3. Obstruction or attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
4. Conspiracy against rights
I wasn't old enough to vote for or against him so I say this as someone who is just watching from the sidelines, but these all sound way too vague to take seriously. Bottom line is he has free speech rights to claim he won the election regardless of what the correct vote count is.
The "free speech" defense the Trump supporters are articulating is weak. Yes, he has the right to claim that he really won the election. But when he conspires to prevent the inauguration of his successor despite the various states saying he lost, that isn't covered by free speech.
You can say that all of the money in the local bank should belong to you. But when you and your others formulate a plan to steal that money and you buddies take some affirmative steps to put that plan in action, you are guilty of conspiracy to rob the bank even if you didn't take those affirmative steps.
But he won't be out of money. His diehard cultists will give every last penny they can muster to him regardless of his actions. There is literally nothing trump can IS WILLING TO do to change their minds.
The indictment doesn't center around specific acts committed on January 6th. Incitement was not among the charges Trump was indicted for.
In that case, what he's charged for is essentially a thoughtcrime, and we've come full circle. At the end of the day he has the free speech right to claim it was stolen, and yes even arrage an alternate slate of electors (a la Al Gore). I see it as a difference in degree, not in kind from what many other politicians have done.
Stop.
You already have no credibility. But when you're in a hole, stop digging.
There has never been a shameful, criminal event like this in the history of American politics. This makes Watergate look like a prank.
Thoughtcrime doesn't leave a trail of documents, forgeries, injured police officers, and a dead woman.
I wasn't old enough to vote for or against him so I say this as someone who is just watching from the sidelines, but these all sound way too vague to take seriously. Bottom line is he has free speech rights to claim he won the election regardless of what the correct vote count is.
The "free speech" defense the Trump supporters are articulating is weak....
Freedom of speech DOES NOT apply when it forcibly tries to prevent someone from doing their job. You know, like certify an election.
Appreciate the professional opinion. Why do you think the co-conspirators are un-indicted at this point? Any theories?
If i may jump in even though you didn't ask me specifically, it's to streamline the proceeding and not let it get bogged down by motions from the other defendants, which it likely would, if they were charged at this time.
Yes, I think this is correct. Well said.
By not formally charging the co-conspirators now, you also have some flexibility in crafting plea deals. Some of these individuals could offer very important testimony in Trump's trial.
If i may jump in even though you didn't ask me specifically, it's to streamline the proceeding and not let it get bogged down by motions from the other defendants, which it likely would, if they were charged at this time.
Yes, I think this is correct. Well said.
By not formally charging the co-conspirators now, you also have some flexibility in crafting plea deals. Some of these individuals could offer very important testimony in Trump's trial.
I know. I thought of that, too. I wonder if they could be negotiating any of those deals now, without having formally brought the charges yet (?).
"I read the indictment carefully. There is no smoking gun. There is no one who is credibly prepared to testify that Donald Trump said to him, 'I know personally, I lost the election.' There is a lot of evidence a lot people told me he lost the election l, but you know Donald Trump and you, know he will make up his own mind. And they’ll have a very hard time proving it. District of Columbia - so 90 percent of the jury pool voted against him. So, they may actually get a conviction from a D.C. jury. But will survive appellate review and review in the Supreme Court? I do not think so." - Alan Dershowitz
It indeed looks like a very weak indictment.
Thanks, I hadn't read this take but it sums it up well.
Remember "Proud Boys stand back and stand by"? Buried in the indictment and oddly being ignored by the press is what Trump planned to do had the Capitol insurrection had been successful. He planned to invoke the insurrection act and have the military (if they complied) and militias round up all opposition.
This was a Fascist coup attempt. If you are hair trigger and offended by that term being used than you need to learn some damn history and put om some glasses about what this man was doing.
Ironic how the man shouting to all who will listen that there was a grand conspiracy to usurp power from him organized and grand conspiracy to usurp power. It's too obvious at this point the playbook is to preemptive accuse others of what they themselves are doing and anyone who supported this should be ashamed.
"I read the indictment carefully. There is no smoking gun. There is no one who is credibly prepared to testify that Donald Trump said to him, 'I know personally, I lost the election.' There is a lot of evidence a lot people told me he lost the election l, but you know Donald Trump and you, know he will make up his own mind. And they’ll have a very hard time proving it. District of Columbia - so 90 percent of the jury pool voted against him. So, they may actually get a conviction from a D.C. jury. But will survive appellate review and review in the Supreme Court? I do not think so." - Alan Dershowitz
It indeed looks like a very weak indictment.
Indictments don't need a smoking gun, and no one said there was one here. Most of the evidence in the Indictment is the same as the publicly available evidence in the January 6th Report and NEARLY ALL of it is evidence created by Trump employees, advisors and supporters (deposition testimony, emails, texts, memos, notes from conversations, recollections). And I'd say those Eastman and Chesebro memos are "smoking guns" in the sense that they will be front and center at trial and nearly impossible for Trump's lawyers to explain away.
Dersh seems very confused these days about things he once spoke expertly about. There is absolutely no requirement that Trump had to announce to someone that he knew he lost, any more than there is a requirement that an embezzler must announce he knew the money wasn't his. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that Trump knew he lost the election and that all his claims of fraud were bogus themselves, whether he ever expressly admitted it or not. I'd also point out that Trump's beliefs on whether he won or not are completely irrelevant to his conspiracy to create fake electors and fake electoral certificates. That is fraud irrespective of what Trump believes about the election. In America, you don't get a free pass to commit crimes just because you feel someone else did you wrong.
I think the whole Epstein-Giuffre episode broke Dersh's brain.
How is your heart after the Vax? I suppose you won’t know until it’s too late.
Have you worked on your trauma that is causing you to identify as 97 genders?
Have you visited a large inner city run by Dems lately? Or are you moving to Republican led areas because “you’re definitely not the problem!”
I live in a fairly large city (NYC) "run by Dems" and work in Harlem--is that inner city enough?
I used to live in Florida, and have lotsa family there and in Ohio, two "Republican led areas." But a) Florida has a higher homicide rate than NYC, and b) Ohio's crime rates are higher than NYC's in all seven of the major categories.
I still can’t get over the absurdity of this scenario:
Next Spring, Trump could be on the campaign trail telling the American people that he is the most capable man for the highest office in the land. At the same time he would be in court arguing that he was duped like an easily manipulated child by Rudy and the Kraken lady.
"I read the indictment carefully. There is no smoking gun. There is no one who is credibly prepared to testify that Donald Trump said to him, 'I know personally, I lost the election.' There is a lot of evidence a lot people told me he lost the election l, but you know Donald Trump and you, know he will make up his own mind. And they’ll have a very hard time proving it. District of Columbia - so 90 percent of the jury pool voted against him. So, they may actually get a conviction from a D.C. jury. But will survive appellate review and review in the Supreme Court? I do not think so." - Alan Dershowitz
It indeed looks like a very weak indictment.
Thanks, I hadn't read this take but it sums it up well.
How do you know whether it sums it up well or not?
By not formally charging the co-conspirators now, you also have some flexibility in crafting plea deals. Some of these individuals could offer very important testimony in Trump's trial.
I know. I thought of that, too. I wonder if they could be negotiating any of those deals now, without having formally brought the charges yet (?).
Sounds like this is 100% political and it really is all gamesmanship
A federal grand jury indicted Donald Trump on Tuesday with a series of crimes related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The 45-page indictment accuses Trump of three conspiracies, plus a fourth count of allegedly...
"I read the indictment carefully. There is no smoking gun. There is no one who is credibly prepared to testify that Donald Trump said to him, 'I know personally, I lost the election.' There is a lot of evidence a lot people told me he lost the election l, but you know Donald Trump and you, know he will make up his own mind. And they’ll have a very hard time proving it. District of Columbia - so 90 percent of the jury pool voted against him. So, they may actually get a conviction from a D.C. jury. But will survive appellate review and review in the Supreme Court? I do not think so." - Alan Dershowitz
It indeed looks like a very weak indictment.
Indictments don't need a smoking gun, and no one said there was one here. Most of the evidence in the Indictment is the same as the publicly available evidence in the January 6th Report and NEARLY ALL of it is evidence created by Trump employees, advisors and supporters (deposition testimony, emails, texts, memos, notes from conversations, recollections). And I'd say those Eastman and Chesebro memos are "smoking guns" in the sense that they will be front and center at trial and nearly impossible for Trump's lawyers to explain away.
Dersh seems very confused these days about things he once spoke expertly about. There is absolutely no requirement that Trump had to announce to someone that he knew he lost, any more than there is a requirement that an embezzler must announce he knew the money wasn't his. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that Trump knew he lost the election and that all his claims of fraud were bogus themselves, whether he ever expressly admitted it or not. I'd also point out that Trump's beliefs on whether he won or not are completely irrelevant to his conspiracy to create fake electors and fake electoral certificates. That is fraud irrespective of what Trump believes about the election. In America, you don't get a free pass to commit crimes just because you feel someone else did you wrong.
I think the whole Epstein-Giuffre episode broke Dersh's brain.
Good post. Admittedly, sometimes we are perplexed that Trump still walks around saying the election was stolen. We can’t make any logical sense of it. But look at it this way. If you visited a penitentiary you would see most convicts sticking to their preferred story (lie)that they repeated so many times in their head. Most criminals never ever come clean.
I live in a fairly large city (NYC) "run by Dems" and work in Harlem--is that inner city enough?
Any reason you don't live in Harlem? Would be a shorter commute.
Just to beat back your insinuation, Harlem is minority African American now - they are being priced out of the neighborhood. It's now full of great little restaurants, excellent housing stock and wide avenues. Lots of young white people are moving there because of its benefits. It's the next Brooklyn as a place young aspiring white and asian people want to live. And yes, crime is down 80% from the bad old days.
