Trump Indicted in 1/6 Investigation
Breaking news.
Via WaPo: Trump charged in probe of Jan. 6, efforts to overturn 2020 election.
The four-count, 45-page indictment accuses Trump of three distinct conspiracies, charging that he conspired to defraud the U.S., conspired to obstruct an official proceeding and conspired against people’s rights.
[…]
The indictment charges six unnamed and so far uncharged co-conspirators in these efforts. Some of the individuals are easily identifiable, such as Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s former lawyer.
The indictment also alleges that on the night of Jan. 6, after Trump supporters stormed the Capitol to try to prevent the formal certification of Joe Biden’s victory, “the White House counsel called the defendant to ask him to withdraw any objections and allow the certification. The defendant refused.”
Much more to come, no doubt.
Consider this an open forum on the subject.
I expect a lot of talk on the wingnutsphere about double jeopardy. Not that this needs to be said here, but even if impeachment = criminal trial, the charges are different.
BTW, in the indictment paragraphs number 11 and 12 make the claim Benito knew 1) he’d lost and 2) there was no fraud. The indictment bases this claim on what the Cheeto’s advisers, lawyers, staff, cabinet secretaries, etc. told him, what they informed him about. Meaning what he actually believes is not relevant, as he had the full information all along.
Here’s to a speedy trial.
Moved over from the Open thread.
@Beth:
@CSK:
@Kathy:
I turned on Fox immediately, and you had Andrew McCarthy and Johnathan Turley BOTH telling Brett Baier that the indictments are “less than nothing”. Both of them believe that everything Trump did was protected Free Speech. Once again. Fox viewers are being lied to. Pretty much everyone else is saying it’s a rock solid indictment with very little wiggle room for Trump.
Trump said that “the Biden Crime Family and their weaponized Justice Department” are persecuting him in ways reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
@EddieInCA: The indictment states on page 2 all the things Trump did that he had the First Amendment right to do. The remaining 43 pages detail how and why everything else he did doesn’t qualify.
Fox lies for ratings and money, as we all know. They are just telling their audience of credulous dupes what it wants to hear.
@CSK: Ironic considering it’s his followers who wave swastikas and spout the Nazis’ favorite 14 words.
@Mikey:
Isn’t it?
By the way, minutes after the indictment was made public, Trump started fund-raising off it.
See here for his incomparable rhetoric:
http://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-money-fundraising/
There are some unnamed co-conspirators in the indictment.
I hope they’ll get charged as well. There are two reasons for this: 1) taking down Benito is paramount, but taking down those who helped and enabled him is also important. 2) Some of them may no doubt flip on El Cheeto to spare the government the expense of housing and feeding them for several years.
Also, it’s pretty clear who many of them are. No. 1 is Rudy, No. 2 is Eastman, No. 3 is Powell (the Kraken lawyer). I’m less clear on the rest, and I’m bad with names. But I’ve no doubts many here will be able to identify them.
BTW, if even one charge results in a guilty verdict and jail time, I propose we begin to build statues of Jack Smith, or at the very least grant him the title Restitutor Orbis.
I find it astounding that this two bit degenerate wasn’t put behind bars decades ago
@Kathy: 4 is Jeffrey Clark, 5 is Kenneth Chesebro. 6 we haven’t figured out yet.
Jack Smith in this indictment quoted a single judge in Trump v. Wisconsin. But I am not allowed to quote the plaintiffs, Soyomayor or RBG in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action because true lawyers would not do that.
@Mikey:
A lot of analysts ate speculating that 6 is Boris Epshteyn.
@Mikey:
If no Meadows…he flipped.
Interesting part is item 90, Pence’s statements under oath. At one point Trump told him “You’re too honest” which is evidence of knowing he was being dishonest. He will all but certainly be dragged in to repeat that to the jury.
I see Mike made a clear statement today that he believes this indictment is warranted, so he’s hopping off the fence.
@Paul L.:
Have you heard the Good News?
Rejoice! Justice is at hand!
@Paul L.: Whatever you’re arguing, it makes no sense.
@grumpy realist: Fitting a long standing pattern.
@mattbernius:
I’m hoping it’s Ginni Thomas myself (;
@Paul L.:
Huh?
@Paul L.: Pause, breathe, take a moment to collect yourself, and then try writing that again in English rather than Wingnuttese.
I think you’re using various shorthand phrases that are understood in your usual circles, but not really understood here. (Much as if I were to go to RedState or wherever and mention leopards or the bears in New Hampshire)
Rudy Giuliani is Co-Conspirator #1.
@Mikey: 14 words you say? The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (proud benefactor of bears) tweeted this out:
https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1685263467916193793
Nazis, Trolls or Nazi Trolls?
More Co-Conspirators:
2. John Eastman
3. Sydney Powell
4. Jeffrey Clark
5. Kenneth Chesebro
This indictment is one of the most enraging things I’ve ever read. Clark, apparently, said that if people objected to them overturning the election, they should invoke the Insurrection Act.
Just utter slimeballs all around.
Here is the thing about the freedom of speech defense: one could argue that every conspiracy charge involves a freedom of speech issue, after all, many conspirators do not engage in “overt actions” since they merely discuss things. The way to bridge the gap involves a series of tests. Since conspiracy laws are patently constitutional, I would suggest the Turleys of the world retake Criminal Law, or perhaps they should argue the current status of these laws. Trump and Co. do not appear to be treated any differently from other criminals.
“Breaking News”.
Yes, this is so unexpected! How could anyone ever see this ever happening?
/s
(… lock him up.)
@Raoul:
The Trump crime family has been treated better than other criminals.
A bunch of brown people who incited a terror attack on congress to subvert the peaceful transfer of power would be underneath the jailhouse already.
.Analysis, why this indictment is smartly done – excellent read (gift linky):
“NYT_Gift”
https://nitter.net/neal_katyal/status/1686611357108424704
The
@nytimes
has an excellent annotation of the Trump indictment. Very helpful to read it for yourself. Kudos to
@charlie_savage
and others who put it together. Gift link below
@mattbernius:
Just pointing out your double standard. Prosecutors are smart legal geniuses for using the same argument that shows you are a member of cult.
WRONG!! bad legal theory and arguments: Quoting dicta to show that the last 4 females appointed to Supreme court by Democrats believe the 14th amendment and due process protections from it do not apply to white people.
CORRECT!! Smart and savvy legal theory and arguments: Prosecutors quoting dicta in the Trump indictments. Like DA Bragg mentioning the Trump Access Hollywood tape in his indictment.
@Paul L.: Honestly, you still aren’t making any sense. I seriously don’t understand what you are trying to say, save in the vaguest of ways.
@charontwo:
Neal Katyal argues before the Supreme court that the government can take anyone’s money and assets are any time.
@Mikey: A lot of things Trump accuses others of doing are things that he does proudly.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Maybe St. Elon Cisgender Mars Phobos etc. etc. has given up on AI, and is now testing out bots with genuine stupidity?
@Paul L.:
I saw no reference to either Neal Katyal or your claimed argument at that link, my inference is that you are full of s**t.
@Paul L.:
Like charontwo said, but this article is about the Court ruling unanimously exactly the opposite of your statement.
The mills of justice grind exceedingly slow, yet also exceedingly fine.
@charontwo:
Looks like someone deepfaked this voice here in the oral arguments of Tyler v. Hennepin County?
Neal Kumar Katyal
@Paul L.:
Neal Kumar Katyal did not write the NYT analysis I linked to, so I fail to see the relevance of an ad hominem attack on Katyal to either the NYT piece referenced or any other aspect of this thread’s topic (the recent indictment).
A bit of an OT diversion, no?
@charontwo:
Your link is to a Neal Katyal post
Link directly or to an archive.
@Paul L.:
Neal Katyal tweet contained an NYT gift link, thus I did not need to use up one of my own limited gift links.
Such petty behavior, not impressed.