superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Trump and Eastman appear to be preparing to be indicted. It’s probably better to have a new, separate thread for this case.
Special Counsel January 6 conspiracy case against Trump in DC (Update: Trial set for March 4, 2024) (2 Viewers)
- Thread startersuperchuck500
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
UriUT
Well-known member
Offline
One of the things I heard from a commentator who supposedly knows about Smith is that he won't charge unless he is ready for trial. Everything is lined up. He may not need these people. Who knows.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
I remember Michael Cohen saying as much
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
Good article
=========
Now the legal wrangling begins.
The indictment of Donald Trump lays out four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against voting rights.
Trump’s lawyers will surely move to challenge the legal sufficiency of the case, arguing that the allegations, even if true, don’t amount to a crime and filing a motion to dismiss the indictment even before the case goes to trial. I think they’ll lose; even if some charges are knocked out or pared back, prosecutors will be able to proceed on others.
Trump will then have to wait for an appeal, if he is convicted, to raise the legal arguments again. Here are the strongest — although perhaps not all that strong — claims we can expect to hear ahead of trial:
Argument #1: The statutes governing conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of an official proceeding (Counts Two and Three) don’t apply here, because that prohibition only covers destruction of evidence and other forms of evidence tampering.
The relevant law, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), provides that whoever “corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
Most courts have broadly interpreted the second, “otherwise obstructs” language to cover conduct that ranges beyond document destruction. The provision, the Supreme Court said in a 1995 decision, “serves as a catchall, prohibiting persons from endeavoring to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.”
Some Jan. 6 defendants have argued that the law does not cover conduct outside the general area of document destruction or witness tampering. But the language is broader than that.
As U.S. Appeals Court Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, wrote in an April ruling, U.S. v. Fischer, upholding the use of the obstruction statute, “no fewer than fourteen district judges in this jurisdiction have adopted the broad reading of the statute urged by the government to uphold the prosecution of defendants who allegedly participated in the Capitol riot.”
That doesn’t doom Trump’s argument. Trump nominee Gregory Katsas, dissented, arguing that the “otherwise obstructs” language meant that the illegal conduct had to have something to do with evidence.
After all, he noted, the provision was part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted in the wake of the Enron scandal in response to corporate wrongdoing and document destruction.
“Section 1512(c)(2) has been on the books for two decades and charged in thousands of cases — yet until the prosecutions arising from the January 6 riot, it was uniformly treated as an evidence-impairment crime,” Katsas wrote.
Even if Katsas is correct, however, prosecutors could argue that Trump’s efforts to prevent the election results from being certified are closer to evidence tampering than is the rioters’ conduct in assaulting police officers.
Still, this is an issue on its way to the Supreme Court, and it’s not certain how the majority, which has been wary of endorsing broad interpretations of anti-corruption laws, would rule on the issue.
Argument #2: Trump lacked the requisite intent to break the law or to act corruptly, because he believed that he won the election and was only taking steps to vindicate his rights as the supposedly victorious candidate.
The intent question is a complicated one. The indictment repeatedly asserts that Trump knew he lost the election and sets out a mountain of evidence to that effect — his own statements, the conclusions of his top advisers, the unanimous findings of numerous courts.
At the same time, it recognizes that Trump had every right — whether he was lying or merely deluded — to argue that he had won. He just didn’t have the right to use illegal means to effectuate that victory.
As Randall Eliason, a former federal public corruption prosecutor, has explained, “If I honestly believe a bank had cheated me and owes me money, that doesn’t mean I can rob the bank to get my money back.”
But the fact pattern in Trump’s case is a mix of perfectly legal claims of election fraud with other acts that prosecutors argue cross the line of legality — demanding that Georgia officials “find” the necessary votes to produce a win, arranging to submit phony slates of electors, pressing Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the election after Pence insisted he had no such authority. (“You’re too honest,” Trump allegedly replied.)
The obstruction counts, as outlined above, require proof that the defendant acted “corruptly.” The meaning of corruptly under 1512(c) is far from settled, as the recent Fischer case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit illustrated.
In that case, Pan wrote, “corruptly” was not at issue because the underlying obstructive action — assaulting Capitol police — was “independently unlawful.”
But the concurring judge, Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, said the “corruptly” provision requires proof the defendant “must intend to obtain a benefit that he knows is unlawful.”
That at least gives Trump an opening to argue that he lacked the requisite intent in seeking to have himself declared the victor.
Did he know he wasn’t entitled to the presidency? The D.C. Circuit is weighing the question in another Jan. 6 case argued in May; you can be sure both sides in the Trump case will be keeping a close eye on the ruling……..
=========
Now the legal wrangling begins.
The indictment of Donald Trump lays out four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against voting rights.
Trump’s lawyers will surely move to challenge the legal sufficiency of the case, arguing that the allegations, even if true, don’t amount to a crime and filing a motion to dismiss the indictment even before the case goes to trial. I think they’ll lose; even if some charges are knocked out or pared back, prosecutors will be able to proceed on others.
Trump will then have to wait for an appeal, if he is convicted, to raise the legal arguments again. Here are the strongest — although perhaps not all that strong — claims we can expect to hear ahead of trial:
Argument #1: The statutes governing conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of an official proceeding (Counts Two and Three) don’t apply here, because that prohibition only covers destruction of evidence and other forms of evidence tampering.
The relevant law, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), provides that whoever “corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
Most courts have broadly interpreted the second, “otherwise obstructs” language to cover conduct that ranges beyond document destruction. The provision, the Supreme Court said in a 1995 decision, “serves as a catchall, prohibiting persons from endeavoring to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.”
Some Jan. 6 defendants have argued that the law does not cover conduct outside the general area of document destruction or witness tampering. But the language is broader than that.
As U.S. Appeals Court Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, wrote in an April ruling, U.S. v. Fischer, upholding the use of the obstruction statute, “no fewer than fourteen district judges in this jurisdiction have adopted the broad reading of the statute urged by the government to uphold the prosecution of defendants who allegedly participated in the Capitol riot.”
That doesn’t doom Trump’s argument. Trump nominee Gregory Katsas, dissented, arguing that the “otherwise obstructs” language meant that the illegal conduct had to have something to do with evidence.
After all, he noted, the provision was part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted in the wake of the Enron scandal in response to corporate wrongdoing and document destruction.
“Section 1512(c)(2) has been on the books for two decades and charged in thousands of cases — yet until the prosecutions arising from the January 6 riot, it was uniformly treated as an evidence-impairment crime,” Katsas wrote.
Even if Katsas is correct, however, prosecutors could argue that Trump’s efforts to prevent the election results from being certified are closer to evidence tampering than is the rioters’ conduct in assaulting police officers.
Still, this is an issue on its way to the Supreme Court, and it’s not certain how the majority, which has been wary of endorsing broad interpretations of anti-corruption laws, would rule on the issue.
Argument #2: Trump lacked the requisite intent to break the law or to act corruptly, because he believed that he won the election and was only taking steps to vindicate his rights as the supposedly victorious candidate.
The intent question is a complicated one. The indictment repeatedly asserts that Trump knew he lost the election and sets out a mountain of evidence to that effect — his own statements, the conclusions of his top advisers, the unanimous findings of numerous courts.
At the same time, it recognizes that Trump had every right — whether he was lying or merely deluded — to argue that he had won. He just didn’t have the right to use illegal means to effectuate that victory.
As Randall Eliason, a former federal public corruption prosecutor, has explained, “If I honestly believe a bank had cheated me and owes me money, that doesn’t mean I can rob the bank to get my money back.”
But the fact pattern in Trump’s case is a mix of perfectly legal claims of election fraud with other acts that prosecutors argue cross the line of legality — demanding that Georgia officials “find” the necessary votes to produce a win, arranging to submit phony slates of electors, pressing Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the election after Pence insisted he had no such authority. (“You’re too honest,” Trump allegedly replied.)
The obstruction counts, as outlined above, require proof that the defendant acted “corruptly.” The meaning of corruptly under 1512(c) is far from settled, as the recent Fischer case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit illustrated.
In that case, Pan wrote, “corruptly” was not at issue because the underlying obstructive action — assaulting Capitol police — was “independently unlawful.”
But the concurring judge, Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, said the “corruptly” provision requires proof the defendant “must intend to obtain a benefit that he knows is unlawful.”
That at least gives Trump an opening to argue that he lacked the requisite intent in seeking to have himself declared the victor.
Did he know he wasn’t entitled to the presidency? The D.C. Circuit is weighing the question in another Jan. 6 case argued in May; you can be sure both sides in the Trump case will be keeping a close eye on the ruling……..
FullMonte
Well-known member
Offline
Interesting commentary on our political system.
If Trump is convicted of felonious conduct prior to the election, he can continue to run for office…however, he likely would not be able to vote in that election.
If Trump is convicted of felonious conduct prior to the election, he can continue to run for office…however, he likely would not be able to vote in that election.
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
It will never happen in this environment, but anyone convicted of a felony should not be allowed to run for President. It should be a clear rule with no exceptions.
fooferdoggie
Well-known member
Offline
yes but he is partly responsible for letting trump get away with his crap Now he has a little backbone??
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
Sure, but I don't really care at this point. Anything that can help put Trump away, I'm all for it. Better late than never.
- Banned
- #207
SaintForLife
Well-known member
Offline
I see it's okay when you "spam" a thread, but not okay for people you disagree with.
Between this indictment and the NY indictment it's clear how desperate they are from stopping Trump from being elected again. Yet another weak indictment.
I may not like Trump, but I love our Constitution, so I feel compelled to speak out.
The latest indictment, which I encourage everyone to read, attempts to criminalize Trump’s routine misstatements of fact and law in connection with the 2020 election.
But this is precisely the sort of wrong that must be addressed politically under our Constitution, not criminally.
Our system can’t survive if political disputes are removed to the criminal realm. There’s no limiting principle to such an approach.
Remind me again which former presidents have been indicted for going to war without congressional approval, spying on Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment, abusing emergency declarations to bypass checks and balances, or ignoring legal advisers to pursue a clearly unlawful policy.
We don’t criminalize these actions, egregious as they are, because they are matters of political contention. We’re allowed to disagree about the workings of our constitutional system without fear of criminal reprisal.
Politicians are constantly misguided and just plain mistaken about a lot of things—often remarkably so. It endangers all Americans to begin treating politicians’ false beliefs regarding political or constitutional matters, even when they’re obviously wrong, as criminal offenses.
We impeach people for violating the public trust—for political misconduct or serious incompetence. We reject them. We vote them out. We never again elect them.
We don’t imprison them.
As an aside: Even on Jack Smith’s own terms—even assuming the applicability of the cited statutes to a political dispute—the indictment falls woefully short. Showing that others repeatedly told Trump he was wrong is not sufficient to prove he sought to defraud the United States or to corruptly obstruct an election. Proving Trump’s state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt—proving fraudulent or corrupt intent—requires much more than Smith alleges.
coldseat
Well-known member
Offline
That's a very weak argument, I don't really care who's making it. Trump took specific actions to overturn a lawefull election, it really doesn't matter what he believed. I could care less what he believed. The actions that he took sought to deny the American people of their duly elected president. He tired to do this through every means possible, and when the legal means didn't give him the outcome he sought, he turned to illegeal means. He desereves to be convited and go to prison for it. If he doesn't, our laws mean nothing.
- Banned
- #209
SaintForLife
Well-known member
Offline
Last edited:
Taurus
Well-known member
Offline
It's like these grifters expect us to forget what some of the 1/6 mob were convicted of.
GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Good luck with getting a constitutional amendment to the states to decide that one.
- Banned
- #212
SaintForLife
Well-known member
Offline
Taurus
Well-known member
Offline
Well, then. I guess Cheato will easily win.
In fact, the Grand Jury never indicted him, since it's such a clear issue of speech.
Nevermind, everyone! We're all just high.
cuddlemonkey
Well-known monkey
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 4,705
- Reaction score
- 5,947
Offline
Can one of our fine legal minds put this into layman's terms?
efil4
Well-known member
Offline
is Michael Tracy an attorney? Did he offer his services to Trump pro bono?
if no to either of those, all he is doing is speculating.
efil4
Well-known member
Offline
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.