Trump's lawyer went on Fox News and said something that merits more attention, because it's worrisome. He said Trump merely acted on the advice given to him by his lawyer, John Eastman.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) August 2, 2023
This will be more central to Trump's defense than you might think. 1/https://t.co/KaMskppJLU
Posts
38 comments:
Despite intelligent guesses like Kaus's, the answer to the Althouse headline question is, IMO, NO, we do NOT know where this is going. It feels like we are entering a whole new chapter of a very bad book. There is a wide range of possible outcomes, including the unraveling of the whole Pelosi Production -- the healthiest of all possible outcomes -- or, toward the other end, convictions of Trump, a precedent of successful lawfare, and further Democratic destruction of the Constitution directly, or in spirit. And, in between, a muddled middle of much less significance than many are hoping for. The Democrats act like crazed animals -- they are madly abusing every possible device within their power and are utterly unable to imagine any consequences to what they are doing other than the immediate gratification they crave. Which is just one of many reasons why that craving is almost sure not to be satisfied. Maybe they feel their grip on power loosening and it makes them that much more desperate.
In the end, just as with FDR's kingship, the founders' framework of checks and balances should work to neutralize the worst of the depradations. If history is any guide. But I think we will have surprises along the way.
I assume the faulty legal theory is what the Consititution actually says, screwed up as it is: that legislatures decide the slate of electors and rival slates are contemplated, to be decided by Congress.
The people don't vote for President.
The faulty legal theory is what the courts themselves believed when they would not take up early complaints about fraut, pointing instead to Congress as the place for it. Saying it's a political matter.
Only the trial court can grant a Motion to Dismiss. If Trump loses that Motion, there is no appeal as it is interlocutory.
But what if the MAGA crowd surrounded the DC courthouse during deliberations and then rioted for days in Georgetown and K Street?
I can hear the Judge now right after the verdict, “Take the Defendant into custody.” Yeah, the Deep State plays for keeps. This ain’t beanbag.
One sentence for dismissal in a sane world: In the year 2000 Al Gore prodded the tedious but legally valid "hanging chads" manual recount of votes in Florida.
In the fourth scenario of what Pence could have done under Eastman's theory denoted by the letter (D) in Seligman's draft, it outlines what I believe to have been the best option among all the bad options presented: pause the counting of the electors to allow time for state legislators to re-certify their vote counts. Granted it would have given the states just 14 days before the Jan 20th inauguration date, but I believe that would have been enough time for states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona to determine that many (most?) of the mail-in ballots should have been considered invalid and thus not counted. Anyone who believes those votes in the late-night mail-in ballot dumps (some by the truckload) weren't manufactured is a fool. IIRC, in NONE of the so-called trials in which the claim 'no evidence was presented' of voting and counting malfeasance occurred did anyone stop and take the time to signature-match all those mail-in ballots. They were counted 'as-is' and the excuse I recall given for failure to certify them was the old saw "once a ballot is counted it never gets uncounted." The entire Jan 6 debacle is an embarrassing, disgraceful chapter in this nation's history, one which may signal the beginning of our end.
Dave Begely
Let's not forget protesting in front of the Judges house is protected under the Constitution. That can start tonight.
I disagree- we know the outcome: all during prime election season the judge will accommodate the prosecution every silly step of the way (to avoid looking ‘partisan’, of course) the jury will convict of everything asked of them, and will want a little more ad Trump will emerge stronger than ever…
While not dispositive, I think it will be helpful that by the time U.S. v Trump goes to trial in the DC District Court, John Eastman will no longer be a licensed attorney. The State Bar of California will have effectively prosecuted Eastman's advice and conduct in this very case, and the California Supreme Court will have found in the Bar's favor to strip Eastman of his license to practice. Eastman, the advice-giver, will be a disgraced ex-lawyer.
First of all, Trump campaign lawyers compelled to testify against him is like amateurs playing cops and robers. No Attorney client privilege?
It’s like a congressional panel looking into government collusion with social platforms censorship voting to censor RFK from testifying before them.
It’s Mel Brooks satire.
Right Republican at 6:35am:
I won't re-quote your comment or try to address all of it. I want to pick out one point, and by rebutting it forcefully enough I hope that all readers will discount the entirety of what you have written.
You include "Michigan" in a group of states wherein "many (most?) of the mail-in ballots should have been considered invalid and thus not counted..."
That's nuts. Insane. Blatantly untrue. A stone cold lie. This isn't a case of "We're just asking questions," or "Many people have serious concerns about the election." Biden won Michigan by a convincing, recount-proof 150,000 votes. By contrast, Trump won Michigan in 2016 by just 11,000 votes and there was no (serious*) recount and there was no claim of a fraudulent outcome.
Reversing or challenging the results in Michigan would discount MY vote for Joe Biden. We in the majority in Michigan in 2020 gave Joe Biden the election for Michigan's 16 electoral votes. And every post-election review, including an exhaustive review by a state Senate committee led by the majority-Republicans confirmed it.
So, dear readers; take this one claim -- "Michigan... mail-in ballots" -- and consider the rest of Right Republican's comment in the knowledge that that part is pure bullshit.
*The Green Party/Jill Stein, who garnered more votes in Michigan than the Trump margin of victory, advanced an abortive attempt at a recount. it went nowhere.
Iowan2
Great idea! Wonder how AG Garland would react?
In Omaha, the Left picketed the home of the County Attorney for 60 days.
"once a ballot is counted it never gets uncounted."
Serious Question. Y'all have been around for LOTS of vote recounts.
Can Any of you think of a time when the vote count of the recount wasn't HIGHER than the original count?
After recount, there are MORE votes. Most of those votes will be democrat votes, but one thing is for SURE.. There won't be LESS votes after a recount. The number ONLY increases
Althouse you have a subject tag for "Cases I hope will fail." You're not using it in this context. Is U.S. v Trump (DCDC) -- the election case -- a "case you hope will fail"? Is U.S. v Trump, et al (SDFL) -- the documents case -- a "case you hope will fail"?
It would be impossible for me to criticize you for declaring that you hope the Trump prosecutions fail, since I am publicly declaring that I hope they succeed. I'd just like some clarity on your position.
The most important aspect to all of this (and everything else is chicken shit) is that the 2020 absentee voter fraud in WI, AZ, MI, GA, and PA was real.
You can pretend to be "enlightened" and deny what you know to be true, but you're not.
Everyone knows it was fraudulent. It's just a matter if you support the outcome of the fraud and feel you benefited.
"I fired the people who gave me good advice and listened to the bad advice" is not the W some people seem to think it is
I saw this thought somewhere else, but it seems right. To mount a credible advice of counsel defense, doesn't the defendant generally take the stand, raise his right hand, take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and then say, under oath, that I acted on the advice of counsel? Can anyone imagine Trump doing that? He is in his late 70's. He has never told the truth in his 7 decades of being a sentient being, much less told the whole truth. If he did tell the truth, the shock to his system would be devastating. It would make the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the wicked witch shrivels up look like child's play.
Recall that in the 1st impeachment, his lawyers considered making Trump available for a deposition, but after some practise sessions, concluded that he was incapable of telling the truth, and that if he were deposed, he would inevitably be charged with perjury.
Can we rule out the possibility that Trump wants to lose one or all these trials? That losing in court will boost his support, and having won election will evade punishment?
Regardless I'm certain Trump will do something to undercut his defense, intentionally or otherwise.
"Don't we already know where this January 6th case is going?"
Maybe the final, final outcome. But not the process, which is the punishment--of Trump, of his supporters, and of the system. It is the left's FU back to the deplorables. Same as with the Russia collusion hoax: it had no substance, it was bound to collapse, but it served its disabling, delegitimating, troop-rallying purpose, and no lefty paid any price for the subversion. Under prog rule, the incentives are all on one side. Of course, progs could miscalculate; they'd like Trump to be strong enough to run and be easily defeated again, but not prematurely sidelined in the primaries or strengthened by a reactive alliance joined by Althouses disgusted with the theater.
Rudy Giuliani is at the center of this case, the J6 impeachment, and the Ukraine impeachment. If Donald Trump had never listened to Rudy Giuliani, would he be President today?
This indictment is nothing more that a double down to make sure the 2020 election fraud is never questioned again. On the fly voting law changes, absentee ballot harvesting and stuffing, same day voting machine fuck ups, and long drawn out counts will all remain be the norm.
Without legitimate elections, we are a country without laws.
Donald Trump did nothing wrong. He and his team were correct on the election fraud of 2020. That is the crux of all these matters.
Mike Pence is a coward and a traitor.
Rich Lowrey is so lame. I don't think he's ever written a single declarative sentence that had any passion in it, except to attack Trump.
He always writes with qualifiers, rhetorical questions, non-rhetorical questions, sideways snark, weird passive-agressive language and/or impersonal statements of fact. You'd often think he was quoting someone else, instead of writing his own opinons.
And he never says anything interesting.
What Gusty Winds said. If this case ends up in the Supreme Court, it would a wonderful opportunity to have another 9-0 decision as in the last Smith case they reversed.
I am still trying to figure out what law Trump broke in this latest indictment. Trying to get Pence to disqualify Biden electors from states like Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania isn't a crime- it neither violates any provision of the electoral count in the Constitution, nor any provision of the 1887 Electoral Count Act. And when I write this, it doesn't mean I think Pence had absolute power to enforce such a disqualification and choose Trump the victor- Congress could still override his decision and approve the Biden electors, which is certainly what would have happened if Pence had acted. All Pence would have been doing was violating customary procedure, not an actual law. Any representative or Senator in the joint session had the right to object to any electoral slate and force an immediate vote yea or nay on each electoral slate by that old customary procedure (it happened in both 2000 and 2004 from the Democrat side). I even wrote an e-mail to my own representative to file such objections on the date in question. Am I guilty of a crime?
Any state legislature could have sent a competing electoral slate had they chosen to act and, again, it would have been up to the joint session of Congress to choose which slate to accept, according to the old customary procedure.
This entire prosecution is built on the violation of laws that simply don't exist.
History tells us that a lot of people have gone from a prison cell to lead a nation. A lot.
And we have this indictment based on a wrong-headed theory by a lawyer really that different just because he is paid by the government and doing the bidding of the functionaries instead of serving a private client.
Chuck (channeling Schumer) appears here in all his TDS, "screw the law" glory. Thanks, Chuck.
Yancey Ward said...
...
Any state legislature could have sent a competing electoral slate had they chosen to act and, again, it would have been up to the joint session of Congress to choose which slate to accept, according to the old customary procedure.
This entire prosecution is built on the violation of laws that simply don't exist.
God dammit, these are some stupid comments.
If, after Trump lost Michigan by 150,000 votes, and the Michigan State Board of Canvassers duly certified the state's 16 electoral votes to Biden, and the Biden electors met in the one way that is prescribed by Michigan law and cast their 16 votes in favor of Biden, and yet the state legislature in Michigan nevertheless threw the election to Trump, they would violate about a book full of MICHIGAN law.
And if, after Michigan had duly certified the the election for Biden and delivered its slate of 15 electors to Congress and the National Archives, but MIKE PENCE either rejected the Michigan-Biden electors or took it upon himself to award them to Trump, Pence would be violating a book full of federal law.
The so-called alternative Trump electors in Michigan met outside of the state capitol, although their attestation falsely claims that they met in the capitol. Their "form" electoral vote was not in any way validated by the state, either with the state seal or in any other way. It was a piece of paper typed up for them by Trump campaign lawyers. And now at least one (scared shitless, no doubt) Michigan Trump elector claims she never even knowingly signed an electoral ballot. She claims it was a blank "sign in sheet" about which they were misled. And also told not to discuss with anyone else.
A Coup in Search of a Legal Theory. (From the Final Report of the House Select Committee on January 6.)
Chuck @ 7:21: "...Eastman, the advice-giver, will be a disgraced ex-lawyer."
And your point is? At the relevant time (when he gave Trump advice) he was a licensed attorney. To say that he was later disbarred is to say nothing. As his client, Trump was entitled to rely on his counsel.
hombre
He shows up like stink on sh*t.
Guiliani one of the geezers around who seems to be suffering from dementia. Eastman not much better. Eastman had "interesting ideas" that you might hear at the most obscure panels at the APSA (American Political Science Association). The Sunday of a weekend conference. Many people have gone home. It's probably difficult to find the panel at the end of a long corridor, a small meeting room. "Issues with slates of electors in the Electoral College--and how to resolve them." The nerds point out that states have too much control over federal elections, especially the election of the Pres. There is a certain uniformity of rules by convention, but a state need not be winner take all, it can have restrictive or unrestrive rules for qualifying to vote (as long as overt racism isn't at work), it cannot really be prevented from counting ballots fairly or not, and so on. Why? Why not a truly national election?
The Constitutions seems to say states may not speak clearly, in which case the House votes not by individual member but by state delegation. Before and after the Nov. 2020 election, Republicans had a majority of state delegations in the House. This would have made Trump's mouth water.
To brief the Pres on somewhat fantastic or fantasy stuff was hardly responsible, especially if the advice appeared on its face to suggest breaking the law, or the idea that the Pres who has run for re-election can single-handedly decide whether he wins re-election or not. Trump had a lot of bad advisors. I don't know why he was a weak leader in this respect--churning people of all kinds, good and bad, often very poorly served.
"He has never told the truth in his 7 decades of being a sentient being,"
Hyperbole. How does it work?
Really. How can anybody write that shit and expect to be taken seriously? About anything?
I agree with Mickey's devout wish, and I'll add that whoever ends up on the losing side will attribute their loss to outrageous politics.
Which is to say: the ones opposed to teh prosecutions will tell teh truth, and the sick fucks supporting it will lie.
Because every single person with a Brian knows that these charges are all nothing but complete and utter bullshit
Kai Akker said...
The Democrats act like crazed animals -- they are madly abusing every possible device within their power and are utterly unable to imagine any consequences to what they are doing other than the immediate gratification they crave.
That's been true for decades. See "Borking", where they realized that the frauds they were pushing through the Court system might be undone
Everything since 1987 has been a story of Democrats dn the Left destroying one part of society after another in their deranged quest for power, with never a thought for long term consequences.
SeeNuking the filibuster in 2014, and how outraged they were when that came back to bite them in 2017.
At a fundamental level, you have to either be a moron (believing that none of what you do with ever come back at you when the other side needs it) or psychotic (thinking you can make your power and control permanent, so no precedents can ever haunt you) to be on the Left
Owen said...
Chuck @ 7:21: "...Eastman, the advice-giver, will be a disgraced ex-lawyer."
And your point is? At the relevant time (when he gave Trump advice) he was a licensed attorney. To say that he was later disbarred is to say nothing. As his client, Trump was entitled to rely on his counsel.
What I said first of all was that the fact of Eastman's disbarment would "not be dispositive." I think it will be "helpful." Helpful, to the public understanding of how completely crazy and illegal the advice was. The public will never have read the Electoral Count Act of 1887. They need simpler notions. Eastman's disbarment, as I say one more time, helps with the general narrative.
As for how the "advice of counsel" defense actually plays out in court, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy that show. I'm extremely confident that I am going to like it, and that you won't.
This tutorial was published at WaPo's website right after your comment was posted by Althouse.
Plus, I just like seeing John Eastman getting figuratively/professionally kicked in the balls.
Me, I don't care if the vote to throw it out is strictly on partisan grounds if it goes to SCOTUS. In fact, I rather hope so. Pound it into the progressives that their day is over. Maybe they'll start learning it. Besides, they never cared about us when they held sway.
Me, I don't care if the vote to throw it out is strictly on partisan grounds if it goes to SCOTUS. In fact, I rather hope so. Pound it into the progressives that their day is over. Maybe they'll start learning it. Besides, they never cared about us when they held sway.
Because every single person with a Brian knows that these charges are all nothing but complete and utter bullshit
My wife's name is Brian.
"The nerds point out that states have too much control over 1. federal elections, especially the election of the Pres. There is a certain uniformity of rules by convention, but a state need not be winner take all, it can have restrictive or unrestrive rules for qualifying to vote (as long as overt racism isn't at work), it cannot really be prevented from counting ballots fairly or not, and so on. Why ? 2. Why not a truly national election?
I dont want to come across as snarky. I don't carefully read your comments, but this is devoid of basic civics knowledge.
1. There is no such thing as a federal election. There are state elections for federal offices.
2. Because we are the UNITED States. Not the Nation of America,
The Constitution worked very hard to create a federal govt with limited, enumerated power....The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Post a Comment