Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Gatorubet 30227]

21 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The mouth breathers will admit that they haven’t read the indictment but that their sources tell them that it is an indictment against free speech. And if you tell them otherwise, they will not accept your facts.

It’s just a bunch of fancy lawyer talk for taking away muh rights, and infringing on Trump’s free speech. Why would I need to read it?

[RomaVicta 29907]

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Look, my only point is, somewhat to my surprise, I think the 1/6 Committee and its work was valuable.

They presented a coherent and compelling narrative of the conspiracy, who knew what and when they knew it, and the gravity of what happened. 

This issue of conspiracy to overthrow the government and commit treason (lawyers, please keep reading) is not limited to being a legal issue. This treason can be discussed as such by citizens not constrained by the boundaries of what carries enough proof for conviction in court.

If we were limited by the language of the indictment, this whole incident would be reduced the abstract description of the criminal code. Conspircy to obstruct a government proceeding really doesn't cut it for a key term in the public discourse about Trump and his conspirators' wicked and traitorous actions.

The committee told the story of all of this and supported the story with evidence enough to be genuinely credible. I learned so much. I picked up phrases and witness accounts that were entirely new to me. I'm conversant in most of the story because of the committee.

Half didn't watch? Of course not. More than half of them won't be swayed by anything not fed to them by the defendant himself. However, those of the unwatching half who will discuss the incident can be indirectly exposed to the committee's work and swayed by that and the certainty of whomever tries to persuade them.

Informed public discourse is likely as important to a democratic republic as the rule of law. The former drives action; the latter keeps actions between the rails.

9 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Love that the right media is arguing that trump didn’t know what he was doing was illegal, and even trumps lawyer is saying that trump was just following his lawyers’ advice.  They seemed to jump over the fact that they now agree trump broke the law.

Excellent observation.

9 hours ago, ohchaucer said:

The underlying point to all of, well, everything is that nothing matters if Trump is elected in 2024. There is no armchair quarterbacking, hindsight, or prediction about anything at all that even slightly mitigates the fact that Trump will be the GOP candidate and therefore has a chance to become president - no matter what else happens. All the energy spent wondering “what if” should instead be spent laying foundations for an overwhelming voter turnout initiative for the good guys.

Beat him in 2024 is the only sure way to save our country.

I'd say to win a battle in the war to save our country. Remember, the problem is the electorate, a large plurality of which gives this malign bumbler his power.

It may be obvious or already have been illustrated, but the underlined suggests a great deal about the conspiracy. 

It's unlikely that that's an impromptu remark. It reflects conversations about a plot to invoke the Insurrection Act. This is where the focus and precision of an indictment proves to be of greater advantage than the overall story presented by the committee.

I think in this phrase we have the killing harpoon. The remark reflects discussions. That the speaker is a conspirator suggests this is the conversation had by the members of the conspiracy. A credible witness testifying that such discussions took place with Trump present would be a devastating stroke.

The harpoon would go deep and the prey would squeal and writhe to our delight.

Edited August 3, 2023 by RomaVicta

[hpslugga 4058]

41 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The mouth breathers will admit that they haven’t read the indictment but that their sources tell them that it is an indictment against free speech. And if you tell them otherwise, they will not accept your facts.

The exact verbiage of such an exchange reads as follows:

”I believe what I believe because that’s what I believe. I believe that, and I’m not gonna believe what you believe because it’s not what I believe.”

[dcbc 14476]

7 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I seriously don't understand why Pence is running at all. 

You can make a lot of money with a failed Presidential bid.

[locodos 5387]

Looks like I picked the wrong couple days to be away from the interwebs...

I did catch one of Trump's lawyers on CNN talking about the coming trial.  He on live TV said the trail should be moved from DC and one of his reasons given why Trump could get a fairer trail elsewhere was that DC was "very diverse".   Even the CNN talking heads looked a little stunned.

 

[BamaATL 16593]

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

You can make a lot of money with a failed Presidential bid.

One of the few industries with even a barely noteworthy candidacy where you can land a multi million dollar book deal and future speaking engagements.  

 

In so far as the 1/6 committee was concerned, in my opinion it was absolutely necessary as a matter of course.  The idea being to show the American people what happened and why.  The problem is, people like us by that point were well aware, and it only reaffirmed our thoughts.  To the other people, they didn't believe it, and they never were going to believe it.  Did it push any in the undecided category to the truth, maybe, but I don't think there are a ton of people like that.  

So I get that it was necessary, but it's certainly frustrating understanding the reality of where we are.  I would have almost rather with skipped the precedent based nature of this and gone straight to charges.  At the same time, I understand we can't look at this entirely in our own horizon, a precedent has to be set for the future.  It's just frustrating.

[Red Five 40855]

54 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The mouth breathers will admit that they haven’t read the indictment but that their sources tell them that it is an indictment against free speech. .

It's like Smith was prepared for this. Towards the beginning, "Now, of course, the defendant had the right to question the results.... HOWEVER...."

[dcbc 14476]

2 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

 

It's indicative of how nuts this world has become when I admit that it's taken me until today to realize that that dude is full on parody.

[Js1 85316]

I find him about as funny as fake Randi Trew

[atomheartbevo 89656]

4 minutes ago, dcbc said:

It's indicative of how nuts this world has become when I admit that it's taken me until today to realize that that dude is full on parody.

Have you heard about a certain youth coaching legend whose waterbed is fully paid off, and who is driving a fully-loaded Ford Taurus?

[dcbc 14476]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Have you heard about a certain youth coaching legend whose waterbed is fully paid off, and who is driving a fully-loaded Ford Taurus?

I have now.  What a world!

Edited August 3, 2023 by dcbc

[Pancho 44763]

47 minutes ago, locodos said:

Looks like I picked the wrong couple days to be away from the interwebs...

I did catch one of Trump's lawyers on CNN talking about the coming trial.  He on live TV said the trail should be moved from DC and one of his reasons given why Trump could get a fairer trail elsewhere was that DC was "very diverse".   Even the CNN talking heads looked a little stunned.

 

No they want it moved to WV because WV is “more diverse.”

[Brisketexan 105104]

2 hours ago, ohchaucer said:

The underlying point to all of, well, everything is that nothing matters if Trump is elected in 2024. There is no armchair quarterbacking, hindsight, or prediction about anything at all that even slightly mitigates the fact that Trump will be the GOP candidate and therefore has a chance to become president - no matter what else happens. All the energy spent wondering “what if” should instead be spent laying foundations for an overwhelming voter turnout initiative for the good guys.

Beat him in 2024 is the only sure way to save our country.

Everyone read this.  Then read it again.  This is it.  The bolded is our "4th and 5, with the national championship on the line" moment.  It all comes down to that.

Trump is the 2024 GQP nominee.  That's happening, there's no room for debate, nothing will stop it.  He could be charged, tried, and convicted of the most horrific crimes imaginable, as he gleefully admits "fuck yeah I raped and murdered a baby!", and he still waltzes to the nomination.

Trump's entire defense strategy is this: win the White House.  All of his convictions would at most be up on appeal, so he won't be in a prison anywhere.  Pardon himself (or at the very least, argue that no criminal proceeding against him can advance while he is POTUS -- impeachment is the only remedy, and we know the GQP senators will never vote to convict).  Pardon everyone else implicated.  THEN, do exactly what he accuses the DOJ of doing: he'll absolutely weaponize it, and use it to go after every political enemy, real or imagined.

Trump's defense plan is to win the White House.

The Republic's plan for survival is to never let him back into the White House.

4th and 5 coming up.....it's up to all of us to play the role of VY.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Brisketexan

[Brisketexan 105104]

1 hour ago, locodos said:

Looks like I picked the wrong couple days to be away from the interwebs...

I did catch one of Trump's lawyers on CNN talking about the coming trial.  He on live TV said the trail should be moved from DC and one of his reasons given why Trump could get a fairer trail elsewhere was that DC was "very diverse".   Even the CNN talking heads looked a little stunned.

 

I mean....that's going to make the Batson challenges to Trump's strike of every juror who has skin darker than a container of white-out interesting.

[The Dog 44023]

41 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Have you heard about a certain youth coaching legend whose waterbed is fully paid off, and who is driving a fully-loaded Ford Taurus?

 

[conVINCEd 21469]

17 minutes ago, Pancho said:

No they want it moved to WV because WV is “more diverse.”

I lived in a little duplex circa 2000 that was in Williamson County by about 100 feet.  Didn’t even realize it wasn’t in Travis until after we moved in.  At one point the thought crossed my mind that 100 feet would be the difference between me going to prison and me getting a warning if the cops found some weed in the house.  If you going to do some criminal shit, be aware of where you’re doing it.  I currently live in Dallas County, but I am an 8 iron from Collin County.  That 150 yards would probably double my sentence for any crime I decided to commit.  Don’t want to stand trial in DC, don’t commit crimes in DC.

[DigglerontheHoof 21194]

4 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

I lived in a little duplex circa 2000 that was in Williamson County by about 100 feet.  Didn’t even realize it wasn’t in Travis until after we moved in.  At one point the thought crossed my mind that 100 feet would be the difference between me going to prison and me getting a warning if the cops found some weed in the house.  If you going to do some criminal shit, be aware of where you’re doing it.  I currently live in Dallas County, but I am an 8 iron from Collin County.  That 150 yards would probably double my sentence for any crime I decided to commit.  Don’t want to stand trial in DC, don’t commit crimes in DC.

As a Collin Co. partaker, this hits close to home. 

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Everyone read this.  Then read it again.  This is it.  The bolded is our "4th and 5, with the national championship on the line" moment.  It all comes down to that.

Trump is the 2024 GQP nominee.  That's happening, there's no room for debate, nothing will stop it.  He could be charged, tried, and convicted of the most horrific crimes imaginable, as he gleefully admits "fuck yeah I raped and murdered a baby!", and he still waltzes to the nomination.

Trump's entire defense strategy is this: win the White House.  All of his convictions would at most be up on appeal, so he won't be in a prison anywhere.  Pardon himself (or at the very least, argue that no criminal proceeding against him can advance while he is POTUS -- impeachment is the only remedy, and we know the GQP senators will never vote to convict).  Pardon everyone else implicated.  THEN, do exactly what he accuses the DOJ of doing: he'll absolutely weaponize it, and use it to go after every political enemy, real or imagined.

Trump's defense plan is to win the White House.

The Republic's plan for survival is to never let him back into the White House.

4th and 5 coming up.....it's up to all of us to play the role of VY.

I would actually argue that it's 4th and 1 and we're not sure if Bush or White is going to get the ball. We have to stop them to have any chance to win, but stopping doesn't guarantee shit. We have to fucking execute after the stop. Even if Biden wins in 2024, "victory" is not assured without a lot of effort. It just stops the sure loss.

[Brisketexan 105104]

2 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

I would actually argue that it's 4th and 1 and we're not sure if Bush or White is going to get the ball. We have to stop them to have any chance to win, but stopping doesn't guarantee shit. We have to fucking execute after the stop. Even if Biden wins in 2024, "victory" is not assured without a lot of effort. It just stops the sure loss.

I would also accept that analogy.

[Biff Tannen 45678]

1 hour ago, Serak The Preparer said:

I would actually argue that it's 4th and 1 and we're not sure if Bush or White is going to get the ball. We have to stop them to have any chance to win, but stopping doesn't guarantee shit. We have to fucking execute after the stop. Even if Biden wins in 2024, "victory" is not assured without a lot of effort. It just stops the sure loss.

So we are Michael Huff?

[tx 3 putt 76926]

9 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I seriously don't understand why Pence is running at all. 

Easier to bang his bf on the campaign trail than sneaking around Indy with him 

[Biff Tannen 45678]

It's annoying we have to spend taxpayer money for security every time this asshole is arraigned.  Even if his cult doesn't show up and do anything, we have to behave as if they are going to.  Because they are dumb cult dipshits that threaten political violence.  Fucking traitors.

[C-Man 27219]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Look, my only point is, somewhat to my surprise, I think the 1/6 Committee and its work was valuable.

It would have been hard to have the 1/6 Committee and DOJ doing the same work simultaneously.

Feel free to disagree about the Committee.  But, it happened, and, for the most part DOJ had to stand down while it worked.

The other reality is this:  Even if the indictments came down a year ago, or a year and a half, I don't think it would change that much.  The cases would be on appeal right up until the election and any convictions would not be final.  And I don't think Trump would be in jail pending those appeals.

So, we'd be right about where we are now:  uncertain, and worried that Trump might still win the election.

Except that we'd be sitting on a conviction, which is important.

(That said, I, too, have no issue with the timeframe now. I was frustrated with Garland too but am over the moon that Jack Smith is on this now. the J6 committee was important, even though it was largely ignored by those who really needed to see it.)

Edited August 3, 2023 by C-Man

[Beau Vine 54215]

3 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Except that we'd be sitting on a conviction, which is important.

Thank you.  This "he'd be out on appeal anyways, so we'd be in the same place" rebuttal just blows my mind.

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

2 hours ago, dcbc said:

You can make a lot of money with a failed Presidential bid.

And employ your friends and family members. 

[Js1 85316]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

And employ your friends and family members. 

Yes I assume Karen Pence is handling education policy and how to pray away the gay 

[atomheartbevo 89656]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yes I assume Karen Pence is handling education policy and how to pray away the gay 

Is it working out for her?

[Js1 85316]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

Is it working out for her?

Obviously not, her husband is still around 

[HornOnTheBayou 8921]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Everyone read this.  Then read it again.  This is it.  The bolded is our "4th and 5, with the national championship on the line" moment.  It all comes down to that.

Trump is the 2024 GQP nominee.  That's happening, there's no room for debate, nothing will stop it.  He could be charged, tried, and convicted of the most horrific crimes imaginable, as he gleefully admits "fuck yeah I raped and murdered a baby!", and he still waltzes to the nomination.

Trump's entire defense strategy is this: win the White House.  All of his convictions would at most be up on appeal, so he won't be in a prison anywhere.  Pardon himself (or at the very least, argue that no criminal proceeding against him can advance while he is POTUS -- impeachment is the only remedy, and we know the GQP senators will never vote to convict).  Pardon everyone else implicated.  THEN, do exactly what he accuses the DOJ of doing: he'll absolutely weaponize it, and use it to go after every political enemy, real or imagined.

Trump's defense plan is to win the White House.

The Republic's plan for survival is to never let him back into the White House.

4th and 5 coming up.....it's up to all of us to play the role of VY.

 

1 hour ago, Serak The Preparer said:

I would actually argue that it's 4th and 1 and we're not sure if Bush or White is going to get the ball. We have to stop them to have any chance to win, but stopping doesn't guarantee shit. We have to fucking execute after the stop. Even if Biden wins in 2024, "victory" is not assured without a lot of effort. It just stops the sure loss.

To complete the analogy, the biggest problem is that most Americans are too focused on what will happen in the next episode of Emily's Reasons Why Not and they're not paying attention to what is important.

[TwiceHorn 31453]

1 hour ago, conVINCEd said:

I lived in a little duplex circa 2000 that was in Williamson County by about 100 feet.  Didn’t even realize it wasn’t in Travis until after we moved in.  At one point the thought crossed my mind that 100 feet would be the difference between me going to prison and me getting a warning if the cops found some weed in the house.  If you going to do some criminal shit, be aware of where you’re doing it.  I currently live in Dallas County, but I am an 8 iron from Collin County.  That 150 yards would probably double my sentence for any crime I decided to commit.  Don’t want to stand trial in DC, don’t commit crimes in DC.

And, there's a right to a jury trial of your peers, not your allies.  Pretrial publicity that you generate your own self does not call for a change of venue.

[hpslugga 4058]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Everyone read this.  Then read it again.  This is it.  The bolded is our "4th and 5, with the national championship on the line" moment.  It all comes down to that.

Trump is the 2024 GQP nominee.  That's happening, there's no room for debate, nothing will stop it.  He could be charged, tried, and convicted of the most horrific crimes imaginable, as he gleefully admits "fuck yeah I raped and murdered a baby!", and he still waltzes to the nomination.

Trump's entire defense strategy is this: win the White House.  All of his convictions would at most be up on appeal, so he won't be in a prison anywhere.  Pardon himself (or at the very least, argue that no criminal proceeding against him can advance while he is POTUS -- impeachment is the only remedy, and we know the GQP senators will never vote to convict).  Pardon everyone else implicated.  THEN, do exactly what he accuses the DOJ of doing: he'll absolutely weaponize it, and use it to go after every political enemy, real or imagined.

Trump's defense plan is to win the White House.

The Republic's plan for survival is to never let him back into the White House.

4th and 5 coming up.....it's up to all of us to play the role of VY.

Trump isn’t winning in 2024, so that’s not a viable defense plan.

I know it’s posh and trendy in these parts to consider people like Nate Silver to be some sort of EC wunderkinds and national polls in August the year before the election to be any sort of relevant, but the reality is that Trump didn’t even win in 2016. The D’s lost that one by nominating the one candidate that Trump conceivably could have beaten.

Trump started losing independent voters in the 2018 mid-terms and they’ve yet to go back. He’s the President-reject as of 2020, a status that was confirmed last year in the mid-terms. 

Add to that, within the very narrow framework of mainstream political discourse, Biden has a solid record to run on in the 6 battleground states. Contrast that to Trump, who himself is a victim of the same axiom he created shortly after taking the oath: republicans cannot win contested primaries without Trump’s endorsement, and they can’t win general elections with it. I once again have to pose this question because I’ve yet to see a sensible answer to it:

Of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, exactly which ones is Trump flipping back to himself next year? 

His criminal defense can go in multiple directions. He can plead straight not guilty and argue the elements, he can cut a plea, or he can try to delay these trials until after the election. Option 3 is the craziest one because it’s the most likely to fail; even more likely than option 1. His only sensible move in terms of criminal defense strategy is option 2. But he’s not going to do that. Why? Because it’s not about keeping him away from legal accountability. It’s about the grift, and option 2 represents the quickest ending to the grift.

Think about it:

Option 1: he gets to keep hee-hawing about how innocent he is and grifts people out of their money to contribute to his defense right til the very end of all trials.

Option 2: Trials are over and he loses respect from a chunk of his base; at least the smarter half who recognize that he’s admitting to criminal culpability, one of such cases establishing that he knew all along that he lost in 2020 and those poor suckers got duped.

Option 3: See option 1.

Thats why plea bargaining never enters the discussion. No grift, no consideration.

[Hagbard Celine 10854]

may have been posted already - i sure miss having the time to stay current in cloak

wapo rundown on the indictment

Spoiler

10 min

Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, has been criminally indicted a third time — twice on charges leveled by special counsel Jack Smith.

Smith previously charged Trump with failing to return classified documents he took when he left the White House and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them. On Tuesday, a federal grand jury indicted Trump for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election — attempts that culminated in an attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Get the full experience.Choose your plan

Trump is charged with four counts: conspiracy to obstruct and obstructing an official proceeding — the same charges brought against many of the hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants — as well as conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to violate the right to vote.

Skip to end of carousel

Trump has been indicted for a raft of alleged crimes stemming from his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Follow live updates.

 

End of carousel

Trump was already facing a calendar-spanning series of court dates during the 2024 presidential campaign, including a Manhattan trial on charges related to an alleged hush money scheme during the 2016 election campaign.

The Republican Party has rallied to him despite it all — or perhaps because of it — leaving him an increasingly strong favorite to be the party’s 2024 presidential nominee.

Below are some takeaways from this latest, arguably most significant indictment.

1

The indictment argues that Trump knew the ‘big lie’ was a lie

Return to menu

It’s a question that has long stalked Trump: whether he knew that the false things he said were false. It’s also a threshold question when it comes to the case ahead, given that Trump’s defense will apparently rely on the idea that he somehow believed his claims about a stolen election and thus didn’t act corruptly.

Smith is unambiguous: Trump knew better.

“The Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” the indictment says. “These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.”

Smith cites examples — many previously known — of those around Trump directly informing him that his claims were false and his schemes dubious. They included Vice President Mike Pence, top Justice Department officials, top White House attorneys and campaign staff members, key state legislators and officials, and state and federal courts.

Former president Donald Trump was indicted on Aug. 1 on charges related to the lead-up the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. (Video: HyoJung Kim/The Washington Post, Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

The indictment cites examples of Trump’s being informed that specific claims were false and then proceeding to lodge them anyway. Smith makes a point of isolating a single claim from each of five key states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania — each time punctuating the example by saying that Trump “repeated his knowingly false claim” on Jan. 6 itself.

One such example: Both Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien and Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R) told Trump in November 2020 that there weren’t tens of thousands of noncitizens who voted in Arizona. But Trump made this claim on Jan. 6 anyway, nearly two months after Stepien tried to disabuse him of it.

While the House select committee on Jan. 6 presented much of the evidence last year, the indictment does break some ground in suggesting that Trump knew this was corrupt. It cites a vivid scene from Jan. 1, 2021, in which Pence resisted Trump’s renewed appeal to overturn the election in Congress on Jan. 6, with Trump allegedly telling Pence, “You’re too honest.”

Trump is also described as acknowledging that claims about voting machines by Co-Conspirator 3 (apparently Sidney Powell), which he would echo repeatedly, were unsupported. (We learned from Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks’s Jan. 6 committee testimony that Trump said Powell sounded “crazy,” but not necessarily that he acknowledged this theory was baseless.)

The defense that’s left for Trump is that he was told all of this but disregarded it or thought he knew better, which is apparently what his lawyers will suggest.

“I would like them to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump believed that these allegations were false,” lead Trump lawyer John Lauro said on Fox News on Tuesday night.

2

It lists six unnamed co-conspirators who have not been charged (yet).

Return to menu

The indictment Smith unveiled Tuesday appears intended to isolate Trump, perhaps in the service of emphasizing that he was the central figure in all of this and not just someone strung along by lawyers and advisers. (An eye toward a speedier trial might also have been a reason for indicting Trump solo.)

But that doesn’t mean others are out of the woods. After all, conspiracies involve multiple people.

Six unnamed co-conspirators figure into the indictment’s narrative. We can identify five based on the context: Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and Powell, along with former Justice Department official (and Trump’s would-be acting attorney general) Jeffrey Clark and Trump-aligned attorney Kenneth Chesebro. The sixth co-conspirator, a political consultant, isn’t so clearly identifiable.

Giuliani is invoked the most — more than 40 times — and Eastman is cast as instrumental to what the indictment labels the “fraudulent electors” scheme.

Rudy Giuliani's involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election may have put him in insurmountable legal trouble. (Video: JM Rieger/The Washington Post)

Both Eastman and Clark also feature in two scenes that Smith included alluding to the prospect of violence.

In one, a Trump adviser cites the possibility of Eastman’s strategy to have Pence help overturn the election on Jan. 6 causing “riots in the streets.” Co-conspirator 2 (Eastman) responds by saying violence is at times necessary for the republic.

That instance was previously reported, but the other was not: A White House lawyer, according to the indictment, said there would be “riots in every major city in the United States” if Trump stayed in office. Co-Conspirator 4 (Clark) responded by saying, “Well … that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.” (The Insurrection Act empowers the president to deploy the military to put down civil unrest in certain circumstances.)

Smith seems to include these scenes as evidence that the tactics were extreme and even that violence was foreseeable, but that Trump and his allies pressed on anyway.

As for whether others might be charged, Smith said in a brief statement Tuesday night, “Our investigation of other individuals continues.”

3

The case argues that the conspirators worked to create the illusion of uncertainty

Return to menu

One thing that comes through in the indictment is how so much of Trump’s and his alleged co-conspirators’ actions involved creating pretexts and essentially taking advantage of other people, in Smith’s telling.

That applies particularly to the alternate electors, some of whom have now been indicted by a state prosecutor.

The Trump campaign publicly pitched the alternate electors as a contingency in the event states overturned their own results — the idea being that they would be used only in that circumstance. But Smith says the effort, from its early days, was really about creating the illusion of uncertainty on Jan. 6 regardless of what states did.

“Under the plan, the submission of these fraudulent slates would create a fake controversy at the certification proceeding” on Jan. 6, the indictment says.

Smith cites how, on the eve of the Dec. 14 deadline for electors to be declared, Trump aides declined to put out a statement about the move to advance alternate slates because none of them could “stand by it.” One top official called it “a crazy play so I don’t know who wants to put their name on it.” An adviser labeled it “certifying illegal votes.”

At another point, a campaign aide worried about how the Pennsylvania alternate electors wanted to say that they were duly elected only if the results in their states were overturned. The aide said, “If it gets out we changed the language for PA it could snowball” into other states.

Only two of seven slates of fake electors wound up offering such a qualifier; those in Michigan, who didn’t, were recently indicted.

There is evidence that some involved in the fake elector scheme worried that this effort would break the law. In the days leading up to Dec. 14, Smith notes in the indictment, Co-Conspirator 5 (Chesebro) said that Co-Conspirator 1 (Giuliani) had learned that declaring alternate electors in Arizona without a pending court case could “appear treasonous.”

Smith also notes that such a lawsuit was filed in New Mexico just six minutes before the deadline for electors on Dec. 14. He labels it “a pretext so that there was pending litigation there at the time the fraudulent electors voted.”

Smith calls the alternate elector plot a “sham” — a word he also uses for the voter fraud investigations Trump pushed.

Smith’s repeated references to Trump’s saying Powell sounded “crazy” certainly fit the idea that Trump was using her to build a pretext.

And rather than entertain the idea that Trump merely urged protesters to go to the Capitol to protest, as Trump claims, Smith says Trump “directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceedings.”

The language is telling; it suggests that the disruption was the purpose, not an unintentional byproduct.

All of this points to Smith’s arguing that these schemes were engineered to try to overturn the election on false pretenses, using whatever blunt instrument was available.

4

The reaction from Republicans to the case was muted

Return to menu

The GOP’s reactions to Trump’s legal problems is seemingly baked in at this point; Republicans overwhelmingly claim he’s being persecuted or treated differently from Democrats, without engaging on the merits of the allegations.

But Trump’s actions related to Jan. 6 and his false voter fraud claims did draw significant GOP criticism after the insurrection. And there were signs Tuesday night of some reluctance to defend him.

Pence, who is running against Trump for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, has previously alluded to the idea of a two-tiered system of justice. But his post-indictment statement made no mention of that, instead emphasizing his view that Trump’s plan for him violated the Constitution.

“Today’s indictment serves as an important reminder: anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President of the United States,” Pence tweeted. Pence added that he will offer more thoughts when he can review the indictment.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), Trump’s top 2024 primary opponent, offered a thoroughly muted response. He broadly cited the supposed “weaponization” of the government but otherwise said he was reviewing the indictment and talked merely about how such cases should perhaps not be tried in Washington.

Several Republicans did point to the idea of unequal justice, including fellow 2024 contender Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) and Trump loyalists such as Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.). But the reaction from the GOP was generally muted; few put out statements or social media posts at all.

The tendency of the GOP is to fall in line; Trump’s numerous controversies have reinforced that that is the easy and most politically expedient play, particularly because he is the strong favorite to lead the Republican ticket in 2024.

But the strength with which Republicans actually defend him can also be telling. And Tuesday night, the response wasn’t that strong — particularly compared to Trump comparing his prosecution to “Nazi Germany.”

 

[Brisketexan 105104]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

Thank you.  This "he'd be out on appeal anyways, so we'd be in the same place" rebuttal just blows my mind.

But it does matter.  If he's out walking free, AND he wins the election, then he's arguably bulletproof (at least for another 4 years).  Can you proceed with criminal proceedings of a sitting POTUS once he's in office?  And even if you could, can the authorities of the executive branch (Marshals, Bureau of Prisons) exercise authority to take him into custody and imprison him?  Or, once he's in office, is impeachment and removal the only available path?  We are WAY out into uncharted territory on those questions.  Which is insane that they even have to be asked. 

30 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

To complete the analogy, the biggest problem is that most Americans are too focused on what will happen in the next episode of Emily's Reasons Why Not and they're not paying attention to what is important.

Keith is not amused by your shenanigans.

But I am.  And Dan definitely is.  Well-done.

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, there's a right to a jury trial of your peers, not your allies.  Pretrial publicity that you generate your own self does not call for a change of venue.

"Peers?"  Where are you going to find a jury made up solely of cheeto-fingered shitgibbons?  This could prove to be challenging.....

14 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Trump isn’t winning in 2024, so that’s not a viable defense plan.

1) If everything was normal, I agree.

2) Everything is not normal.  GQP states are already well underway with their frantic efforts to disenfranchise any voters/voter groups/entire geographic areas that might vote against Cheeto Benito.  They don't have to get more votes for Trump.  They just have to exclude enough Biden votes.

3) State legislative shenanigans are in play as well.  If there's any chance of it making a difference, be prepared for a state legislature (Georgia?) simply declaring that either the whole election was tainted, OR that ballot boxes in certain Biden areas were tainted, and thus certifying Trump as winning.

 

You are still thinking like a person who plays by the rules and the Rule of Law.  The GQP doesn't think that way.  

Edited August 3, 2023 by Brisketexan

[Js1 85316]

15 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

I know it’s posh and trendy in these parts to consider people like Nate Silver to be some sort of EC wunderkinds and national polls in August the year before the election to be any sort of relevant, but the reality is that Trump didn’t even win in 2016. The D’s lost that one by nominating the one candidate that Trump conceivably could have beaten.

 

Even Nate Silver laughed at that Siena poll and said polls the summer before election year don't mean shit. 

Independents hate him and he's a turnout machine for the Dems.  Just his name being on the ballot fires up Democrats. They don't have to like Biden, they HATE Trump. Motherfucker watched most of the candidates he endorsed and stumped for lose in November 2022, in what should have been a red wave.  Gerrymandering won the GOP the House and they lost ground in the Senate. 

He's not winning back Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.  He's nuclear grade dog piss in Arizona and Georgia hates him.  Nevada and NH - he didn't even win those in 2016. NC has the demographics for tilting it from purple to blue. 

His machine to steal it does not exist.  There's no more GOP electoral infrastructure in the blue wall, NV or AZ. Sure, GA could swing back because it is still controlled by the GOP, but he needs a lot of states to swing back to him.  He's not going to reverse the trend from 2020.  And SCOTUS kicking ILS to the curb basically means Wisconsin/AZ/Georgia legislatures can't just overrule the will of the voters.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Js1

[Biff Tannen 45678]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Even Nate Silver laughed at that Siena poll and said polls the summer before election year don't mean shit. 

Independents hate him and he's a turnout machine for the Dems.  Just his name being on the ballot fires up Democrats. They don't have to like Biden, they HATE Trump. Motherfucker watched most of the candidates he endorsed and stumped for lose in November 2022, in what should have been a red wave.  Gerrymandering won the GOP the House and they lost ground in the Senate. 

He's not winning back Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.  He's nuclear grade dog piss in Arizona and Georgia hates him.  Nevada and NH - he didn't even win those in 2016. NC has the demographics for tilting it from purple to blue. 

His machine to steal it does not exist.  There's no more GOP electoral infrastructure in the blue wall, NV or AZ. Sure, GA could swing back because it is still controlled by the GOP, but he needs a lot of states to swing back to him.  He's not going to reverse the trend from 2020.  And SCOTUS kicking ILS to the curb basically means Wisconsin/AZ/Georgia legislatures can't just overrule the will of the voters.

He lost Wisconsin and Georgia by like a combined 50k votes.  All it takes is a slight bit of apathy among D voters to swing those back.  Arizona feels pretty safe with Maricopa county basically controlling it.

[Js1 85316]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

He lost Wisconsin and Georgia by like a combined 50k votes.  All it takes is a slight bit of apathy among D voters to swing those back.  Arizona feels pretty safe with Maricopa county basically controlling it.

I mean, sure.  You could say the same thing about NC - a slight bit of apathy for soft Rs that criminally indicted convict Trump is on the ballot could swing it to the Dems.

Those 2 states alone still don't win it for Trump. 

[conVINCEd 21469]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

He lost Wisconsin and Georgia by like a combined 50k votes.  All it takes is a slight bit of apathy among D voters to swing those back.  Arizona feels pretty safe with Maricopa county basically controlling it.

Do you know a lot of D’s who are apathetic about the thought of Trump part deux?  I stood in line for 4 hours in 2020 and would’ve stood in line for 4 days if that’s what it took.

[ohchaucer 1443]

Y’all remember in 2016 when most sane people believed a solid (albeit deeply flawed) candidate “couldn’t lose” to a fat orange criminal buffoon?

I ‘member.

[Brisketexan 105104]

6 minutes ago, ohchaucer said:

Y’all remember in 2016 when most sane people believed a solid (albeit deeply flawed) candidate “couldn’t lose” to a fat orange criminal buffoon?

I ‘member.

This.  This.  This.

1,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000 times THIS.

There's only one approach to dealing with the threat to the Republic that is Trump.  Bring.  Fucking.  EVERYTHING.  Attack on all fronts.  Be relentless.  Overkill is fucking underkill here.

Nuke him.  Then nuke him again.

[Biff Tannen 45678]

29 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

Do you know a lot of D’s who are apathetic about the thought of Trump part deux?  I stood in line for 4 hours in 2020 and would’ve stood in line for 4 days if that’s what it took.

 

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  This.  This.

1,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000 times THIS.

There's only one approach to dealing with the threat to the Republic that is Trump.  Bring.  Fucking.  EVERYTHING.  Attack on all fronts.  Be relentless.  Overkill is fucking underkill here.

Nuke him.  Then nuke him again.

This is my point. And yes, I know some Dems that are just tired of it and have mostly tuned out. I think they will probably still vote, but not for sure. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Biff Tannen

[Js1 85316]

17 minutes ago, ohchaucer said:

Y’all remember in 2016 when most sane people believed a solid (albeit deeply flawed) candidate “couldn’t lose” to a fat orange criminal buffoon?

I ‘member.

Biden has a win over Trump. Hillary does not.  Trump got lot of unnecessary grace in 2016. We now have had 4 years of him as POTUS, an attempted insurrection and soon to be 4 criminal indictments 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Js1

[SubliminalHorn 6786]

My only worry is a major recession leading into the election. I fear that would be enough to sway enough independents over for a slim victory. 

[jimmyjazz 45907]

Yeah, the "Hillary can't lose" angle created apathy among the Democrats.  Trump's victory opened a lot of eyes.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20395]

 

[Js1 85316]

5 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

My only worry is a major recession leading into the election. I fear that would be enough to sway enough independents over for a slim victory. 

Well the experts do not seem to see this happening, and keep downgrading the chance. It’s only happening in the mind of republicans 

Also record inflation couldn’t even help the GOP that much last year. Roe is not forgotten 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Js1

[Gatorubet 30227]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, exactly which ones is Trump flipping back to himself next year? 

Here is my question - exactly how do the people of those states feel after the information in the indictment showing Trump’s  shenanigans with alternate slate of electors was nothing less than an effort to disenfranchise and nullify the will of the voters of those states?   My hope is that there will be a few percentage points against the GOP and Trump for focusing on stealing the true vote count from those states.

There may be a difference between people in Iowa reading about stealing votes in Pennsylvania, and not caring so much, but the people in Pennsylvania, etc., actually giving a shit. We’ll see I guess, but Trump’s fucking around may result is finding out that he took a shit in all of his battleground states for 2024 - and still lost in 2020

[Pancho 44763]

Team Biden needs to hammer home their successes. While I agree the polls this early are shit, people complaint about the economy right now means they are getting some dumbass messages from somewhere. 

I want the PACs to hammer trump on the airwaves the next year.

With all of that said, you just know trump is going to try to get putin’s help—again.

[Gatorubet 30227]

15 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Well the experts do not seem to see this happening, and keep downgrading the chance. It’s only happening in the mind of republicans 

I think the grain embargo and bad weather might result in unfortunate food price increases.  We’ll see. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20395]

Ladies and gentlemen, the former leader of the free world plays 4-D chess.

 

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89656]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Trump isn’t winning in 2024, so that’s not a viable defense plan.

......

Of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, exactly which ones is Trump flipping back to himself next year? 

He's devoting his energy to ranting about stolen elections, not trying to shore up his support in those states, and definitely not trying to win those states back.  He's also borderline unintentionally trying to ramp up the Black vote in Georgia if he keeps up his current trend.

Hell, state-level MAGA is doing its best to make sure it's finished in Michigan.  Those fuckers are going to end up killing themselves in (R) on (R) violence.