Special Counsel January 6 conspiracy case against Trump in DC (Update: Trial set for March 4, 2024) (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    Washington (CNN) — Donald Trump’s frustration over his ability to speak publicly about his federal election conspiracy case is fueling his plans to continue posting about it on social media, slamming the judge over the weekend after she warned him not to intimidate witnesses, obstruct justice or try to muddy his ability to have a fair trial, according to sources close to the former president.

    Trump criticized Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, as “highly partisan” and “very biased & unfair” on Truth Social early Monday morning, setting up an early test of the limits that Chutkan has imposed on Trump’s speech as a criminal defendant under the law.

    The former president has insisted it’s his First Amendment right to defend himself publicly and has always viewed social media as his most direct way of communicating with his voters, two sources close to Trump told CNN and according to legal arguments made by his lawyer to Chutkan……



    www.cnn.com

    Trump has no plans to stop posting about 2020 election conspiracy case despite stern warnings from judge | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump’s frustration over his ability to speak publicly about his federal election conspiracy case is fueling his plans to continue posting about it on social media, slamming the judge over the weekend after she warned him not to intimidate witnesses, obstruct justice or try to muddy his...
    www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
     
    So far, neither Trump nor his defenders have offered much in the way of defense to the allegations in the special counsel's election fraud indictment. The only semblance of a defense has been to suggest that Trump acted on advice of counsel.

    Exploring that a little bit, in federal criminal cases, a defendant may contend that the intent element of the charges against him is vitiated by his good faith action on the advice of counsel. This is not as simple as saying "I had a lawyer say it was okay so I thought I could do it."

    First, the advice of counsel must go to the specific intent of a specific charge. Second, the defendant must have acted in good faith on that specific counsel advice. And third, the counsel must have been advised of all material facts within the defendant's knowledge.

    Here, the indictment alleges that Trump and the co-conspirators either knew outright that Trump had lost, or at minimum, knew that there was no competent evidence that there was sufficient fraud or irregularities in any of the relevant states to support a reasonable belief that Trump had won. Similarly, there's ample evidence that lawyers in the White House (including White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Trump staff counsel Eric Hershmann, and possibly even Attorney General Bill Barr) voiced their objections to the plan as illegal.

    A defendant charged with conspiracy, where the attorneys on whose advice he supposedly relied are also charged as co-conspirators for advice that was illegal, is going to have a very difficult time arguing good faith. This was a scheme directly for the benefit of Trump and the co-conspirator lawyers simply provided some legal cover for what more competent counsel expressly advised Trump was illegal.

    Finally, I'm seeing where some Trump defenders are saying that the government has to prove that Trump didn't actually believe he had lost and that's simply not the case - the government only has to prove the elements of the criminal statutes. Even if Trump believed he had won, the devices he employed to attempt to achieve his result were illegal. And "advice of counsel" is a defense - which means the burden is on the defendant. Ultimately, it comes down to a jury determination as to whether Trump had the requisite good faith belief in the advice of his indicated co-conspirator lawyers . . . that Trump was really innocent, along for the ride on this plan hatched by his lawyers to commit illegal acts.

    Yeah right.
     
    I’ve seen it said that in order to put forth the argument that he believed what he was doing was legal, he would probably have to testify on his own behalf. Which obviously he cannot do….
     
    superchuck500 said:
    So far, neither Trump nor his defenders have offered much in the way of defense to the allegations in the special counsel's election fraud indictment. The only semblance of a defense has been to suggest that Trump acted on advice of counsel.

    Exploring that a little bit, in federal criminal cases, a defendant may contend that the intent element of the charges against him is vitiated by his good faith action on the advice of counsel. This is not as simple as saying "I had a lawyer say it was okay so I thought I could do it."

    First, the advice of counsel must go to the specific intent of a specific charge. Second, the defendant must have acted in good faith on that specific counsel advice. And third, the counsel must have been advised of all material facts within the defendant's knowledge.

    Here, the indictment alleges that Trump and the co-conspirators either knew outright that Trump had lost, or at minimum, knew that there was no competent evidence that there was sufficient fraud or irregularities in any of the relevant states to support a reasonable belief that Trump had won. Similarly, there's ample evidence that lawyers in the White House (including White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Trump staff counsel Eric Hershmann, and possibly even Attorney General Bill Barr) voiced their objections to the plan as illegal.

    A defendant charged with conspiracy, where the attorneys on whose advice he supposedly relied are also charged as co-conspirators for advice that was illegal, is going to have a very difficult time arguing good faith. This was a scheme directly for the benefit of Trump and the co-conspirator lawyers simply provided some legal cover for what more competent counsel expressly advised Trump was illegal.

    Finally, I'm seeing where some Trump defenders are saying that the government has to prove that Trump didn't actually believe he had lost and that's simply not the case - the government only has to prove the elements of the criminal statutes. Even if Trump believed he had won, the devices he employed to attempt to achieve his result were illegal. And "advice of counsel" is a defense - which means the burden is on the defendant. Ultimately, it comes down to a jury determination as to whether Trump had the requisite good faith belief in the advice of his indicated co-conspirator lawyers . . . that Trump was really innocent, along for the ride on this plan hatched by his lawyers to commit illegal acts.

    Yeah right.
    Click to expand...
    This was what Eastman’s lawyer argued on Ari Melber”s show last week. Eastman was asked by his client to examine a specific scenario, and he researched and answered his clients inquiry. There wasn’t any conspiracy as it was a scholarly question. And in one of his defense, he cited…drum roll…Lawrence tribe for the legality of his scheme.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    So far, neither Trump nor his defenders have offered much in the way of defense to the allegations in the special counsel's election fraud indictment. The only semblance of a defense has been to suggest that Trump acted on advice of counsel.

    Exploring that a little bit, in federal criminal cases, a defendant may contend that the intent element of the charges against him is vitiated by his good faith action on the advice of counsel. This is not as simple as saying "I had a lawyer say it was okay so I thought I could do it."

    First, the advice of counsel must go to the specific intent of a specific charge. Second, the defendant must have acted in good faith on that specific counsel advice. And third, the counsel must have been advised of all material facts within the defendant's knowledge.

    Here, the indictment alleges that Trump and the co-conspirators either knew outright that Trump had lost, or at minimum, knew that there was no competent evidence that there was sufficient fraud or irregularities in any of the relevant states to support a reasonable belief that Trump had won. Similarly, there's ample evidence that lawyers in the White House (including White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Trump staff counsel Eric Hershmann, and possibly even Attorney General Bill Barr) voiced their objections to the plan as illegal.

    A defendant charged with conspiracy, where the attorneys on whose advice he supposedly relied are also charged as co-conspirators for advice that was illegal, is going to have a very difficult time arguing good faith. This was a scheme directly for the benefit of Trump and the co-conspirator lawyers simply provided some legal cover for what more competent counsel expressly advised Trump was illegal.

    Finally, I'm seeing where some Trump defenders are saying that the government has to prove that Trump didn't actually believe he had lost and that's simply not the case - the government only has to prove the elements of the criminal statutes. Even if Trump believed he had won, the devices he employed to attempt to achieve his result were illegal. And "advice of counsel" is a defense - which means the burden is on the defendant. Ultimately, it comes down to a jury determination as to whether Trump had the requisite good faith belief in the advice of his indicated co-conspirator lawyers . . . that Trump was really innocent, along for the ride on this plan hatched by his lawyers to commit illegal acts.

    Yeah right.
    Click to expand...

    Apparently there is record of Eastman telling Trump "don't sign (certain affidavit) as it wasn't true"

    Trump signed anyway.


    Don't know if relates to GA or part of Federal indictment
     
    Tamara Perryman, whose husband, Brian Jackson, was charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, sat in an overflow room in the D.C. federal courthouse to watch former president Donald Trump’s arraignment.

    Perryman, 43, has attended many hearings inside the building, hoping to support people charged with trying to block Congress’s work formalizing Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. On this day, she viewed the proceedings via closed-circuit TV, amid far more spectators than normal. But the scene was all too familiar.


    As she saw the former president sitting at the defense table and listened to the judge read out the charges against him, she thought: “Welcome to the club, Trump. You’re a J6er now.”


    Before the former president was indicted on a charge of trying to overturn the 2020 election, 1,077 people had faced federal charges in some way tied to the events of Jan. 6, according to the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia. Trump was the 1,078th.


    Inside the D.C. jail, defendants being held in Jan. 6-related cases say they are trading legal theories on how Trump’s case could affect their own — and joking about which empty cell could house the 45th president of the United States.

    Some of those charged in the Capitol attack say they think the newest, highest-profile member of their ranks bolsters the argument that they are “political prisoners,” and they hope his case might offer them some legal help, too.

    The right-wing group Look Ahead America added Trump to its “J6 Prisoner Database.” Derrick Evans, a former West Virginia state legislator whose participation in the Capitol riot led to a three-month jail sentence, posted on Facebook about the indictment: “President Trump is getting ready to become a J6 Political Prisoner just like me.”

    “We’re like, if Trump comes in here, we’re gonna put him in 45 cell,” said Shane Jenkins, 46, of Houston, who was found guilty of several charges in connection with the riot, including one Trump now faces, and is being held in the D.C. jail.

    “We definitely talk about Donald Trump. I don’t think they’ll ever put him in jail, per se. And if they do, I hope they would bring him here. We would have a good time, and it would be awesome to get to meet Donald Trump.”


    Extremism analysts say characterizing Trump and the Jan. 6 defendants as political prisoners is wrong and could have dangerous consequences.


    “Claims that insurrectionists are political prisoners is a way of deflecting accountability, of building political support,” said Lindsay Schubiner, the director of programs at the Western States Center, a Portland, Ore.-based civil rights nonprofit organization that monitors extremism and anti-democracy movements.

    “And maybe most importantly, a way of normalizing violence against American institutions and our democracy itself.”……

     
    Last edited:
    Optimus Prime said:
    Tamara Perryman, whose husband, Brian Jackson, was charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, sat in an overflow room in the D.C. federal courthouse to watch former president Donald Trump’s arraignment.

    Perryman, 43, has attended many hearings inside the building, hoping to support people charged with trying to block Congress’s work formalizing Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. On this day, she viewed the proceedings via closed-circuit TV, amid far more spectators than normal. But the scene was all too familiar.


    As she saw the former president sitting at the defense table and listened to the judge read out the charges against him, she thought: “Welcome to the club, Trump. You’re a J6er now.”


    Before the former president was indicted on a charge of trying to overturn the 2020 election, 1,077 people had faced federal charges in some way tied to the events of Jan. 6, according to the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia. Trump was the 1,078th.


    Inside the D.C. jail, defendants being held in Jan. 6-related cases say they are trading legal theories on how Trump’s case could affect their own — and joking about which empty cell could house the 45th president of the United States.

    Some of those charged in the Capitol attack say they think the newest, highest-profile member of their ranks bolsters the argument that they are “political prisoners,” and they hope his case might offer them some legal help, too.

    The right-wing group Look Ahead America added Trump to its “J6 Prisoner Database.” Derrick Evans, a former West Virginia state legislator whose participation in the Capitol riot led to a three-month jail sentence, posted on Facebook about the indictment: “President Trump is getting ready to become a J6 Political Prisoner just like me.”

    “We’re like, if Trump comes in here, we’re gonna put him in 45 cell,” said Shane Jenkins, 46, of Houston, who was found guilty of several charges in connection with the riot, including one Trump now faces, and is being held in the D.C. jail.

    “We definitely talk about Donald Trump. I don’t think they’ll ever put him in jail, per se. And if they do, I hope they would bring him here. We would have a good time, and it would be awesome to get to meet Donald Trump.”


    Extremism analysts say characterizing Trump and the Jan. 6 defendants as political prisoners is wrong and could have dangerous consequences.


    “Claims that insurrectionists are political prisoners is a way of deflecting accountability, of building political support,” said Lindsay Schubiner, the director of programs at the Western States Center, a Portland, Ore.-based civil rights nonprofit organization that monitors extremism and anti-democracy movements.

    “And maybe most importantly, a way of normalizing violence against American institutions and our democracy itself.”……

    Click to expand...
    Yeah, they wouldn't be political prisoners at all. They would literally be criminals who broke the law and acted like mob bosses who let others do the dirty work for them.
     
    MT15 said:
    And so it begins. I’m glad they have already charged her.

    Click to expand...


    This woman is in serious need of an intervention for what is clearly a mental health crisis:

    "On Monday, a federal judge in Texas ordered Shry held without bond during a preliminary detention hearing. Magistrate Judge Sam S. Sheldon’s detention order noted Shry has been charged four times in the past year for engaging in similar conduct, including at least two cases that resulted in conviction and 30 days imprisonment. According to Sheldon, Shry was also charged on July 11 with misdemeanor threat causing fear of imminent serious bodily injury and was on bond in that case when she made the alleged call to Chutkan’s office in D.C."
     
    Good thread here about Cheseboro (co-conspirator 5) and his activities with Alex Jones before and on J6. The key point being that “There is no firm dividing line between those orchestrating the political conspiracy to overturn the election and the extremists who led the attack on the Capitol.”

     
    superchuck500 said:
    Good thread here about Cheseboro (co-conspirator 5) and his activities with Alex Jones before and on J6. The key point being that “There is no firm dividing line between those orchestrating the political conspiracy to overturn the election and the extremists who led the attack on the Capitol.”

    Click to expand...

    threadreaderapp.com

    Thread by @thomasjoscelyn on Thread Reader App

    @thomasjoscelyn: 1. @CNN reports: Kenneth Chesebro, one of the chief architects of the fake electors scheme, was with Alex Jones outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and also attended the conspiracy rally in Freedom P...…
    threadreaderapp.com threadreaderapp.com

    This can be a case of guilt by association! Nah, you have to be an idiot to believe this isn't all planned well in advance. We have Roger Stone dictating this fake elector plan before the election even. The most moronic of all this is that Roger Stone, the Proud Boys, and all these insurrectionists had documentary groups follow them for Jan 6th insurrection. They expected this coup to succeed. Reminds me of that scene in the Big Short when Mark Baum realizes that the two brokers were boasting about their bad mortgages.

     

    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!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom