1/6 committee: Evidence Trump engaged in 'criminal conspiracy,' may have broken laws

[ouch]

The rubber is finally meeting the road. Justice is the most important function of our land of laws. It must proceed on and thoroughly complete its work.

1/6 committee: Evidence Trump engaged in 'criminal conspiracy,' may have broken laws

www.msn.com

The panel argued that the records should not be protected by attorney-client privilege under the crime fraud exception, given that Eastman's legal advice may have helped Trump commit multiple crimes.




While lawmakers on the panel cannot formally charge Trump with a crime, they have suggested their investigation would result in a criminal referral to the Justice Department, which would then decide whether to prosecute the former president.



"The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, plaintiff and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort," the committee wrote in the filing.

 

[Warcok]

You got him now!

 

[Mr Person]

Eastman: “The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so the American people can see for themselves what happened,”

Jacob: I respect your heart here. I share your concerns about what Democrats will do once in power. I want election integrity fixed. But I have run down every legal trail placed before me to its conclusion, and I respectfully conclude that as a legal framework, it is a results-oriented position that you would never support if attempted by the opposition, and essentially entirely made up. “And thanks to your [expletive], we are now under siege,”

Eastman: “I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation [of the Electoral Count Act] and adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full forensic audit of the massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here.”

‘YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary’: A look at the excerpts in the latest Jan. 6 filing - The Boston Globe

The filing includes excerpts of e-mail exchanges between conservative attorney John Eastman and Greg Jacob, who was serving as former vice president Mike Pence’s chief counsel, on the day of the insurrection.

www.bostonglobe.com

I mean, it's only a lawyer demanding someone push Pence to do something unlawful on Trump's behalf and then asking him to consider one more violation of the ECA.

But there's an R next to the name, so this is the peak of virtue to Trumpists. But if a D wears a tan suit...

 

[bluesmoke]

"...may have..."

 

[Plasmaball]

Eastman is shown to know he is violating laws to have pence delay the election.

These people should be arrested

 

[ouch]

"...may have..."

I suppose that language used by attorneys in their court filings should stick with words like 'may have' or 'allegedly' until after the case goes before a jury to decide if the wording gets changed to 'convicted of' or 'has been acquitted'.

"The facts we've gathered strongly suggest that Dr. Eastman's emails may show that he helped Donald Trump advance a corrupt scheme to obstruct the counting of electoral college ballots and a conspiracy to impede the transfer of power,"


The new filing marks the first time the committee has formally accused Trump of specific criminal activities

 

[CaughtInThe]

The cult extremists won't care and will divert.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Here's a bit from the Washington Post about this,

The committee’s goal was to convince a federal judge there is a “good-faith basis” for concluding Trump and others engaged in a “criminal conspiracy” to defraud the United States and obstruct Congress before the attack on the Capitol — and to prove that Trump was acting corruptly by continuing to spread false claims about the election long after he had reason to know he had legitimately lost........

But the committee could put pressure on the Justice Department to act by unspooling evidence Trump was lying to his supporters and pushing his vice president to break the law. And the filing could be the start of an attempt to build the case to the public that Trump bears moral culpability for the violence that erupted on Jan. 6.........

But the filing also points to some of the complications investigators would face in establishing that Trump committed a crime. While the committee might be able to show that Trump was repeatedly warned his rhetoric was untrue, it may be more difficult to prove that Trump believed those warnings — a potentially important step to establishing that Trump acted corruptly and broke the law.

“To some extent his craziness is his best defense,” said former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason. “The fact that he often appears to actually believe some of this stuff could cut in his favor when it comes to a criminal case, where prosecutors would have to show corrupt or fraudulent intent.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/03/trump-election-jan-6/

 

[Linc]

You got him now!

Enabling Career Criminals

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I suppose that language used by attorneys in their court filings should stick with words like 'may have' or 'allegedly' until after the case goes before a jury to decide if the wording gets changed to 'convicted of' or 'has been acquitted'.

Court filings are allegations and, as such, do not have to be completely "conditional".

 

[bluesmoke]

I suppose that language used by attorneys in their court filings should stick with words like 'may have' or 'allegedly' until after the case goes before a jury to decide if the wording gets changed to 'convicted of' or 'has been acquitted'.

"If" is another one.

"The new filing marks the first time the committee has formally accused Trump of specific criminal activities"

Can you quote the words of a formal accusation by the Committee? There is nothing formal about "may have". The Committe is requesting for docs, not formally accusing Trump of anything.

There is no legal requirement for Eastman to give the Committee what they ask, unless required by the courts. The court is being asked, supported by what evidence the Committe produces to the courts, that Eastman be compelled to turn over documents that "may" prove something. They can't describe what is in those docs that "may" find criminal activity by Trump. Perhaps that will be in the court filing. But based on what little is revealed in the article, it looks pretty squishy to me.

 

[ouch]

Can you quote the words of a formal accusation by the Committee? There is nothing formal about "may have". The Committe is requesting for docs, not formally accusing Trump of anything.

That doesn't work for you?

"The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, plaintiff and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort," the committee wrote in the filing.




and this

"As the courts were overwhelmingly ruling against President Trump's claims of election misconduct, he and his associates began to plan extra-judicial efforts to overturn the results of the election and prevent the president-elect from assuming office," the committee wrote in its filing.

"At the heart of these efforts was an aggressive public misinformation campaign to persuade millions of Americans that the election had in fact been stolen. The president and his associates persisted in making 'stolen election' claims even after the president's own appointees at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, along with his own campaign staff, had informed the president that his claims were wrong."

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"If" is another one.

"The new filing marks the first time the committee has formally accused Trump of specific criminal activities"

Can you quote the words of a formal accusation by the Committee? There is nothing formal about "may have". The Committe is requesting for docs, not formally accusing Trump of anything.

There is no legal requirement for Eastman to give the Committee what they ask, unless required by the courts. The court is being asked, supported by what evidence the Committe produces to the courts, that Eastman be compelled to turn over documents that "may" prove something. They can't describe what is in those docs that "may" find criminal activity by Trump. Perhaps that will be in the court filing. But based on what little is revealed in the article, it looks pretty squishy to me.

What you are looking at is the "Search Warrant Standard" which is "reasonable and probable grounds to believe". That standard does NOT have to rise to the "on the balance of probabilities" level, let alone the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level.

 

[bluesmoke]

That doesn't work for you?

"The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, plaintiff and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort," the committee wrote in the filing.




and this

"As the courts were overwhelmingly ruling against President Trump's claims of election misconduct, he and his associates began to plan extra-judicial efforts to overturn the results of the election and prevent the president-elect from assuming office," the committee wrote in its filing.

"At the heart of these efforts was an aggressive public misinformation campaign to persuade millions of Americans that the election had in fact been stolen. The president and his associates persisted in making 'stolen election' claims even after the president's own appointees at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, along with his own campaign staff, had informed the president that his claims were wrong."

What "evidence" is the committee speaking of that supports the inference? Is it evidence being presented in the filing?

Is evidence incl in the filing of Trump planning '..."extra-judicial efforts to overturn the results of the election and prevent the president-elect from assuming office," '?

What, exactly, in the last paragraph of your post is a criminal wrongdoing?

 

[ouch]

What "evidence" is the committee speaking of that supports the inference? Is it evidence being presented in the filing?

Is evidence incl in the filing of Trump planning '..."extra-judicial efforts to overturn the results of the election and prevent the president-elect from assuming office," '?

What, exactly, in the last paragraph of your post is a criminal wrongdoing?

That's for a judge to decide based on the exact wording, and, or any mentioning of evidence or promised findings of evidence included in their filing. If the judge refuses to proceed further, then we'll be able to agree that there wasn't enough material in the Committee's filing that may result in a detrimental blow to their investigation.

 

[bluesmoke]

What you are looking at is the "Search Warrant Standard" which is "reasonable and probable grounds to believe". That standard does NOT have to rise to the "on the balance of probabilities" level, let alone the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level.

Not quite. I'm looking for the "Search Warrant Standard" to lead to something that results in justice. Justice, most certainly, is being delayed. These people are getting away with shooting someone on 5th Ave. The Commitee does not have within all reasoning the evidence to file a formal accusation. Only an accusation that it is there. Somewhere.

 

[bluesmoke]

That's for a judge to decide based on the exact wording, and, or any mentioning of evidence or promised findings of evidence included in their filing. If the judge refuses to proceed further, then we'll be able to agree that there wasn't enough material in the Committee's filing that may result in a detrimental blow to their investigation.

Did you read anything that constitutes a formal accusation? There is no filing of a formal accusation. Merely a filing to obtain information that is said to exist, with only evidence that it does exist. Like unicorns. It's not necessarily evidence of fact, which is part of what you say. The judge will decide if the evidence is of fact that thus the information pursued by the DOJ should be provided. Then there's the wait involved in getting it. This is all a long roll of the dice that is likely to peter out before hitting the backboard. Time is on the side of the accused to actually avoid a speedy "trial" and delay justice. It's a joke.

 

[uptower]

 

[Uncle_Phil]

Prosecuting your political enemies just seems very banana republic and wrong, even if the target in this case is someone as annoying as Donald Trump.

Just sets a bad precedent in my opinion. Then again, that damage has already been done, so might as well see it through.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Did you read anything that constitutes a formal accusation? There is no filing of a formal accusation. Merely a filing to obtain information that is said to exist, with only evidence that it does exist. Like unicorns. It's not necessarily evidence of fact, which is part of what you say. The judge will decide if the evidence is of fact that thus the information pursued by the DOJ should be provided. Then there's the wait involved in getting it. This is all a long roll of the dice that is likely to peter out before hitting the backboard. Time is on the side of the accused to actually avoid a speedy "trial" and delay justice. It's a joke.

They're still in the middle of the investigation. This filing is only about the request for documents from Eastman. When they have the evidence, the tone will change. They need his documents to show the evidence.

You guys always talk in circles. You're putting the horse before the cart. No one will ever be held to justice if investigations could be halted because of a lack of evidence. Cases can be. Investigations are what provide that evidence. But we haven't reached that point yet.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Prosecuting your political enemies just seems very banana republic and wrong, even if the target in this case is someone as annoying as Donald Trump.

Just sets a bad precedent in my opinion. Then again, that damage has already been done, so might as well see it through.

The bad precedent was set when Nixon was let off scott free. It was his pardon that formulated the DOJ opinion that a sitting president can't be charged with a crime. Well, two things. IMHO, the opinion is wrong. And Trump isn't president anymore. He's fair game. If he's innocent along with all his allies, a jury needs to make that determination. Not a bunch of partisan fools complaining about investigating him.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

The rubber is finally meeting the road. Justice is the most important function of our land of laws. It must proceed on and thoroughly complete its work.

1/6 committee: Evidence Trump engaged in 'criminal conspiracy,' may have broken laws

www.msn.com

View attachment 67378033

The panel argued that the records should not be protected by attorney-client privilege under the crime fraud exception, given that Eastman's legal advice may have helped Trump commit multiple crimes.




While lawmakers on the panel cannot formally charge Trump with a crime, they have suggested their investigation would result in a criminal referral to the Justice Department, which would then decide whether to prosecute the former president.



"The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, plaintiff and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort," the committee wrote in the filing.

Here's a Real Helpful hint for you frustrated people!
When the Main Stream Media has to sprinkle in words like "Maybe" , "Might have", "Possible that", or "If true could mean" etc....
That mean they are gaslighting , lying, or pushing Propaganda !...

Here's a great example:
When the Media put out the audio of Trump talking to GA sec of State Raffensberger, is all that happened was they MADE YOU FEEL Trump
was doing something wrong ! If Trump was "Abusing Power" and attempting to change the TRUE results of the election that IS TREASON!!!

So if they weren't lying to you why didn't the GA AG initiate an investigation and charge Trump ?.... It's been > 1year ago and they do talk
about much, do they ? Why do you think that is ? .... Treason is not that big of a deal ? ....

But Raffensberger did recently open a new investigation based on data(video he had) that US Citizens showed him where people
stuffing ballot boxes (Go see 2000 Mules)! So 1+ years later Raffensberger has not charge Trump, but he IS finding that Trump's statements about fraud is more real than he stated back in 2020!....

 

[Taylor]

Well if the partisan 1/6 commission says so... 😂

 

[george48]

The rubber is finally meeting the road. Justice is the most important function of our land of laws. It must proceed on and thoroughly complete its work.

1/6 committee: Evidence Trump engaged in 'criminal conspiracy,' may have broken laws

www.msn.com

View attachment 67378033

The panel argued that the records should not be protected by attorney-client privilege under the crime fraud exception, given that Eastman's legal advice may have helped Trump commit multiple crimes.




While lawmakers on the panel cannot formally charge Trump with a crime, they have suggested their investigation would result in a criminal referral to the Justice Department, which would then decide whether to prosecute the former president.



"The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, plaintiff and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort," the committee wrote in the filing.

I cannot make a judememt on criminallity (NOT a lawyer), that is up to courts, but I would say former Pres Trump is one of the most immoral bleeps ever.

 

[upsideguy]

Prosecuting your political enemies just seems very banana republic and wrong, even if the target in this case is someone as annoying as Donald Trump.

Just sets a bad precedent in my opinion. Then again, that damage has already been done, so might as well see it through.

My God, Trump attempted to set aside the American election to remain in power. That is a coup. Investigating what happened and who was in on it is not political, its imperative. Do you not get the threat this was to America? Have you no sense of decency?