for me.

    Parent
    And, bring (none / 0) (#132)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 05:06:39 PM EST
    the un-indicted(for now)  co-conspirators with him.  And, continue to work to jail all the "foot soldiers" who stormed or were adject to them.  

    If Trump somehow skates, it is important that these deplorables learn that they will be thrown under the bus while he rides in a limousine.   It may be sinking in for some since the violent supporters are not coming to his court dates.

    Parent

    I have a bad feeling about Fulton Co (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    With it apparently being the final nail some unrest would not surprise me.  

    Trump is not going to skate.  IMO.

    but democrats should be hoping and praying he follows through with the bat shi# defense plan of religigating the 20 election.  His lawyers saying they are going to PROVE once and for all......

    Bring it.

    But I wonder how much of that a no nonsense judge would allow.

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 05:32:41 PM EST

    Trump Plans to Use Charges to Revisit 2020 Election
    August 3, 2023 at 8:42 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 420 Comments

    "Former president Donald Trump and some of his legal advisers see an upside to the latest criminal case against him: He can use his upcoming trial to further argue his false claims of a stolen 2020 election," the Washington Post reports.

    "The looming courtroom showdown is poised to push his insistence that election fraud occurred in 2020 toward the center of the 2024 presidential campaign, a dismaying prospect for Republicans and some of Trump's advisers who have urged him to stop belaboring that subject. Trump's defense team has signaled that they'll focus on rebutting prosecutors' allegations that Trump knew his fraud claims were false."

    "The strategy offers a small consolation for the former president, who spent Thursday suffering once again from the small indignities that face indicted federal defendants."



    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#135)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 06:03:04 PM EST
    don't really see the potential for violence, none so far and no reason to think the next one will be any different, heck these things are almost becoming routine.

    I think the really violent actors Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and the rest got burned on Jan 6 by showing up for Trump are not willing to go to the mat for him, at least not yet.

    Parent

    I don't mean a riot (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 06:14:19 PM EST
    And you are probably right.  But its GA. With MAGAs still smarting from the spanking they got in the last election.

    I hope you are right.  

    Parent

    MAGAs (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 05:52:56 AM EST
    didn't get a spanking here in GA. Remember our Lt. Gov. is a fake elector and our AG was pushing the fake stuff too. Which might be a reason why they might do something. I would love for our Lt. Gov. to be one of the indicted ones. Even after all he went through Kemp says he will support Trump in 2024. Raffensberger probably says the same.

    Parent
    Fulton County (none / 0) (#137)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 06:26:23 PM EST
    is not a good environment for Trump's supporters.  And, it seems these Trump creeps are shying away from street confrontations. The most recent tactic of Trump is to take his indictments on  by attacking the judicial system-- throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the wall to see what sticks. His usual victimhood is you, too, tactic.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 06:37:07 PM EST
    I really don't mean any kind of organized street demonstration.

    Parent
    I don't want to say what I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 06:42:29 PM EST
    Words have power.  

    The MAGAs have been kicked around a lot.  And a lot more is coming.  That's all.  I hope they are ready.

    Parent

    Doesn't actually have the money (none / 0) (#11)
    by sphealey on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 11:27:48 AM EST
    I don't think Trump actually has the money to pay any significant amounts of civil or criminal restitution. Hasn't had it for a long time, and has been living rich person's hand-to-mouth by siphoning money from campaign accounts/fundraisers and with loans from "friends".

    He has (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    property.

    Parent
    After I left this comment (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 30, 2023 at 12:48:01 PM EST
    I wondered how much.  Quite a bit it turns out.  And a fair amount of cash too.  According to Forbes

    The Definitive Net Worth Of Donald Trump
    Apr 3, 2023,09:00am EDT



    Parent

    Monday morning, (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    Fulton County, GA Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, dismissed Trump's attempt to disqualify Fani Willis and to prevent her from using evidence from the Special Purpose Grand Jury, and therefore, to block the expected indictments.

    District Attorney Willis said  " the work is accomplished. We've been working for two and one-half years and We-re ready to go."

    Previously, on July 27. the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously rejected Trump's petition to block the Fulton County election probe.

    Fani on Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 10:22:02 AM EST
    Jack on Thursday

    That would be a good week.

    Parent

    I think ABC says (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 10:51:25 AM EST
    Supposedly (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    McBurney's ruling negates the hearing on August 10th.

    Parent
    CNN is discussing this (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    and they said it's not clear the issue of the hearing was settled.

    Parent
    From Local reporter: (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    They filed a mandamus petition because McBurney had not ruled on the matter. Now he has.

    The they is Trump. The supreme court has already turned Trump down.

    Parent

    Judge McBurney's dismissal (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    comes days after Sr. Superior Court Judge Stephen Schuster scheduled a hearing for August 10 on a secondary bid by Trump to disqualify Willis and quash the Special Purpose Grand Jury's final report.  

    Trump filed a writ of mandamus and prohibition because it had taken McBurney months to rule on Trump's challenge.  Schuster was assigned the case.

    McBurney said by issuing his order, the mandamus case before Schuster has been rendered moot. And, he noted that the challenge could have been avoided because "basic calendar math" showed he had until August 10 to issue his order."

     Moreover, he noted "in the future, counsel is encouraged to follow professional standards of inquiry with chamber's staff about timing and deadlines before burdening other courts with unnecessary and unfounded legal filings."

    It might be added that Judge Schuster should have consulted the calendar before taking the case and setting a date for the hearing, so as to avoid unnecessary and unfounded confusion.  In any event, it looks like Fani is ready to roll.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 02:06:17 PM EST
    Confusing

    Parent
    Judge comes down hard (none / 0) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    "For some, being the subject of criminal investigation can, a la Rumpelstiltskin, be turned into golden political capital, making it seem more providential than problematic," he wrote.
    ...
    Guessing at what that picture might look like before the investigative dots are connected may be a popular game for the media and blogosphere, but it is not a proper role for the courts and formal legal argumentation," he wrote.

    McBurney, also, chided Trump's lawyers for using overheated rhetoric in its claims against Willis, as follows: "rather overwrought allegations of prosecutorial overreach and judicial error do not suffice to show that there is significant risk of `wrongful' indictment."

    Source: rawstory

    Parent

    That is called (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 06:06:36 AM EST
    a "McBurn" here in Ga.

    Parent
    As well (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    It should be. He set the defense on fire for wasting the courts time.

    Parent
    Local (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    people don't expect indictments until the 15h. It seems like it is eternally being moved out.

    Also watch your sources as there will be news people parachuting out of town who know nothing but claim to know something.

    The minute the indictments are done we will known pretty much immediately. The superior court clerk loads the indictments onto the website and there is no unsealing.

    Parent

    Latest news (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2023 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    in GA if you are interested can be read here

    Don Truth (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 04:08:44 PM EST

    I hear that Deranged Jack Smith, in order to interfere with the Presidential Election of 2024, will be putting out yet another Fake Indictment of your favorite President, me, at 5:00 P.M.



    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 04:56:59 PM EST
    3 down and 1 more to go!

    Parent
    This Should Be Easy for Some Posters Here (none / 0) (#46)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 05:28:12 PM EST
    Can somebody identify these Co-Conspirators from these descriptions?
    a. Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false  claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not.

    b. Co-Conspirator 2, an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage  
    the  Vice President's  ceremonial  role  overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election.

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

    d. Co-Conspirator 4, a Justice  Department  official  who  worked on civil matters and who, with the Defendant, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.

    e. Co-Conspirator 5, an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to
    submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

    f. Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant who  helped  implement a plan  to submit fraudulent
    slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.



    Pretty (none / 0) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 05:38:58 PM EST
    sure
    #1 Rudy
    #2 Eastman
    #3 Sidney Powell
    #4 Jeffery Clark
    #5 ?
    #6 ???? "Political consultant" doesn't narrow the field much, I saw someone somewhere suggest Ginni Thomas but I don't think we will be so lucky.


    Parent
    #5 (none / 0) (#48)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 06:06:42 PM EST
    According to the WaPO
    Co-conspirator 5 is described in the indictment as a lawyer who tried to implement a plan "to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding," -- a reference that appears to match Kenneth Chesebro, a Trump attorney who worked on the scheme to enact false presidential electors.


    Parent
    CNN (none / 0) (#49)
    by FlJoe on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 06:07:57 PM EST
    agrees and names Kenneth Chesebro as #%
    #6 is still unknown.


    Parent
    CNN (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:19:06 PM EST
    seemed to say #6 was Jason Miller. Though I can't imagine why he would be named as a coconspirator.

    Parent
    A Good Guess for #6 (none / 0) (#58)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:19:53 PM EST
    seems to be Mike Roman.  He was able to get lists of false electors to a congressional office with the hope they would get to Pence and has entered into a proffer agreement with Smith.

    Parent
    His (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:24:37 PM EST
    name and Boris Epshteyn seen to be the favorites right now.

    Parent
    Maybe, ex-felon (none / 0) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 01:14:54 PM EST
    Bernie Kerik, Rudy's pal.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:46:16 PM EST
    Roman is really a dirty trickster running spying operations for the Koch family.

    Sounds like he would have the goods on Ron Johnson & Rep. Kelly from PA too. Maybe that is why he got a proffer and Rudy didn't.

    Parent

    I'm hoping for my Congress critter, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 08:39:36 AM EST
    Scott Perry.

    Parent
    It is reasonable to interpret that list (none / 0) (#83)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    as a final warning to those folks to cooperate (make a deal that includes some sort of guilty plea along with testifying or at least debriefing), or else face a separate, similar indictment (or perhaps being named in a superseding indictment, as happened with the latest co-dft in the Mar-a-Lago case), carrying significantly worse penalties that would the deal.

    Parent
    Based on the indictment (none / 0) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 02:47:48 PM EST
    Co-conspirator #4, may be listed as former Acting Attorney General.   Jeffery Clark appears to have been made Acting Attorney General by Trump and was so for a few hours.  Upon Clark's  return from the White House to DOJ and informing the serving Acting Attorney General of the president's action, he was advised not to assume these new duties or there would be a mass exodus from the DOJ.  

    Parent
    Tanya S. Chutkan (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 06:29:44 PM EST

    A famously fair and tough judge and

    A black woman.

    Oh my


    An Obama appointed (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 06:30:45 PM EST
    Black Female judge.   This will not be pretty

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:20:20 PM EST
    I can see the Fani Willis talking points already starting to be used on her.

    Parent
    Don't forget (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:24:19 PM EST
    Letitia James

    Parent
    If you have time to kill (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 06:42:23 PM EST
    FOX news is really fun tonight.

    Tom Cotton is on right now spinning like a dervish

    Everybody Has a Minute to Watch Rudy (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by RickyJim on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    Plenty (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:13:50 PM EST
    of time, it's the brain cells I am worried about.

    There is something jarring about watching fox like  angry people from another dimension frontally attacking my intelligence. More than two minutes and I can't take it anymore


    Parent

    And yet you watch CNN (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:19:36 PM EST
    With 'fox like  angry people' on every panel.

    Parent
    At (none / 0) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    least it is leavened with varying degrees of both-siderism with occasional flashes of real journalism (which they usually promptly forget).

    Parent
    I float (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    I hate CNN but there are moments on MSNBC when you just have to change the channel.

    I DVR the noon politics show on CNN

    Parent

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#84)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 01:25:19 PM EST
    is a bit too much preaching to choir for me, watching the "centrist" CNN shows me how the propaganda is actually packaged.

    Parent
    44 felonies (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:18:07 PM EST
    Surely they can come up with one more

    45 for 45

    would make a great t-shirt or bumper sticker

    One tidbit (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:23:26 PM EST
    I found interesting was that Mark Meadows warned Mike Pence his life was in danger or warned the secret service. Don't remember all the details.

    Mark Meadows not being a co conspirator seems to reinforce the belief that he is a witness for the feds. Meadows though hired a good lawyer that wasn't paid by Trump. You would think those that have a Trump appointed attorney would learn from the others who don't.

    I think he is probably (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:25:48 PM EST
    THE cooperating witness.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#64)
    by FlJoe on Tue Aug 01, 2023 at 07:29:14 PM EST
    has been my gut feeling for quite some time and all the facts seem to point that way.

    Parent
    Two interesting (to me) points (none / 0) (#68)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 09:31:32 AM EST
    of criminal law that may be useful in understanding the framing of this indictment. First, it charges that there was one, overarching criminal agreement (which is what a conspiracy is), described in detail over the first 40 pages of the indictment. Then, there is technical "charging language" from four different statutes, incorporating most but not all of the introductory paragraphs into each of four criminal charges.  One is a substantive crime:  obstruction of an official proceeding, that is, the electoral-vote-counting joint session of Congress. This charge has also been included in most of the individual indictments of J6 rioters. The indictment also alleges that the single, overarching agreement violated three different federal conspiracy laws:  Conspiracy to defraud the United States (which means dishonest interference with a governmental function), conspiracy to interfere with an official proceeding, and the civil rights conspiracy I wrote about last night. The Supreme Court has long held that a single agreement can be properly charged under multiple statutes without violating double jeopardy, so long as each statute requires proof of one or more facts that the others do not.
       The other interesting technical point is that all of these crimes require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilty knowledge of the key facts. Ordinarily, a person does not "know" a fact in the legal sense unless they subjectively believe it to be true. This indictment suggests that the special prosecutor will attempt to prove Tr*mp's "knowledge" (in this sense) that he had actually lost the election in two ways: a handful of admissions from his own mouth that he knew the truth (that there was no "steal" to be stopped), and what the law calls "willful blindness" -- deliberately refusing to learn or accept the truth when it made readily available to be learned, which the jury will be told is treated as the legal equivalent of actual subjective knowledge.

    Surely it won't be hard to show (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 10:15:54 AM EST
    Trump knew he lost.  Based on his own words.  But I don't see why he needs to even show this in the cases of obstruction and conspiracy against rights.

    Surely in those cases if he did those things what he believed was irrelevant.  He broke the law no matter what he believed.

    No?

    Parent

    I think it was Chuck Rosenberg (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 10:19:37 AM EST
    who said those two statutes were chosen specifically because the defense was shaping up to be "I really believed it so it's not a crime"

    In case that got traction it was still irrelevant to obstruction or the KKK law.

    Parent

    No, that is not correct (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 10:37:08 AM EST
    Knowledge of the law, and an intent to violate it (which in this case requires knowledge of the true results of the election) is actually a required element of the KKK conspiracy offense, that is, intent to prevent the will of the people, as expressed in their votes, from being implemented. Not sure about the section 1512 substantive or conspiracy offenses, but I had thought an intent to obstruct the proceeding, as opposed to a plan to urge a different result of the proceeding, would require knowledge (including belief) that the electoral votes represented the true result of the election.  

    Parent
    No interest in legal arguments with you (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 10:53:06 AM EST
    But I find it hard to believe those KKK members prosecuted in the past had to "believe" what they were saying.  
    According to the Independent what they needed was intentionality.  
    Obviously Trump had that.which is not the same as believing the lie.

    Section 241 criminalises conspiracies to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person" from exercising such rights, which don't necessarily require a successful conspiracy to prosecute. Prosecutors also don't have to prove intentional racist discrimination.

    But they do have to prove "intentionality," Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights and elections programme at the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, told The Independent. "They have to show that this was a conspiracy intended to deprive people of their right to vote," he said.

    Mr Trump "has a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-derivative fraud during the election and that he had won," according to the indictment. He also is entitled to formally challenge the results.

    link

    Parent

    Sorry if you felt I was trying to argue (none / 0) (#77)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 12:05:02 PM EST
    with you. I am just trying to share the technical knowledge that I have on his subject, in as understandable a way as I can. You can accept and believe what I say, or not, as you wish.
      Here is the key language from a 1974 Supreme Court decision under section 241: "[S]ince the gravamen of the offense under § 241 is conspiracy, the prosecution must show that the offender acted with a specific intent to interfere with the federal rights in question. ... Moreover, we scrutinize the record for evidence of such intent with special care in a conspiracy case for, as we have indicated in a related context, "charges of conspiracy are not to be made out by piling inference upon inference, thus fashioning . . . a dragnet to draw in all substantive crimes." ... A single conspiracy may have several purposes, but if one of them -- whether primary or secondary -- be the violation of a federal law, the conspiracy is unlawful under federal law. ... It has long been settled that § 241 embraces a conspiracy to stuff the ballot box at an election for federal officers, and thereby to dilute the value of votes of qualified voters; ... The specific intent required under § 241 is not the intent to change the outcome of a federal election, but rather the intent to have false votes cast and thereby to injure the right of all voters in a federal election to express their choice of a candidate and to have their expressions of choice given full value and effect, without being diluted or distorted by the casting of fraudulent ballots. ... [W]hatever their motive, those who conspire to cast false votes in an election for federal office conspire to injure that right within the meaning of § 241."

    Parent
    And we all appreciate your knowledge (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 12:15:39 PM EST
    But I don't see how any thing in that paragraph contradicts anything I said.

    Parent
    Where does it say (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 12:17:00 PM EST
    He has to believe the lie

    Parent
    I feel legal weeds getting higher (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 12:22:26 PM EST
    that I can navigate.

    All I can say is I have heard at least a dozen highly paid legal bobbleheads across every network repeat a version of what I related about proving what Trump knew.  I was going to link to one but it's probably pointless.

    If you disagree with that I find interesting.  

    And I will pay added attention to this subject going forward.

    Parent

    I will readily admit to (none / 0) (#96)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 03:57:08 PM EST
    not being "highly paid" for my opinions.

    Parent
    Intent to do an act is one thing, but (none / 0) (#91)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 03:16:44 PM EST
    intent to accomplish a purpose is something else. Take intentional distribution of a controlled substance. Sure, the defendant intended to pass the baggie with white powder in it from his own possession to the possession of the recipient, if he was consciously aware that he was giving (or selling) the baggie to another person. (Even there, knowledge is part of intent.) But to intend to distribute "a controlled substance," the law means more than the intentional transfer of possession of "a powder that turns out, upon lab analysis, to be a chemical listed in the DEA's schedules." It means the transfer of a substance that the defendant knows to be a prohibited drug. The pertinent knowledge is an essential component of the prohibited intent. As the Supreme Court said in 1943, discussing the case of someone who sold sugar to a bootlegger, "without the knowledge, the intent [to participate in the illegal enterprise] cannot exist."

    Parent
    If your point is (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 03:32:24 PM EST
    Trump needed to believe something or not believe something to be convicted under the Kkk law we will agree to disagree.

    All he needed to do was try to stop votes from being counted.  With the intent of stopping them from being counted.

    Parent

    Its A Moot Point (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by john horse on Sun Aug 06, 2023 at 03:32:16 PM EST
    I think the Captain is right.  Whether Trump believed he won or did not win the election is irrelevant.  

    Whether he believed he won or not, he had the right to legally contest the election results in the courts, which Trump unsuccessfully did.    

    Thats where his rights ended.  Per the Constitution, the electoral votes have to be counted on January 6.  Whether he believed he won or not, Trump had no right to delay or intefere with the vote.  Whether he believed he won or not, Trump had no right to try to install fake electors.  

    Parent

    More (none / 0) (#168)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 06, 2023 at 04:06:05 PM EST
    a nonsense argument(one among many) then a moot point, but yeah.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 11:37:02 AM EST
    have spent most of my life hearing and believing the maxim "ignorance of the law is no defense", over the last decade I have come to find out that does not seem to apply to certain white collar and political crimes. Two tiered justice system indeed.

    Parent
    As you note, there are exceptions (none / 0) (#78)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    to that adage. I won such a case before the Supreme Court in 1994, by 5-4 vote; it was Justice Ginsburg's first opinion in a criminal case. (I wrote the brief; did not deliver the oral argument.) The rationale for exceptions to the rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse is generally to protect against situations where the legislature has criminalized conduct that an ordinary person would not necessarily recognize as morally wrongful.

    Parent
    How (none / 0) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 01:32:49 PM EST
    does this preclude using willful ignorance as a get out of jail free card?

    Parent
    Willful ignorance, if so found by the jury (none / 0) (#89)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    is considered to be an alternative way of proving the element of knowledge in a criminal case where knowledge is required for there to be guilt.

    Parent
    In the Orange world, (none / 0) (#97)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    nothing he does is morally wrongful. It is not within his psyche to comprehend morals.

    Parent
    Very true, but a criminal law that penalizes (none / 0) (#100)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    conduct that a right-minded person would perceive as morally wrongful -- typically, because of its harmful effect on others -- can be punished, whether or not the defendant understands the wrongfulness (and perhaps particularly if s/he doesn't), so long as the defendant knowingly engages in the conduct.
      I love how this discussion has drifted into the moral philosophy of our criminal law, which (in case you couldn't tell) may be my favorite subject.

    Parent
    It's in the news (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 04:27:37 PM EST
    I was very sorry to see that (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 08:58:51 AM EST
    In part for my friend Judy Clarke, who is a wizard at these worst-of-the-worst cases (Unabomber, Boston Marathon, etc.), and seldom fails to find a way to get a life sentence rather than death. Perhaps Biden will keep his promise and commute all pending federal death sentences to terms of life-without-parole, although certainly not until after the election.

    Parent
    Willful Blindness (none / 0) (#196)
    by coast on Thu Aug 10, 2023 at 12:17:20 PM EST
    IMO that's a trait found in most politicians and is pretty evident in this case.

    Parent
    It might be Boris (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 01:45:26 PM EST

    Messages Point to Identity of Co-Conspirator 6
    August 2, 2023 at 2:38 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard Leave a Comment

    The New York Times may have uncovered the identity of Co-Conspirator 6 in the indictment of Donald Trump.

    "Identified by the indictment as `a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding,' the person could have been a number of figures in Mr. Trump's orbit."

    "But a close look at the indictment and a review of messages among people working with Mr. Trump's team provides a strong clue. An email from December 2020 from Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser to the Trump campaign in 2020, to Mr. Giuliani matches a description in the indictment of an interaction between co-conspirator 6 and Mr. Giuliani, whose lawyer has confirmed that he is co-conspirator 1."



    I thought (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 03:09:24 PM EST
    Boris was an attorney.

    Parent
    J.D., Georgetown (none / 0) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 03:18:53 PM EST
    University. Law.

    Parent
    He's a law school graduate (none / 0) (#94)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    and did practice as a lawyer for a while after graduating. But he has been a full time political operative, not practicing as an attorney, for seven years or more. He is only 40 years old.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 04:15:29 PM EST
    That makes sense as to why he would be called a political operative and not a lawyer.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 04:15:29 PM EST
    That makes sense as to why he would be called a political operative and not a lawyer.

    Parent
    Aren't they all (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 04:06:40 PM EST
    attorneys

    Parent
    As the Original NYTimes Piece Pointed Out (none / 0) (#108)
    by RickyJim on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 08:05:20 PM EST
    Others could have written Giuliani with similar suggestions.  Doesn't this Tweet indicate Mike Roman is claiming to be #6?

    Parent
    The indictment masterfully (none / 0) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    describes Trump's criminal plot to overthrow the duly elected government of the USA as if describing an apple tree without saying it is an apple tree. However, when finished reading you clearly understand it is an apple tree--with green apples.

    Interwoven among alleged crimes are sedition, fraud, power abuse, and insurrection that in composite presents an attempted coup by a sitting President of the USA against the USA. Anchored, as stated in the indictment's introduction, Trump lost the election and proceeded in conspiracy and confederacy, to plan and conduct criminal ways and means to subvert the lawful electoral votes and remain in power.

    While much of the indictment tracks the report of the J-6 Committee with additional details and material facts, the information from Pence is all-important.

    It is now clear just how crucial Pence's testimony to the J-6 Committee would have been. The televised J-6 hearing with Trump's Vice President telling his indictment-story, would have been a public blockbuster, bringing home to Americans, the foundational lies, deceit and fraud necessary to the plot. "Your too honest", would be etched in the American psyche.

    The indictment brings to the fore, in my view, the inescapable conclusion of Trump's mental state--a sick man unfit for any elected office.  

    Unfortunately, Trump's illness (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    is contagious. It is shared by his base. All 30+ percent of them.

    Parent
    So Mike Pence has found a vertebra (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 05:44:53 PM EST
    He saying very bad things about Dear Leader.  

    Those legal bobbleheads say he will probably be called as a witness in Trumps J6 trial.

    Things are about to get more exciting.


    And (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 06:04:55 PM EST
    it's not even Georgia yet

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 06:17:59 AM EST
    he has decided that he has nothing to lose at this point. And truly he doesn't considering he is polling so poorly.

    Parent
    He hardly has a choice (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 08:34:09 AM EST
    Unless he plans to take the 5th.

    Parent
    The Onion: Trump Campaign Worried (none / 0) (#107)
    by john horse on Wed Aug 02, 2023 at 07:17:36 PM EST
    According to the Onion,
    Trump Campaign Worried There Might Not Be Enough Indictments To Meet All Fundraising Goals


    There (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 01:29:58 AM EST
    is some talk about sending him to 5th Ave with a gun.

    Parent
    Watch out (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 08:32:33 AM EST
    If Trump Shot Someone On 5th Avenue (none / 0) (#123)
    by john horse on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 04:45:16 AM EST
    If the government charged Trump with shooting someone on 5th Avenue . . .

    Desantis would say that Trump's prosecution would be an example of the "weaponization of federal law enforcement" and our country ""going down the road of criminalizing political differences".

    Haley would say that Trump was " incredibly reckless" but nevertheless the case reflected "prosecutorial overreach, double standards and vendetta politics."

    Pence would say that "These are very serious allegations, and I can't defend what is alleged." Still, he also add, "It's hard for me to believe that politics didn't play some role in this decision."

    Tim Scott would call the indictment a "travesty" and said the district attorney had "weaponized the law against political enemies."

    Parent

    If Trump Shot Someone On 5th Avenue (none / 0) (#124)
    by john horse on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 04:45:16 AM EST
    If the government charged Trump with shooting someone on 5th Avenue . . .

    Desantis would say that Trump's prosecution would be an example of the "weaponization of federal law enforcement" and our country ""going down the road of criminalizing political differences".

    Haley would say that Trump was " incredibly reckless" but nevertheless the case reflected "prosecutorial overreach, double standards and vendetta politics."

    Pence would say that "These are very serious allegations, and I can't defend what is alleged." Still, he also add, "It's hard for me to believe that politics didn't play some role in this decision."

    Tim Scott would call the indictment a "travesty" and said the district attorney had "weaponized the law against political enemies."

    Parent

    Sorry for the double post (none / 0) (#127)
    by john horse on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    Sorry for the double post. Case of posting while not awake,

    Parent
    It just does that sometimes (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 11:18:14 AM EST
    All by itself

    Parent
    The Trump Defense (none / 0) (#115)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 01:09:33 PM EST
    I am relying on an article on Fox News (the best source for such things?)

    The argument from Jonathan Turley is obviously false so that even I don't need help with it:

    "The most jarring thing about this indictment is it basically just accuses him of disinformation -- this is a disinformation indictment," said legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a Fox News contributor.
     
    More interesting is what Andrew McCarthy has to say.  As for Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States):
    "It is not actionable fraud as the Supreme Court has described fraud -- as recently as May," McCarthy said. "The Supreme Court made very clear that fraud in federal law is a scheme to swindle someone out of money or physical property."

    McCarthy added that this is "exactly the kind of case" the court was telling prosecutors not to bring, "and he brought it anyway."


    For Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights)
    "Smith is using a statute enacted right after the Civil War, which was actually directed at violent intimidation by the Ku Klux Klan against Black voters in the South -- which doesn't have any connection to what we're talking about here," McCarthy explained. "They applied that law to ballot box stuffing, so what Smith is trying to tease out of that case is what then-Justice Thurgood Marshall said in the 1960s: You don't have to have violence. You just have to have activity that functionally cancels out people's votes."

    McCarthy said the "most insidious thing" the special counsel does is "he doesn't charge Trump with any violence because there is no connection."

    "The Justice Department would love to charge Trump with seditious conspiracy, but the problem is, he said he supported a peaceful march on the Capitol," McCarthy said. "That may have been a stupid thing to do, but not a criminal thing to do."

    McCarthy told Fox News Digital that Smith alleges that Trump "exploited the violence at the Capitol riot."

    "That's an unseemly thing for a prosecutor to do when he is not charging Trump with the Capitol riot," McCarthy explained. "Inconveniently for him, he has no evidence that Trump orchestrated them, or intended for them to do it."

    I don't see in the article a direct attack on the second and third count.  Is McCarthy claiming the the SC rejected Marshall's assertion that "you don't have to have violence"?  I do need help from the resident legal eagles in determining the validity of McCarthy's arguments.  T.I.A.  


    Seems to me he defrauded thousands (none / 0) (#116)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 02:14:28 PM EST
    of his minions out of thousands of dollars by this very "disinformation." Actually lies. I prefer to call them what they are, blatant, bald-faced lies. I think this McCarthy is failing to account for the monies swindled by spreading lies via public airwaves, internet, etc.

    Parent
    That may be so, but it is not (none / 0) (#118)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 03:07:47 PM EST
    part of what is charged in the new indictment. The theory of the indictment is not that Tr*mp pursued what he knew to be false claims of a stolen election in order to fleece donors, but rater than he did so to subvert and thwart the democratic process of peaceful transfer of power to the genuine election winner.

    Parent
    Pro (none / 0) (#117)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    tip; FNC is NOT the best source of anything.

    For all intents and purposes they could be considered  in the crimes charged.

    Parent

    Andrew McCarthy is a well-known (none / 0) (#119)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    right-wing conspiracy theorist and nonsense-monger. Although a former cop and prosecutor, he is no legitimate legal analyst. His discussion of purported flaws in the 371 and 241 counts, as summarized in your post, is entirely bogus.

    Parent
    Request for Bogosity Details (none / 0) (#120)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 03, 2023 at 06:09:07 PM EST
    Yep.  There is such a word.  I doubt that a judge would allow a first amendment defense so I expect McCarthy's arguments may be all that is left. It would be good to know how to respond to them when one hears them from ones' Fox News addled friends and relatives.  McCarthy expands on his objection to the fraud charge here. He also has written plenty of articles for NR defending the Mar-a-Lago indictments so he is hardly a total Trump toady.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#125)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 08:50:29 AM EST
    can't begin to understand the Supreme courts decisions or their actual relevance here.

    Even if you accept the relevance and analysis, he seems to leave our one important detail, the presidential salary is cold hard cash, at the very least Trump was trying to defraud the government out of that money.

    Parent

    This from Kevin McCarthy (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 04, 2023 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    How desperate do you have to be to do this?  This is clearly for a specific demo but it's just so laughable.  These people have no shame.  That might be the most dangerous part.

    watch me

    This is great (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 08:27:42 AM EST
    More (none / 0) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 08:44:59 AM EST
    evidence that the "anti-antis" are living in never-never land, or la-la land if you prefer.

    It's funny how Democrat's have no agency except when Republicans have dug themselves a hole so deep they can't get out of, much less stop their cohorts from digging. Then suddenly they claim it's the wily Democrats using Jedi mind trucks or something.

    Parent

    If you take this (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 10:54:39 AM EST
    and the ridiculous display from McCarthy in the previous comment it really starts to look like they are beginning to realize how utterly f@#ked they are.

    I still think the bottom will drop out for Trump.  But I honestly have no idea who might step up.  I don't think it will be Ron Da Ripper.

    Maybe the will try to draft some samer person like Youngkin.

    Parent

    This is interesting (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 10:57:20 AM EST

    ABC News: "A few Republican presidential candidates polling near the middle and back of the primary field say they have found a fundraising sweet spot: Cash flows in when they jab at front-runner Donald Trump, even if their voter support doesn't jump the same way."



    Parent
    That (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by FlJoe on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 11:13:08 AM EST
    is the biggest dilemma for the GOP, the moneymen want sane the base wants insane.

     

    Parent

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 04:54:27 PM EST
    I'm starting to agree that Trump is toast. Ex Republicans say that there isn't going to be a collapse though. It will be a slow decline with a death by 1000 cuts.

    Parent
    I've been expecting it to start slowly (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 05:03:05 PM EST
    and then happen fast.  Truly God only knows what is going to happens but I just can't believe that EVEN republicans could be stupid and self destructive enough to nominate him just to "own the libs"

    Parent
    I know what (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 06:21:06 PM EST
    you mean but many times i have said surely the Repubicans can't be stupid enough to do X and yet they do.

    I am expecting the entire party to explode at some point with Romney and some of the others ruling the smoldering heap.

    Parent

    Well, there is (none / 0) (#145)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 10:07:01 AM EST
    always DeSantis, who promised, during a NH rally, that he would "start slitting throats" of government workers on day one of his administration.

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 10:12:01 AM EST
    Murderous Meatball AKA Ron Da Ripper

    Parent
    This is not (none / 0) (#157)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 04:03:40 PM EST
    normal talk, even by a corporate raider who plans to "downsize" or "trim the payroll".  These fascists seem to be ratcheting  up the violent talk--sort of a Can You Top This.

    Sweeney Ron probably sings "These are my friends, see how they glisten" in the shower.   Someone  needs to check the crawl space under the governor's mansion.

    Parent

    And the next day (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 10:49:32 AM EST
    About to get more interesting? (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    Trump threatened (none / 0) (#152)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    " if you go after me, I'm coming after you." 24 hours after the Court ordered him not to threaten as a condition of release.

    The social media remark  was mentioned in Jack Smith's request for a strict protective order in the case. If granted, the order would prevent Trump from sharing  most public details about what evidence is given to the defense in the discovery portion of the case.

    Since it was not clear whether Trump was speaking to his political opponents or witnesses and prosecutors, it could be assumed he was speaking to both of the above plus all Americans who support efforts for accountability.  And, for sure, advancing a chilling effect.

    The Trump. Campaign has responded that this is protected speech. Sounds terroristic, to me.  And, represents a pattern,  so much so that the Magistrate Judge underscored for the former president that he was not to commit any crimes, such as witness intimidation, .as a condition of his release

    Maybe, it's time to lock him up.   Even for a day or two, to emphasize the Court's admonition.

    The Supreme Court ruled just this spring (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 02:18:06 PM EST
    that the First Amendment does not protect threatening speech if the speaker at least recklessly disregarded a substantial risk that an ordinary person, hearing or reading the statement, would understand it as a threat. The decision was rendered by 7-2 vote, with the dissenters (Barrett and Thomas) advocating an "objective" standard under which the speaker's intent would not matter at all. Not a single Justice supported a rule under which the First Amendment would protect objectively threatening speech unless the speaker actually intended it to be taken as a threat.

    Parent
    Great minds..... (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 01:38:19 PM EST
    Request denied (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 05:24:34 PM EST
    This seems like a good start

    --
    A federal judge on Saturday denied a request from former President Donald Trump's legal team for a deadline extension over the handling of evidence in the 2020 election subversion case.

    Trump's lawyers will have to respond by Monday afternoon to the Justice Department's proposal for a protective order.

    Trump's lawyers asked to have until Thursday to respond, and suggested a hearing on the matter might be necessary if an agreement with prosecutors isn't reached.

    link

    Parent

    the judges in DC (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 05, 2023 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    don't play except for the one Trump nominated, I forget his name, an Aileen Cannon clone.

    Apparently it's a positive so many of them have done these same crimes for lower level insurrectionists.

    Parent

    Nancy (none / 0) (#163)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 06, 2023 at 01:49:42 PM EST
    owes an apology to scared puppies everywhere
    I purposely didn't comment on Nancy Pelosi's very weird story concerning her husband, but now I can because she said something about me, with glee, that was really quite vicious. "I saw a scared puppy," she said, as she watched me on television, like millions of others, that didn't see that. I wasn't "scared."
    Corned rat is a much more appropriate metaphor if you want to go "vicious".

    His attorney did the full Ginsberg (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 06, 2023 at 02:08:04 PM EST
    Explaining that Trumps requests to have others break the law were aspirational.

    I think an aspirational insurrection will be a heavy lift.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#165)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 06, 2023 at 02:35:46 PM EST
    saw him on CNN... way past "pound the table" stage.

    Dana Bash, to her credit, did some serious pushback.

    He seemed to admit that Trump did ask Pence and others to do the dirty deeds while insisting he was only "asking" and of course "asking" is speech so it's not a crime.

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 06, 2023 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    when it is.

    She rarely laughs in the face of a guest.  

    Parent

    Oh man (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 06, 2023 at 04:58:04 PM EST
    handcuffs

    Michael Grossman
    @MichaelArt123
    ·
    Follow
    Fani Willis has been very clear. Trump will receive a mug shot, -he'll be fingerprinted and handcuffed just like anyone else. No one is above the law. MSNBC.
    12:15 PM · Aug 6, 2023

    I'll go to sleep tonight visualizing Trump in handcuffs.  Tiny children sized handcuffs possibly borrowed from ICE.

    The (none / 0) (#170)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 06, 2023 at 05:03:37 PM EST
    writers got to keep adding twists... I like it.

    Parent
    The Fulton County (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 07, 2023 at 07:38:44 AM EST
    Sheriff says the same. No preferential treatment for Trump but honestly the worst things that happened happened in GA. No state deserves to do that to him more than GA.

    Parent
    Word of the week is (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 06, 2023 at 05:24:03 PM EST

    as·pi·ra·tion·al

    adjective

    having or characterized by aspirations to achieve social prestige and material success.
    "young, aspirational, and independent women"

    Hummm (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 06, 2023 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    Did someone hack the Google definition of aspirational?  That made me laugh when I read it.

    Parent
    Sounds (none / 0) (#177)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 07, 2023 at 10:59:01 AM EST
    an awful like their definition of yuppie
    a young person with a well-paid job and a fashionable lifestyle.
    "stereotypical 1980s yuppies obsessed with material objects and financial success"


    Parent
    If Trump loses (none / 0) (#174)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 07, 2023 at 08:05:47 AM EST
    in 2024, he goes to jail.

    Bumper sticker? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 07, 2023 at 10:21:43 AM EST
    White House or the Big House

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#176)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 07, 2023 at 10:53:38 AM EST
    off to a Dacha near Moscow, or some golf resort in Saudi.

    Parent
    I think the state of things in Russia (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 07, 2023 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    make it an unattractive destination. He might end up rooming with Prigozhin.  SA maybe.


    Parent
    After talking about beautiful beautiful Hillary (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 08, 2023 at 06:30:14 PM EST
    There is (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 08, 2023 at 06:34:24 PM EST
    no bottom.

    I think he's finally cracking under the weight of 3 indictments, attorney fees and another looming indictment. He must really want Fani & Jack to sock it to him.

    Parent

    That was my first thought (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 08, 2023 at 06:47:57 PM EST
    He's actually losing his mind.  

    Parent
    A Utah man (none / 0) (#190)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 09, 2023 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    was shot and killed during an FBI raid in connection with an investigation into death threats against President Biden, Vice President Harris, and officials prosecuting Trump.  

    While against all (none / 0) (#191)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 09, 2023 at 03:38:29 PM EST
    legal advice, including the best advice of his lawyers, and common sense, I doubt that Trump has ruled out testifying on his behalf at trial.   He will, of course, lie and lie and lie.  However, his testimony is a way to try countering devastating testimony such as Pence's  reporting that Trump told him he "was too honest" when refusing to join the conspiracy.

    And, it may be his only hope with a jury.  He will just worry about such pesky matters as perjury, another day, another delay. It would seem so Trumpian to do.

    Kenneth Chesebro Memo (none / 0) (#192)
    by RickyJim on Wed Aug 09, 2023 at 04:13:59 PM EST
    The NY Times describes the Dec. 6, 2020 plan for "fake electors". A link to a pdf of the actual memo is in the article.  I get the impression that Chesebro didn't think what he was proposing was criminal. It is mostly an argument that if the Trump electors met on Dec. 14, it might be possible to overturn the election results by Jan. 6. This is before there was discussion of tricking electors by saying that their ballots would not be used unless Trump prevailed in a court challenge in their state.  

    It's (none / 0) (#193)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 09, 2023 at 04:58:16 PM EST
    BS
    Chesebro conceded in the memo that this idea was a "controversial" long shot that would "likely" be rejected by the Supreme Court - but nonetheless promoted the strategy. He wrote that despite the legal dubiousness, "letting matters play out this way would guarantee that public attention would be riveted on the evidence of electoral abuses by the Democrats and would also buy the Trump campaign more time to win litigation that would deprive Biden of electoral votes and/or add to Trump's column."
    Every fraud committed in history started with a line of BS.

    Parent
    I just saw a CNN bobblehead (none / 0) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 09, 2023 at 05:37:17 PM EST
    say public interest "wanes" with each new indictment.  Probably.  But next week we are all going to learn a new word

    RICO

    I bet a flock of all stars (more than a dozen) swept up in a massive RICO case is going to give us all a lot to talk about.

    Parent

    It's (none / 0) (#195)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 09, 2023 at 06:27:44 PM EST
    funny how the Hunter Biden saga never wanes. Overwhelming evidence of serial criming  is so boring, lets go chase the next smoking red herring "discovered" by one of the loons in congress.

    Meanwhile Jack Smith is still grinding away, so maybe the words seditious conspiracy will make a come back.

    Keep your eye on the Willard hotel warroom, a lot ame cast was involved there.

    Parent