As you’ve no doubt heard, Trump was indicted Tuesday for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election and remain in power. This is the Big One.
The indictment is here.
(A word about the title: I asked my readers once what I should call my detailed notes about legal documents and my favorite suggestion was “Over the Cliff Notes.”
Here, I lay out the facts and allegations. In the next installment, I will answer questions.
The statutes under which Trump was charged are just what we expected. I wrote a bit about them, including how conspiracy prosecutions work here.
- 18 USC 371 Conspiracy to defraud the United States (this is the fake elector scheme).
- 18 USC 1512(k): Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding (this is the attempt to interfere with the January 6 counting of votes).
- 18 USC 1512(c)(2): Obstruction of an Official Proceeding (and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding. This is the one that isn’t a conspiracy. Trump is accused of doing this and aiding and abetting others who did this.)
- 18 USC 241 (Conspiracy against Rights).
The accusation under 241 here is:
Trump did “knowingly conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States, that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.”
The Facts as Alleged In the Indictment
Summary:
- The Defendant (Trump) lost the 2020 presidential election.
- Nonetheless, he “was determined to remain in power.”
- To do so, he entered into three separate conspiracies and obstructed the Congressional proceeding.
The indictment acknowledges that Trump had a free speech right to say what he wanted. Also, lying isn’t a crime. He is not being indicted for his speech. He is being indicted for conduct.
(Note: It is not a defense to these charges for him to say that he genuinely believed the election was stolen. A genuine belief that the election was stolen does not entitle him to break laws and use illegal means for setting it right. To put the matter in legal terms, the mens rea is that the defendant knowingly agreed to join the conspiracy whose object was to obstruct the lawful function of government.)
Six co-conspirators were listed in the indictment. They were not named, but the first 5 were easy to figure out:
Co-Conspirator 1= Rudy Giuliani
Co-Conspirator 2: John Eastman
Co-Conspirator 3: Sidney Powell
(She was described as an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud Trump privately acknowledged to others sounded “crazy.” Of course “sounded crazy” could have referred to dozens of people in Trump’s circle 😂 The reason for including the detail is that Trump knew the ideas were crazy and promoted them anyway.)
Co-Conspirator 4: Jeff Clark (A lawyer and DOJ official)
Co-Conspirator 5: Kenneth Chesebro (also a lawyer)
Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant who helped with the fraudulent elector scheme. Appears to be Boris Epshteyn.
(It is likely these co-conspirators will be indicted later. My guess: The DOJ wanted to keep this indictment streamlined, and one charge wasn’t a conspiracy. Also, this indictment puts incredible pressure on the six co-conspirators.)
(Also notice that at least 5 of the 6 are lawyers and one is also a DOJ official. IF #6 is Epshteyn, that means all 6 were lawyers. 🤦♀️I guess there is a reason for all those lawyer jokes.)
The indictment next marches through the legal procedures for collecting, counting, and certifying votes under the Electoral Count Act and the Constitution. (The point is to show that Trump and his co-conspirators used illegal means to subvert the election.)
The indictment then explains the “fake elector” scheme for subverting the Electoral Count procedures. One plan was to get state legislators and officials to subvert the legitimate results and change electoral votes from Biden to Trump.
Trump and his co-conspirators drafted two memos that the DOJ is calling the “Fraudulent Elector Memo” and the “Fraudulent Elector Instructions.” These memos show how the idea of using fake electors developed. Lots of Trump campaign staffers made sure their names were not associated with the fake elector scheme.
How did the DOJ get these memos? Well, Trump’s chief of staff (Mark Meadows) forwarded the memo and wrote, “We just need to have someone coordinating the electors for states.” (Seems clear that Meadows handed this stuff over to the DOJ.)
The co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in 7 states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) by mimicking the legitimate procedures followed by the real electors.
Some fraudulent electors were tricked by Guiliani into participating. Giuliani lied and told them that their electoral votes would be used only if Trump succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state. (The inclusion that Giuliani tricked many of them is an interesting detail.)
The conspiracy included using the power of the DOJ to send letters to targeted states making false claims about election fraud.
Trump tried hard to get Pence to go along and use his ceremonial role during the January 6 proceedings to illegally throw the election to Trump.
When Pence refused, Trump gathered “supporters” and told them Pence had the authority to name Trump president and directed them to the Capitol to “obstruct” the January 6 proceedings to “exert pressure” on Pence.
As violence ensued, Trump and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by trying to persuade Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.
Lies, Lies, Lies
Trump was repeatedly notified that the lies he was spreading about election fraud were, in fact, lies. Among those who told Trump that none of the election fraud stuff was true were people he appointed and relied upon for candid advice including:
- Pence
- Senior leaders of the DOJ who Trump himself had appointed
- The Director of National Intelligence
- The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”)
- After the CISA director, who Trump appointed, announced publically that there had been no fraud, Trump fired him.
- Senior White House attorneys—selected by Trump
- Senior staffers on Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign
- State legislators and officials—many of whom were Trump’s political allies
- State and federal courts—the neutral arbiters responsible for ensuring the fair and even-handed administration of election laws—rejected every outcome-determinative post-election lawsuit filed by Trump, his co-conspirators, and allies, providing Trump real-time notice that his allegations were meritless.
[The indictment offers specific examples of Trump making false claims and being told by these people that he was wrong.]
Next, we get a long list of the times Trump and co-conspirators called state officials and told them lies in order to get them to back Trump’s election fraud lies.
The indictment then marches through each lie (dozens for each state) that Trump told along with bits of dialogue that showed that Trump knew he was lying. An example:
In the call to Raffensperger (Georgia Secretary of State) on January 2, Raffensperger offered to send Trump a link to an actual video to show that the video he is using has been cut and spliced together. Trump said he didn’t need it because “I have a much better link.”
The facts emphasize that Trump attacked Republicans who didn’t go along with him. Example:
December 4, after four Republican leaders of the Pennsylvania legislature issued a public statement that the General Assembly lacked the authority to overturn the popular vote and appoint its own slate of electors and that doing so would violate the state Election Code and Constitution, Trump re-tweeted a post labeling the legislators cowards.
We get descriptions of phone calls like this:
On December 6, Trump and Eastman called the Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee to ensure that the plan was in motion. During the call, Eastman told the Chairwoman that it was important for the RNC to help Trump’s Campaign gather electors in targeted states, and falsely represented to her that such electors’ votes would be used only if ongoing litigation in one of the states changed the results in Trump’s favor. After the RNC Chairwoman consulted the Campaign and heard that work on gathering electors was underway, she called and reported this information to Trump, who responded approvingly.
(So, um, is RNC chairwoman testifying about this? How else does the DOJ know?)
On December 8, Chesebro called the Arizona attorney to urge him to get behind the plan.
(How did the DOJ learn about this? The helpful Arizona attorney commemorated the entire phone call in an email.) In his email, he included this summary of the plan: “The idea was to create confusion and let the members of Congress fight about it.” He didn’t think the plan was illegal. He thought it was creative.
(Note: Trump eventually vetoed this idea and wanted Pence to outright reject the electors instead of having the Congress people fight about it, which is sort of odd because I thought the reason to get them fighting was to delay the proceedings until Jan. 7.)
Then we have Giuliani filing a petition in SCOTUS solely to “provide cover” for convening the fake electors in Arizona.
Attempts to Weaponize the DOJ into Helping Trump Steal the Election
Clark had multiple meetings with Trump at the White House, which was against DOJ rules. He continued even after his superiors at the DOJ kept ordering him to stop.
He also kept trying to get his superiors at the DOJ to sign letters alleging fraud even though there wasn’t any fraud. The DOJ higher-ups continually refused. Clark threatened them, saying if they won’t go along, Trump will fire them and appoint Clark as AG.
The next morning, on December 27 Clark spoke with Trump on Trump’s cell phone for nearly three minutes.
(This evidence obviously came from phone records.)
Interesting moment
On January 1, Trump called Pence and berated him because Trump had learned that he opposed a lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that, at the certification, he had the authority to reject or return votes to the states under the Constitution.
Pence refused saying that there was no constitutional basis for such authority and that it was improper for him to try.
In response, Trump told the Vice President, “You’re too honest.”
On January 6: Trump told Pence that, because Pence won’t go along, Trump will have to “criticize” him in public.
(The tone struck me as: Sorry I have to do this to you buddy. I have to single you out and make you a target. His attitude was: Business as usual.)
Interesting detail
“On December 29, as reflected in the Vice President’s contemporaneous notes, the Defendant falsely told the Vice President that the “Justice Dept [was] finding major infractions.”
(So, Pence was taking “contemporaneous notes” ??? This is called CYA)
The indictment mentions that many of the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6 were tricked by Trump’s lies.
The fact that so many of these defendants actually said this under oath will help the prosecutor’s case.
The indictment stops short of accusing Trump of “inciting” the violence at the Capitol on January 6. Instead, the indictment alleges that he “exploited” the violence at the Capitol.
A Hint of Violence #1:
The Deputy White House Counsel said if Trump remained in the White House [after January 20] there would be “riots in every major city in the United States.” Clark responded by saying, “That’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”
In other words, Clark’s idea is that Trump just refuses to leave the White House then invokes the Insurrection Act and uses the military to put a stop to the riots.
That is chilling.
A Hint of Violence #2:
January 4, when Eastman acknowledged to Trump’s Senior Advisor that no court would support his proposal, the Senior Advisor told Eastman, “[Y]ou’re going to cause riots in the streets.” Eastman said there had “previously been points in the nation’s history where violence was necessary to protect the republic.”
Thus the plan seemed to be:
- Trump finds pretexts to stay in the White House.
- When the date passes on which he is supposed to leave, there will be “riots” in the street.
- Trump then uses the military to put down the protests.
I am not saying this would have worked. I’m saying this was the plan.
Here is an example of how Trump writes the script and expects everyone to play their parts:
January 5: Trump met alone with Pence. Pence refused to go along. Trump, frustrated, said he’d have to “publicly criticize him.”
January 5 (night): Trump had his campaign release a statement that “The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.”
My conclusion: This is a very strong, careful indictment alleging facts that can be proven while bypassing the waters that can be muddied.
So as you can see, Marco Rubio and others are straight-up lying when they say Trump is being indicted for saying the election was stolen and challenging the election results.
At this point, it seems like Trump’s defense, put forward by his lawyers, will be “He believed everything he said was true.” Setting aside the fact that there is clear evidence that he knew he was lying, this would not be a defense to the charges, so it will not help him legally. But, as he has been doing from the beginning, he is putting his political needs ahead of his needs as a criminal defendant.
I would guess his reasoning is that he will lose the case and be convicted, so he may as well hold on to his grip on the Republican Party.
So I guess we have more Trump indictments coming?
Are any of these charges the ones the come with barring someone from holding office? I heard some chatterati talking about that at some point, but I didn’t understand the legal details.
Great rundown, thank you for this.
Is there a word missing in “All that had to know, for example, was that the electors were not legitimate electors.” Seems that it should be: “All that Trump had to know, for example,….”
The one question I still have with all of this is whether any of these charges will rise to the level of seditious conspiracy, and if he’s convicted, will that disqualify him from further government service per the 14th Amendment?
I know that even if that happens and Trump is no longer a viable candidate it won’t solve the political problem we face. There are others in today’s GOP who want authoritarianism over democracy. Still, it will give some pause. It goes back to Ford pardoning Nixon. Per historians like Heather Cox Richardson, had Nixon stood trial and been convicted, we may not be where are today and may never have had Trump at all.
People keep asking me how to find out the vote count from the grand jury and I don’t have an answer. This is way outside my bailiwick but I can see it’s easy to find Rule 6(f) mentioned yet none of the coverage is including the vote count. I don’t see it in Rule 6 directly but wondering if it’s implied in 6(e)(2) as being part of the proceeding that can’t be disclosed?
I vaguely remember the Joint Chiefs making a public statement that they would not interfere with the election. Were they anticipating this coup?
Could the fact that a fair number of the people Trump targeted with his lies ended up receiving numerous death threats become an actionable thing? The cause and effect seem clear to me, but I don’t know if there’s legally a way to hold him accountable for that.
In a similar vein, is it possible they could end up including instigating the Jan 6 violence in the charges? It seems so likely to cause the violence it did that it should in theory bypass free speech protections. But maybe they’re only sticking to the easier-to-prove stuff?
* Is there (or shouldn’t there be?) some law regulating one person paying for another’s legal representation if the lawyer is clearly working to protect the payer? Is it just too hard to define the terms? Or would judges not want to get involved i that question? Seems like the prosecutors would be interested in ensuring the client is represented fairly.
* Isn’t it a useful defense for Trump to say, “yes, I had advice from many advisors that X, Y and Z were false claims, but I had others who said they were true. Yes, I thought some of Powell’s claims were crazy, but others were true.” If the prosecutors *must* prove he knew these were lies, and it’s too hazy to prove, which charges get weakened?
Thanks!
A minor point but — why are the co-conspirators not named?
Thankyou Teri. My biggest concern with all of this is the propaganda that is allowed to spread via our *news media*. Much of this IMO is what caused the large crowds on Jan 6. Are there any laws on the books to hold media accountable. Yes they can be sued and they can lose. But, How can we stop the lies prior to catastrophe without damaging what is important regarding having free speech in a democracy?
Am I correct in saying convicted felons are barred from voting? Yet they are allowed to run for the Presidency? If this is true, who has the power to change this?
I remember watching this videos of these weasels trying to subvert the Michigan election: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_NgLQxMV9c
How will facts from the co-conspirators be used in Trial? Specifically interviews done with the grand jury, or proffer deals?
Knowing that your pup is vigilantly on guard is a comfort to me. Ever alert!
1. How will the indictment impact future legal procedures and the political climate, considering the high-profile nature of the people involved?
2. What is the likelihood of convictions given the detailed information in the indictment and the potential evidence provided by co-conspirators?
3. How will the defense’s argument that “He believed everything he said was true” stand against the documented instances of Trump being informed that his claims were false?
4. What are the implications of the DOJ’s choice to describe Trump’s role on January 6 as “exploiting” rather than “inciting” the violence?
Thank you for this and all of your posts explaining the legal and truth side of things.
My question is whether Ginni Thomas may be culpable for anything. Through texts with Mark Meadows, we know she encouraged him to help the plan succeed. But was any of that illegal?
They are not named because DOJ policy is to not name people who are not charged with any crime (yet)
If the trial were televised – open and transparent – that would help defuse the media circus that’s going to be staged around it. I don’t know who decides the presence of cameras – SC Justice Roberts or who? but it’s such an obvious step toward quelling future January 6ths, it’s mind-blowing that the courts are out to lunch on this.
Most states have laws that bar felons from voting. Some, but not all, allow those who have served their time, to be able to vote.
Because the requirements for prez are spelled out in the constitution, I’m guessing a constitutional amendment would be necessary to bar felons from running as president.
Thank you!
Do you think there will be any additional charges? Maybe I don’t understand the seriousness of the current charges, but I was really hoping for something with a bigger punch.
This is obviously worse, but the attitudes of the GOPers are so clearly a continuation of what we saw and heard in Florida in 2000…and in DC in 1972. How can we as a country get back to a place before ratf*cking — where the two parties disagree on policy but agree on the same set of facts and agree to play by the same set of rules?
Whether convicted felons are barred from voting and under what conditions is a state law issue, that varies by state. I believe the Supreme Court has slapped down past attempts to add additional requirements for elected federal office beyond what’s in the Constitution, so it would probably require a constitutional amendment to add a no-felons requirement to President and VP. That would require agreement of 2/3rds of each house of Congress plus ratification from 3/4 of the state legislatures. Probably not happening as long as Trump continues his current hold over the Republican party, unless Republicans get absolutely decimated at the polls in a future election.
So, it seems Trump will surely be convicted of the crimes the indictment alleges but what about appeals? In the unlikely nightmarish scenario that he wins the 2024 election, would he have the power as President to stop the appeals, declare himself innocent, expunge the initial conviction, pardon himself preemptively as part of aborting the appeals process? Is there such a thing as investigating a President for abuse pardon power? In a clip posted today of a FOX/Hannity interview with Alan Dershowitz, Dershowitz conceded that Trump may be convicted in federal court but his expected appeal to the Supreme Court would likely result in overturning it. Your thoughts?
Sadly, I think the only way to change it would be a constitutional amendment, which will likely never pass in this country now.
I THINK (not sure) the presiding judge makes the call as to whether it will be televised. If that judge says yes to televising it, it will be interesting to see how Trump reacts. There’s nothing he loves more than being on camera, but NOT if he has to just sit there quietly and say nothing!
The citizens of the United Stares have the power to reject him as a candidate.
Teri
Very nIce summary, thanks for sharing.
Will a successful charge on the reconstruction statutes limit him from holding office?
His dangerousness takes my breath away. “Chilling” was the perfect word.
It is longstanding DOJ policy: If someone is charged in the indictment they can be named. If they are not charged, they can’t be named. Some people say they will get their own personal indictments, together or separately if they prefer.
Conviction on any or all charges in this indictment make prison time likely, but none of that prevents the man from running for president from prison.
I don’t see anywhere in the wording of the Constitution where it says someone has to be convicted in an insurrection, just that they participated? Isn’t that enough to stop Trump from even being on the ballot? Also US 18 Code, sec 2071 speaks of misuse of documents but yet no-one speaks of this?
Thanks for letting us ask questions
Thanks for the summary! Just guessing that these people don’t believe Kamala Harris has the authority to choose the winner of the electoral college, or refuse to accept state results…
Thank you Teri for another yeoperson’s hard work of distilling it down to a manageable and understandable analysis.
Do you think that the RNC Chairwoman is in legal jeopardy? She seems to have been involved in the fake electors scheme.
I was going to resist answering questions until I do the next phase, but it’s in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Just as matter of curiosity: apart from the practicalities and current relevance, could the Brooks Brothers rioters have been prosecuted under 18 USC 241 (Conspiracy against Rights)?
I second the question.
Two questions: 1. A commentator noted that the fake elector scheme was detailed for every state except Nevada. Why do you think that is?
2. If any of the six co-conspirators decided to cooperate now, is their only hope a lesser sentence? Would they be given immunity if they decided to testify at this late juncture? Thanks for all your help!
I’m truly curious as to what you imagine is worse than this? Have you read the indictment? I’m asking sincerely.
Ok, I actually have a third question. Do you think any members of Congress will be indicted? As there were many who voted against certifying the correct slate of electors, and thereby engaged in the fraud?
Smith can get to trial faster, and the trial is smoother, without an army of defense lawyers. They’ll be charged later. We need this trial DONE before the election because DJT will self-pardon if he wins or cheats his way back to the presidency.
How does one show/prove what someone knows? If Trump claims he thought Constitutional expert John Eastman was correct about the validity of alternative electors, and one juror believes him, will Trump be found not guilty on these charges?
great stuff, as always!
big thanks teri.
Do you see any GOP Congress members being charged? I find it hard to believe that none were in on it, when many were objecting to states that they didn’t represent.
Can you elaborate on why you are certain that DOJ does not have to prove that Trump knew he had lost the election? Your opinion is the same as Jennifer Rubin’s (and probably many others’), but then there is former federal prosecutor Ken White saying the opposite. He says that in order to prove “corrupt intent,” or “fraudulent intent,” DOJ must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew he had lost (based on various forms of direct and indirect evidence). Even if DOJ can prove this, the standard would seem to allow Trump to put on witnesses and other evidence in support of his “sincere belief,” which could make for a long, circus of a trial. Indeed, White says there is no way the trial can be completed before the election. I hope your opinion is the correct one.
I’m confused that no one saw the obvious flaw in this plan and that is that on January 20th at Noon the term of the current President ends and the new term begins. It doesn’t matter who is sitting in the White House. That does not determine who the President is. If Trump was planning on gumming up the works so Biden could not be inaugurated on Jan 20 wouldn’t the Presidency just go to the next person in line at that moment, Nancy Pelosi, and not remain with Trump? There might still be riots in the streets and the President might have to call on the military to restore order, but the military would not be taking orders from Trump, they’d be taking orders from Pelosi, who would have become Commander-in-Chief. So either I’m missing something or these “masterminds” were oblivious to how presidential terms work.
Also- when found guilty, does he appeal from prison? This would be ideal!
The NYT is reporting that the fraud allegations necessaril require proof of Trump’s state of mind, i.e., that he knew he had lost but pursued his various crominal acts anyway, justifying them with lies. But in your post you said this isn’t true: that just because he (may have) believed he’d lost doesn’t condone his illegal acts. I’m trying to determine how both of these things can both be true. Can you help?
Teri, thanks for providing analysis and document. I live in Arizona and I am sad to say that we have a fair amount of MAGA republicans in the state government now and the republican party in general hold the majority. I was redistricted into a majority republican district and had no one to vote for, as a democrat, in the last election. So, what I am saying is I doubt we have another Rusty Bowers to refute false claims in the next election. Our only savior right now is our narrowly elected dem governor, who has had to veto weird republican bills, like there was no tomorrow. So, of course, she will be voted out of office next time.
Could Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant possibly be Ronna McDaniel?
Thank you Teri (and a shout-out to your tech support staff AND your ever-vigilant security detail for making your work so accessible). As details and implications of the new indictment get chewed to death I am grateful to you for keeping things grounded. I am frankly astounded at the posturing ex-prosecutors and teevee pundits second-guessing Garland; I understand they see a viable career path there in terms of public visibility but I regard it as a disservice to the country. I have to admit I enjoy your somewhat exasperated rejoinders to all their misinformation, because you speak for me as well.
I was wondering the same thing after reading the indictment.
My suspicions are on Roger Stone.
I was wondering the same as Jean. (I live in Missouri and Josh Hawley is one of my senators. If anyone should be prosecuted, for more than just voting against certification.) Or are “we” the people to decide his fate when we vote…and he walks away to a cushy job in some far right think tank?
Nobody said they were *smart*, Joe.
Jeffrey Clark’s mention of the insurrection act is especially suspect, when one recalls the open letter Stewart Rhodes published on his Oath Keepers web site on December 14, 2020. That open letter specifically called upon President Trump to invoke the insurrection act in order to remain in power. You can read it in its entirety on Archive dot org here:
https://tinyurl.com/yeyr64jw
Reminder that Rhodes was convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in the January 6 insurrection. As reported by the Huffington Post, Rhodes also tried to make a phone call to Trump around 5pm on Jan. 6, 2021.
If the Defendant gets off, or runs for President and is elected, we are all in deep deep shit.
David. From my point of view, they aren’t prosecuting his mind-set or his beliefs but his actions. What he did is unlawful, what he thinks is irrelevant.
R
“The citizens of the United Stares have the power to reject him as a candidate.” True only if they are allowed to vote and if their votes are counted. Surely it’s obvious by now the preventing both of these things from happening in a key element of right wing strategy. Take a look at how much good the legal right to vote did black Americans in the south before the Civil Rights Acts of 1965.
SS, DD.
Over-The-Cliff Notes is a perfect name!
I’m sorry if I missed your answer to this question, but can any of the charges levied against DJT be dropped at this point? I expect his lawyers and Republican Party to push for at least some of the charges to be dropped as a good will appeasement or some such nonsense. Thank you!
Roger Stone planned and instigated the “Brooks Brothers riot” in Florida in 2000, stopping the vote counting and throwing the decision to the Supreme Court. Roger Stone was the go-between for Trump and the now-convicted insurrectionist Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, in an attempt to stop counting of the Electoral Votes and throwing the decision to the House or SCOTUS. It wasn’t just a “continuation”- it was the exact same plan by the exact same treasonous person. I hope that traitor Roger Stone gets indicted, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for life or shot.
I have that same exact question. Thank you for posing it David!
Thank you for making this understandable for non-lawyers like me! I so appreciate your commentary!
My question is perhaps a bit more speculative, but I’m curious to know if you have an opinion about why the indictment did not include a charge related to the violence itself, whether seditious conspiracy or something else along those lines. I read the transcript of Trump’s January 6 speech and it looked to my non-expert eyes like it met the Brandenburg test of being directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to do so.
“bypassing the waters that can be muddied”
That gave my severely clutched pearls a real break – until I watched Talking Feds “A deep dive into the 1/6 indictment” discuss the USC 241 count. There, beginning at 32 min Harry Litman and Renato Marriotti are pretty negative regarding how 241 was presented and its chances on an appeal. And, driving me to a severe re-clutch, Harry says that a loss of that one statute on appeal would nullify the entire trial.
My pearls…
Good question.
Good question.
I am troubled by the appearance of a double standard WRT Trump. He is free on his own recognizance, has had to post no bail, has his passport (I think), has apparently no restrictions on travel, and is able to tweet out things like his threat last night to come after anyone who crosses him. That sure seems like witness tampering to me! Granted, that tweet was immediately brought to the attention of the judge, but hey! Meanwhile, Jack Teixeira is being held without bond until trial for apparently far less, and has less capability to do damage were he free. Crystal Mason received 5 years for filling out a *provisional* ballot. I get it that he is digging his hole deeper, and there is sensitivity to the fact that he is running for president and we have to be careful to not appear political in his prosecution, but is there no limit to the accommodations??!! And I find the justification for the accommodations galling!
There will always be an “appearance” of a double standard when you compare things that are unlike. Texas has different laws than the federal government. This is a perennial issue with federalism, which is built into the Constitution.
Pretrial detention is always problematic because it deprives a person of liberty without due process, in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment. There are rules and procedures for when a person is detained.
If I recall Tiexiera is a flight risk. Trump is not.
In law we talk about ‘bright line’ rules, which are easy to apply: Everyone gets held on pretrial detention! Bright line rules are easy to apply but result in absurdities and constitutional violations.
Instead, each case is treated differently, which has more chances of resulting in fairness, but it will have the appearance of inequity. When we started out in the 18th century, there were only bright-line rules. Justice was harsh.
Trust me. This is better.
What you need to do is search my blog for “rage inducting simplifications” to see what I have to say about comments like “THERE ARE TWO TIERS OF JUSTICE” which right now is being shouted on both sides of the political spectrum.
Ms. Hobbs will keep her office if we Az Dems work hard and donate hard. So many are registered but remain “business as usual” clueless. We can and must awaken them to the fact that this isn’t the GOP they knew.
I knocked hundreds of doors and made hundreds of calls last fall. Sometimes I reached a Trumpie by mistake; but those weren’t the worst. Most depressing were Dems who said “Oh, thank you, but we don’t vote”.
Do more in ’24.
Brilliant response. Thank you Teri for educating us.
Trust Jack Smith.
Don’t trust the media. Media is there to create stress in you and glue you to the stream. Jack Smit is there to chew bubblegum and indict. And he’s out of bubblegum.
Sorry, I’ve been super busy and forgot to check back.
I have. Yes, there is lots of jail time involved. I think my disappointment is that I wanted him charged under something with words along the line of treason or sedition. I realize treason is beyond what can be proved, but sedition would be nice. I know prosecutors play it safe and it would be worse to bring charges don’t stick. The thought of how awful he and his supporters would be after that is nauseating. The espionage charges are big, but in some ways it feels too technical. He tried to overthrow the government and he’s being charged with intentionally keeping papers (very important ones) he shouldn’t. Just feels a step or two down from what he really did.
I don’t know if this is the case for Nevada, but in *some* of the states the “fake” elector certificates weren’t actually fake because they had language on them stating essentially “these are contingent and only to be used in the event that the other certificates get thrown out by Congress”. In other words, the document wasn’t purporting to be the actual EV certificates.
But the fake certs in other states didn’t have that language and were holding themselves out (fraudulently) as the real certs.