![]() ![]() So, since trying to steal an election is a crime, we can then criminally prosecute any Democrat who supported Gore post, or even pre, Bush v Gore in 2000?Įvery Democrat who supported "The Resistance" against Trump is a criminal who needs to go to jail? Everyone in America who passed around the "Trump Russia Collusion" lies can be thrown in jail? Trump’s falsehoods as “integral to his criminal plans,” Indeed, the indictment acknowledged that it was not illegal in and of itself for Mr. That Trump! he "brazenly" tried to get honest electors to represent the actual will of the State's voters, rather than the ones raised up by Democrat vote fraud! ![]() He focused more on a brazen plan to recruit false slates of electors from swing states and a pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to block the congressional certification of Joseph R. The one whose every claim was blown up once Tucker Carlson was given a free hand to go through the video and expose all the things the Democrats left out? ![]() That would be the House Committee that fraudulently edited the video from the day? 6, leaving out vast amounts of evidence in the report by a House committee that separately investigated the matter. Smith said little about the violent events of Jan. But I doubt that this Harvard professor/former public defender is counting on that, and pretty sure he doesn't want that. Better to assume that the judge will act judiciously and apply the law fairly to a criminal defendant she may well loathe. Lefties are clearly betting that the District Judge - herself a former public defender - will bend over backwards, for all the wrong reasons, to reach that result. It's possible that a court will try to draw a distinction between that long line of cases and Smith's indictment here. Those cases all stand for the proposition that these federal statutes do not adopt some general code of ethics that prosecutors can use to make up new crimes outside the core areas of these statutes - McDonnell says that quite clearly. The reasoning of those cases, all of which turned on the impact that applying anti-fraud or bribery statutes outside the core area of the normal meaning of "fraud" or "bribe" would have on First Amendment values, is obviously applicable to Trump's ridiculous claims that he lost the 2020 election because of election fraud. US (1987), among many others over the years. US, a unanimous decision by RBG (2000) and McNally v. US, decided a few months ago and both unanimous decisions, but they built on Skilling v. Most recent decisions in that line of cases came this term - Ciminelli v. When phrased in terms of deprivation of "honest services" or bribery, the object of the scheme has to involve obtaining money via a bribe or a kickback. Not surprisingly, those old cases have been repudiated in a long string of decisions, over the last 30 years, holding clearly that federal anti-fraud statutes require proof that obtaining money or property was the object of the scheme. Those cases were all decided long before the Supreme Court had ever applied the First Amendment to strike down a statute, which first occurred in Stromberg v. The legal theory for the conspiracy/obstruction charges all turn on a fraud theory based on some really old cases (1910/1920 vintage) for the proposition that lying that impacts the government in some highly attentuated way can be a crime. Smith suggested he would frame those public statements as contributing to unlawful actions and as evidence they were undertaken with bad intentions, not as crimes in and of themselves.įor a 'former public defender," that take on the indictment is really strange. Trump’s falsehoods as “integral to his criminal plans,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers have signaled they will argue that he had a First Amendment right to say whatever he wanted. Trump made to his supporters as they morphed into a mob, avoiding tough First Amendment objections that defense lawyers could raise. By eschewing them, he avoided having the case focus on the inflammatory but occasionally ambiguous remarks Mr. Trump with inciting an insurrection or seditious conspiracy - potential charges the House committee recommended. ![]() ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |