Third Arrest for Trump
-
As usual however, I have to laugh at his posts. It almost seems like a parady.
-
@Mik said in Third Arrest?:
They just keep coming after him. It's an obsession.
If nothing else, it's a great reason to vote him back into office, just to watch the heads explode.
-
@Mik said in Third Arrest?:
They just keep coming after him. It's an obsession.
If nothing else, it's a great reason to vote him back into office, just to watch the heads explode.
@Jolly said in Third Arrest?:
@Mik said in Third Arrest?:
They just keep coming after him. It's an obsession.
If nothing else, it's a great reason to vote him back into office, just to watch the heads explode.
The strength of our institutions, and our constitution, would be tested much more severely by the unhinged reaction to four more years of Trump, than they would be by anything Trump does. A Trump victory will give us a tsunami of entitled, high status lefty adults, throwing temper tantrums, and putting all their power behind them.
-
Turley: Smith better have more than the Jan 6 speech:
Smith has a reputation in conservative circles for stretching the criminal code in high-profile cases, including the prosecution of then-Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell (R), a conviction that was later thrown out in an 8-0 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which rebuked Smith for what it termed the "Government’s boundless interpretation.”
That would certainly be the likely criticism again if Smith relies on Trump’s Jan. 6 speech for criminal charges. That speech is entirely protected under the First Amendment and governing case law, including Brandenburg v. Ohio. Any count based on Trump's speech would likely be overturned on appeal.
Smith also could be pursuing claims based on the Trump team’s effort to challenge the 2020 election’s certification, including the possible submission of an alternative slate of electors. That foundation also would be controversial, however.
In the past, congressional Democrats used the very same law to challenge presidential election certifications with little or no evidence. Indeed, not long after the election, I wrote about that possibility in what I called the “Death Star strategy” using the same grounds. The use of the federal law for that purpose was not and is not a crime.
Indeed, the House Jan. 6 (J6) Committee’s chairman, Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), voted to challenge the certification of the 2004 election results and then-President George W. Bush’s reelection. His fellow J6 Committee member, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) both praised the challenge organized by then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in 2004.
The question is whether Smith has evidence that goes beyond such use of the same law by Trump and his supporters. The J6 Committee spent a huge amount of time and money to try to find a direct link of Trump to a violent conspiracy or other crimes. It failed to produce such direct evidence, despite its revelations of embarrassing and disturbing testimony on Trump's reaction to the Capital riot.
Those hearings showed that the White House’s lawyers rejected the theories put forward by figures like Trump associate John Eastman. However, relying on bad advice or bad law is not a crime. President Joe Biden, like his predecessors, has been accused of knowing disregard of statutory and constitutional law, including repeated losses before the Supreme Court. We have never criminalized such interpretations.
While many of us rejected the Eastman arguments, Trump had a split among the lawyers advising him on that day. He listened to the wrong side — but proving that he clearly knew the arguments were invalid would be a difficult task for Smith.
Again, Smith may have acquired evidence that eluded the J6 Committee. We will have to see.
-
From Google:
18 U.S.C. § 242
This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. -
From Google:
18 U.S.C. § 242
This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.@Jon said in Third Arrest?:
From Google:
18 U.S.C. § 242
This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.Well, that's kind of obvious, right?
I wonder what, specifically, they're referring to in this instance. Whose right was deprived, the general voters?
-
This is probably the answer.
https://www.justsecurity.org/87435/an-overlooked-january-6-charge-the-stop-the-count-scheme/
It's a long piece but worth the read. The first section describes the history of using the statute in voting cases. The second outlines the known evidence that Trump was involved in such a conspiracy.
Of course, like so many of his felonies, he spoke about it publicly.
Also it sounds like at least one of his helpers was rolled by the Feds. So they probably have a lot that isn't public.
-
Sweet. This one is, along with GA (coming soon?), are by far the most important in the long history of the republic.
-
Sweet. This one is, along with GA (coming soon?), are by far the most important in the long history of the republic.
@Jon said in Third Arrest?:
Sweet. This one is, along with GA (coming soon?), are by far the most important in the long history of the republic.
Surely, you're forgetting one of the greatest corruption scandals in DC history?
The coincidence of the timing is frankly quite astonishing.
-
Sweet. This one is, along with GA (coming soon?), are by far the most important in the long history of the republic.
-
McCarthy: "Anyone who listened to that, any normal person reacting to that, would assume that Trump was alleged to have carried out the Capitol riot. The entire presentation that he made was not about what the core charges in his case are; it was about the Capitol riot and the security personnel who were injured in the Capitol riot….And then you turn to his indictment, he’s not charged with the Capitol riot."
-
That is one of the many good things about this indictment. It’s not about Jan 6th, it’s about the very real attempt to thwart the 220 year old tradition of peaceful transfer of power.
As I’ve said numerous times, Jan 6 was merely the cinematic denouement of a months-long effort to overthrow an election. The charges relate to the latter.
I didn’t see the presser, it’s a shame if he made it about Jan 6th. But he got the charges right. .
-
That is one of the many good things about this indictment. It’s not about Jan 6th, it’s about the very real attempt to thwart the 220 year old tradition of peaceful transfer of power.
As I’ve said numerous times, Jan 6 was merely the cinematic denouement of a months-long effort to overthrow an election. The charges relate to the latter.
I didn’t see the presser, it’s a shame if he made it about Jan 6th. But he got the charges right. .
@Jon said in Third Arrest?:
But he got the charges right.
Some talking heads (Turley?) are questioning that because they speak to his mens rea. That's a difficult lift in any court. If he believed the election was stolen, then, according to them, he has the right to question the results. As a matter of fact, this is political speech, which is protected.
Now, as to Detroit, Philly, and other locations, they've opened a can of worms. With these allegations, the door to subpoenas on the part of the defense is opened. Trump can request, demand, in fact, any documents to support his defense.
Get the popcorn.
-
I guess attempted thwarting is a serious matter.
But he was simply following Ms. Clinton's advice to never concede, never.
