I'm reading
"Four takeaways from Trump's indictment for 2020 election interference" (BBC):
The indictment lists six unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly helped Mr Trump carry out his unlawful efforts to overturn the election results.
Four are described in the document as lawyers working for Mr Trump's campaign, one is described as a political consultant and the other a Justice Department official.
The prosecution claims that along with Mr Trump, they pushed officials in states where the races had been close to ignore the popular vote, to disenfranchise millions of voters and replace legitimate electors with fake ones. It also accused them of attempting to use the power of the justice department to conduct sham investigations into supposed fraud and of pressuring then Vice-President Mike Pence to fraudulently alter the election outcome as part of his ceremonial role to certify results in Congress.
Prosecutors included these individuals to back up their conspiracy charges, Aziz Huq of the University of Chicago Law School explained. Basically, you can't have a conspiracy with just one person - you have to conspire with others.
However, the six have not been charged in this indictment - and there is no guarantee all will be. There could be many possible reasons prosecutors decided not to name the co-conspirators here, Mr Huq said. For one, these individuals could be co-operating with the government.
Posts
19 comments:
Remember Al Gore and his targeted recount? He maintained the election was illegitimate even after the SCOTS ruled.
Remember the Hillery effort to have "unfaithful" electoral votes counted? She maintains, to this day, the election was stole.
IIRC these efforts were condemned on the right as bad things.
But I don't recall DOJ hauling them to court.
After everything that Hillary, the FBI, social media companies and the Bidens did, we are supposed to care that Trump wasn't saying what the establishment wanted to hear for the two months between the election and the inauguration.
The indictment can stick, but any candidate who doesn't see what the establishment is doing to Trump, doesn't have a chance of being the Republican nominee.
Trump was following the procedure laid out in the Constitution, far from overturning it. If the courts refuse to look into the election, this is the method left. It throws the decision to Congress to decide which elector slates to accept.
For all that, Trump was just not understanding the convention with elections, that if you win by fraud, you won. Finality is more important to the system than accuracy.
Conspiracy to "insinuate."
"Insinuate" is a funny word too, in other words, he didn't even really say it, whatever he supposedly meant to "insinuate," and the prosecutors are mind-reading here. As if saying it out loud was some kind of crime, anyway.
Basically the whole shebang amounts to a charge of Lèse-majesté against Joe Biden. What seems to make the speech criminal is that it attacks Joe Biden. It's like how the Treasury Department sanctioned that Russian for "disinformation against a US political candidate," you know, Joe Biden, but never sanctioned any of the liars who produced the "fake dossier". One does wonder under what law the Treasury Department did that, but I sincerely doubt that the guy would ever be allowed a day in court.
For that matter, why wasn't the Ukrainian politician who "leaked" the phony "Black Ledger" to the New York Times sanctioned by the Treasury Department? To ask it is to answer it.
rhhardin said...
Trump was following the procedure laid out in the Constitution, far from overturning it. If the courts refuse to look into the election, this is the method left. It throws the decision to Congress to decide which elector slates to accept.
Well that's the beauty of federal courts, with nationwide service of process. Now, Trump's team of superlawyers can use the power of the federal court system to show the nation all of the compelling evidence that the election was "stollen." Right? After Trump's lawyers show how the election was stollen, it should be easy for Trump's defense. LMFAO.
There could be many possible reasons prosecutors decided not to name the co-conspirators here, Mr Huq said. For one, these individuals could be co-operating with the government.
Or, it could be that they’re six names picked at random out of a phone book.
My bet, Chuck, is that like in the impeachment run by Schiff, the Hunter Biden's Old Law Firm Judge will not allow any such evidence to be introduced. We can wait and see, but that's my bet. And when she rules that the evidence may not be presented, you will crow that it's more proof that there is no evidence, that's my bet too.
Jack Smith should be personally liable for these indictments when they crumble, and be forced to reimburse Trumps legal expenses. These ridiculous prosecutions need some accountability.
Also, not sure it fits in this case, but it would be awesome if some of the forbidden/hidden J6 videos could be presented in defense. I’m thinking of the ones where the feds are fomenting the breach which in turn forced the emergency session which disrupted the normal government proceeding.
"There were conspirators! We wont name them, or tell you what they said, or did, but trust me, they are there! That's all the evidence needed."
Mike Pence will testify (as an unindicted co-conspirator) against Trump.
The GOPe wants to get rid of Trump almost as much as the Soviet Democraticals.
So now one's lawyers, to whom one turns for advice on what actions are legal or illegal, as well as for counsel or services in taking such actions, are potentially "co-conspirators"? In that case about 99.9% of criminal defense attorneys would be at serious risk every day ending in "Y" (e.g., see Hillary Clinton case re missing emails, personal devices, and wiped servers).
The Left really hated Trump. What their feelings are about their next opponent won't matter, because who they get next may just be the one with the big stomping boots for use on their faces.
If you don't maintain the established rules of law and conventions of society, and instead destroy all limits on behavior, what you get next isn't necessarily what you thought it would be, or what you wanted, or what you can stand. Therre are those who will take advantage of the Left's destruction of norms, abuse of laws, and corruption of politics to do the same, only harder, and to them.
Everyone on the right is a Hitler, everyone, until some new guy eventually donates his name by being worse than Hitler. That won't be nice.
So the law fare guys are telling us they are cool with indicting lawyers for conspiring with their clients. They better hope they can win every state AG, or it’s going to get fun in the red states come 2025. Or hope their idea fails in the court for being stupid and they are just charged with the bill for wasting our time.
"Jack Smith should be personally liable for these indictments when they crumble"
In their new Just Us system, they put in place after seizing power in an admittedly "fortified" election, will not allow these indictments to crumble. Trump is headed to prison. The world has changed, just like it did for the Germans when the Nazis took over.
Since it seems to be a Death Penalty offense to question what the states return as election results, I can only assume that the Founders required the Congress to certify the election results as a joke, an easter egg they placed in the constitution that made people certify something that they had no legal power to deny.
The more the government pushes back on the idea that certain states run by Democrats stuffed the ballot boxes with bogus votes the more I'm inclined to believe the election was rigged.
Has the statute run on what the Democrats did in Florida in the 2000 election?
Biden will be the next president, and Harris thereafter.
They will do whatever it takes. Get used to it.
Post a Comment