╌>

'You're too honest': Donald Trump's alleged Jan. 6 conspiracies, explained

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 years ago  •  16 comments

By:   lalpert (MarketWatch)

'You're too honest': Donald Trump's alleged Jan. 6 conspiracies, explained
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence and three times is a conspiracy.

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Special counsel Jack Smith argues that Trump conspired in multiple ways to overthrow the 2020 election


Prosecutors say Donald Trump engaged in several conspiracies to illegally overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.


Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence and three times is a conspiracy.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump is accused by federal prosecutors of engaging in three major conspiracies ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot to subvert the process of counting and certifying the vote before Congress in his bid to hold on to power despite having lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden by a 306-232 margin in the Electoral College and more than 7 million votes, or 4.5 percentage points, in the popular-vote count.

While spreading lies about how votes had been illegally cast, tampered with or miscounted in order to build mistrust among the public about the election's outcome, Trump and a group of six unnamed lawyers and advisers, according to special counsel Jack Smith, plotted to illegally meddle with the very basis of how presidential elections have been run in the U.S since its founding.

A four-count indictment unsealed in federal court in Washington on Tuesday alleges that the group worked unrelentingly to tamper with how several states counted their ballots and the process by which states sent electors to Washington to finalize their vote. The indictment also accused Trump of pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to intervene even though they had no standing to do so.

"Each of theses conspiracies — which built upon the widespread mistrust the defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing about election fraud — targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election," according to the indictment.

Trump has dismissed the charges as politicized.

"The lawlessness of these persecutions of President Trump and his supporters is reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the former Soviet Union, and other authoritarian, dictatorial regimes," a statement released by his re-election campaign read. "President Trump has always followed the law and the constitution, with advice from many highly accomplished attorneys."

The charges allege three acts of conspiracy and one of obstructing an official proceeding. Following are the main legal arguments Smith makes against the former president.

'We have lots of theories'


Prosecutors say that, starting almost immediately after the election on Nov. 3, 2020, Trump began a campaign to get officials in key states such as Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia to overturn the results of the presidential votes in their states.

Trump pressured state officials to throw the vote out based on allegations ranging from dead people voting to noncitizens casting ballots, and from voting machines being tampered with to ballot-box stuffing — despite there being no evidence any of it had occurred, certainly on an election-determinative scale.

"We don't have evidence, but we have lots of theories," one of Trump's co-conspirators allegedly told the speaker of the house in Arizona, a Trump backer, when asked what proof existed about electoral malfeasance.

When officials in the states refused to go along with Trump's request to decertify the results, the president continued to publicly trumpet false claims about voter fraud and to attack local officials as "terrible people" who were in on the fraud, the indictment said.

Smith said that Trump continued to make the claims despite having been told repeatedly by numerous people from multiple agencies — many of them Trump's own supporters — that there was no truth to that narrative and despite having lost case after case in court.

"When our research and campaign team can't back up any of the claims made by our Elite Strike Force Legal Team, you can see why we're 0-32 on our cases," one senior campaign adviser said, according to the indictment. "It's tough to own any of this when it's all just conspiracy sh— beamed down from the mothership."

Smith argues that this effort amounted to using deceit to subvert the election's result, which is against the law.

Phony electors


One key component of the conspiracy case against Trump revolves around efforts to create a competing slate of electors from each challenged state.

As part of the presidential electoral process, every state sends electors to Washington to deliver the statewide election result to Congress. It's a mostly ceremonial procedure, but Trump's legal team is accused of hatching a plot to send a second group of electors who backed Trump from several states in order to create confusion in Congress and force legislators in Washington to have to debate the election's outcome.

The secondary slates of electors hadn't been approved by officials in the states they purported to represent and were not authorized in any way, the indictment says. The effort was so patently bogus that Trump's team even referred to the group as "phony electors" in their own correspondence, the indictment stated.

In the indictment, Smith characterizes the effort as a conspiracy to commit fraud.

'You're too honest'


A third leg of the conspiracy allegedly involved pressuring officials at the Justice Department and Pence to intervene in the election even though they had no standing to do so.

The indictment says Trump and his co-conspirators repeatedly communicated with the then-acting U.S. attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, and insisted that he declare ahead of the Jan. 6 certification of the election by Congress that there had been evidence of fraud.

When Rosen said he would not do that because there was no such evidence, Trump allegedly threatened to replace him with one of the unnamed co-conspirators included in the indictment.

At one point, a deputy White House counsel told the alleged co-conspirator that "there is no world, there is no option in which you do not leave the White House" and warned that there would be "riots in the streets" if Trump attempted to remain in office, to which the co-conspirator allegedly said: "That's why there is an Insurrection Act."

For weeks ahead of the Jan. 6 certification hearing in Congress, Trump and his cohort pressured Pence to refuse to certify the vote tally, a purely ceremonial task the sitting vice president has presided over since the country's founding.

Pence steadfastly refused to do so, saying his legal team had told him there was no constitutional basis for the vice president to be able to overturn an election at the last minute. In a phone call less than a week before Jan. 6, Trump allegedly berated Pence, telling him, "You're too honest."

When a senior White House adviser told one of the unnamed co-conspirators that if Pence tried to overturn the election it would lead to violence in the streets, the co-conspirator allegedly said that there had been times in the country's history where violence was necessary to protect the republic, the indictment said.

In the days and hours leading up to the Jan. 6 riot, Trump posted several messages on Twitter stating that Pence had the authority to overturn the election and continuing to pressure him to do so.

Exploiting the chaos


On Jan. 6, after Pence issued a statement saying he did not have the authority to choose not to certify the vote, demonstrators near the Capitol turned violent, with hundreds of rioters clashing with police and storming the complex, delaying the proceedings for several hours.

During the standoff, some of Trump's co-conspirators tried to reach Trump-aligned members of the House and Senate to convince them to further delay the certifying process in order to buy more time to convince state legislatures to nullify their already-approved votes, the indictment says.

Later that afternoon, Trump tweeted: "See, this is what happens when they try to steal an election. These people are angry. These people are really angry about it. This is what happens."



Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 years ago

Trump apologists claim that all he was doing was expressing free speech rights. The evidence, as described here, shows us otherwise. 

Trump apologists are misrepresenting the indictment. But what else can they do? none of them have read it. 

A third leg of the conspiracy allegedly involved pressuring officials at the Justice Department and Pence to intervene in the election even though they had no standing to do so.

The indictment says Trump and his co-conspirators repeatedly communicated with the then-acting U.S. attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, and insisted that he declare ahead of the Jan. 6 certification of the election by Congress that there had been evidence of fraud.

When Rosen said he would not do that because there was no such evidence, Trump allegedly threatened to replace him with one of the unnamed co-conspirators included in the indictment.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 years ago

Trump tried to coerce the acting attorney general into joining the conspiracy. How the fuck is that a "free speech" right? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  seeder  JohnRussell    2 years ago

One of the predominant "arguments" we are getting from the right at the moment is that Trump is innocent because he had a first amendment right to question the election results. He even had the right to lie about the election results.  But those are not what he is being charged with. He is charged with conspiracy to defraud the government and deprive Americans of their right to have their vote counted, and there is a mountain of evidence of that. 

I wish MAGAs could think better, but that seems forlorn. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    2 years ago
Pence steadfastly refused to do so, saying his legal team had told him there was no constitutional basis for the vice president to be able to overturn an election at the last minute. In a phone call less than a week before Jan. 6, Trump allegedly berated Pence, telling him, "You're too honest."

So who did Jack Smith here this from? Pence himself?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    2 years ago

Yes

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    2 years ago

"You're too honest", which will be testified to at the trial, is in itself incriminating. It shows Trump knew what he was doing was wrong. By itself it wouldnt get him convicted, but it is a brick in the wall. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
3.2.1  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    2 years ago

That's your interpretation of his "future" events/comments???

The Great Karnak has spoken so it must be true.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.1    2 years ago

Do you actually think that the prosecutor would put a quote in the indictment that will not be testified to by one of the witnesses at the trial? 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
3.2.3  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    2 years ago

Absolutely - happens continuously.  A person isn't convicted based on an "indictment" - they are convicted based on evidence, facts and supporting testimony related to the "alleged crime".

None of which Smith has.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.3    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    2 years ago

a good summary from former prosecutor Andy McCarthy, who has been right on just about every issue involving trump so far. 


Smith does not have such crimes. He has an abundance of deceptive speech and expression by Trump that is constitutionally protected — in fact, it is political speech in connection with the electoral process, at the very core of First Amendment protection. He doesn’t have penal offenses.

So he fakes it. Trump is charged with defrauding the United States, even though it was just a few weeks ago — in throwing out convictions of two cronies of former New York governor Andrew Cuomo — that the Supreme Court reaffirmed that, in federal law, “fraud” means a swindle to bilk victims out of money or tangible property. It is not a vehicle by which prosecutors may impose their vision of good government. 

Trump is charged with corruptly obstructing Congress, even though “corruption” for these purposes must comprise clearly unlawful acts such as evidence manipulation or witness intimidation, not speech that is constitutionally protected even if deceptive. He is, finally and absurdly, charged with a civil rights violation — a scheme to have votes discounted — based on a Civil War-era statute designed to address the Ku Klux Klan’s forcible attacks on and intimidation of Black voters.

For good measure, Smith tosses in a few paragraphs about the Capitol riot — obviously, so he can try to persuade the court to allow him to fire up a D.C. jury with images of it even though he lacks sufficient evidence to charge it as a crime.

That’s the whole point, of course: The political objective of this political scheme, which the Biden Justice Department has masqueraded as a legal proceeding, is to rush the case to trial and inundate voters with Capitol riot imagery in the 2024 campaign stretch-run. Ironically, it’s a corrupt scheme to influence the presidential election — exactly what Trump is accused of doing.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    2 years ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif     jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif     jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif     jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    2 years ago

It sounds like McCarthy wants to get Trump off on technicalities. 

As is usually the case with lawyers, there is intelligent opinion on both sides. But intelligent does not necessarily mean correct. There will be testimony at the trial that Trump tried to coerce the acting attorney general into joining the conspiracy by having him publicly state there had been election fraud. When the acting attorney general said there was no election fraud, Trump threatened to have him replaced, and would have if high ranking DOJ personnel hadnt threatened to resign in mass. 

There is no free speech element to this, and there are numerous similar examples in the indictment. 

Trump made quite a few specific and explicit claims about voter fraud. NONE of his explicit claims were borne out in fact. NONE. His best argument for "fraud" was that some state sent absentee ballots to voters that had not requested them. 

It may be difficult to prove the case against Trump, even though there is a mountain of evidence. I wouldnt be surprised if his lawyers claim at the trial that Trump is an idiot and cant be held responsible for what he believed. 

He is still in the wrong in this case to a degree that he has to be punished for what he did. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2    2 years ago
It sounds like McCarthy wants to get Trump off on technicalities. 

After having been exposed to Trump, do you think it would be a good idea for a Trump like President  who actually wants to go after his political enemies the ability to prosecute people for actions that are "close enough" to what statutes actually prohibit?  The precedent these sort of cases will create if they are allowed to stand  is an open invitation for prosecutorial abuse

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5  Greg Jones    2 years ago

The indictment, interesting reading

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
5.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Greg Jones @5    2 years ago

Thanks Greg - was interesting to read the first 11 pages, but, unfortunately, had to quit to clean off my computer screen from the outbursts of laughter produced just by those 11 pages.

Whomever wrote that document should really check with Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, Robert Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Piers Anthony and others to see how he, the writer, can join their legion of fame and entertainment.

 
 

Who is online















72 visitors