Georgia grand jury returns indictment in Trump 2020 election case

[Phys251]

Trump could believe whatever he liked, it's his actions that constituted crimes.

Some Trump supporters think belief is all you need to be innocent, but that's not how the law works, and furthermore, their actions indicated that their allegations of fraud arose from the conspiracy itself not belief.

That's what righties' handlers have told them. As usual they cannot address this case based on facts, so they have to rely on a BS narrative.

 

[Callen]

It's clear that many still have not read the indictment but they sure seem to have all the defense theories being pushed on Fox down pat. I think it was Barr who said that an "acting on lawyers advice" isn't going to fly given the lawyers were advising on illegal activities and in most cases, if not all cases, none of them were on a retainer to Trump and therefore not his lawyer. The other thing he said was that you can't present a defense without someone testifying in support of that defense. What do you think the chances are of any of those lawyers taking the stand and swearing under oath that the advice they were giving was appropriate and legal? Or I guess Trump could take the stand and swear to that......damn I hope this trial is televised that would be some good watching!!!

 

[Michael Cole]

Fat Fani did.

No, that's false. Anyone who thinks Trump is being charged with planning a speech has a screw loose. Planning a speech isn't illegal.

 

[SkyFox76]

Trump could believe whatever he liked, it's his actions that constituted crimes.

Some Trump supporters think belief is all you need to be innocent, but that's not how the law works, and furthermore, their actions indicated that their allegations of fraud arose from the conspiracy itself not belief.

And some of those same supporters will tell you that J6 rioters who believed they were following the orders of their POTUS are shit out of luck because he mentioned peacefully once, while using terms like fight and fighting 20 times.

 

[soap box]

All they did is group together things they didn't like and called the total of them a crime. You know this.

I Read the Georgia Indictment, So You Don’t Have To

The Georgia indictment relates to Donald Trump’s (and 18 other defendants’) post-election efforts to reverse the apparent result of the 2020 election, in Georgia and elsewhere. That Tru…

www.powerlineblog.com

I READ THE GEORGIA INDICTMENT, SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO
The Georgia indictment relates to Donald Trump’s (and 18 other defendants’) post-election efforts to reverse the apparent result of the 2020 election, in Georgia and elsewhere. That Trump made such attempts is not disputed. The question is, what did he do that was illegal?
The indictment alleges a vast conspiracy, supported by 161 “overt acts,” that ultimately comprises Count I, a violation of Georgia’s RICO statute. The problem is that, with two exceptions, the “overt acts” are all legal. You can’t aggregate a series of legal acts and make them a crime by calling them a conspiracy.
The indictment alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators made a number of false statements, starting with Overt Act 1:

The indictment sets out in detail statements that were made by the defendants about voter fraud in Georgia and other states, all of which are alleged to be false. Of course, in the wake of the election, there were many claims of voter fraud. Some of these proved to be true, I think, while others proved to be incorrect. But so what? It is not, in general, a crime to make false statements. If it were, Washington would be a ghost town.
The second main thrust of the indictment involves the fact that Trump and his “co-conspirators” arranged for an alternate slate of pro-Trump electors to be identified in Georgia. The indictment recites efforts by Trump and others to convince officials in Georgia and other states to certify his alternate slates, or otherwise to reverse the apparent results of the election in a particular state. These alternate electors were selected, as White House adviser Stephen Miller explained, to preserve Trump’s rights in the event that one or more of his legal challenges succeeded:

I don’t think that such alternate elector slates are unprecedented, and in any event there is nothing illegal about identifying such would-be electors, however futile it might be.
The indictment recites, with much repetition, the fact that Trump and his allies tried to persuade government officials in Georgia and other states to take actions that could result in the apparent election results being reversed. All of those efforts failed, culminating with the unsuccessful effort to convince Vice President Mike Pence that he had legal authority to exercise discretion in recognizing states’ electors in the event of a dispute.

Do you need to see the next three pages that specify which laws were broken? Just ask

 

[Paradoxical]

He hired and paid for the people that did it...so, it doesn't matter if he was there...if you are complicit, you can be charged as if you were the primary actor. For instance if you plan a robbery with someone, that other person shoots someone and kills them....it doesn't matter who pulled the trigger...you will be charged for murder as well.

You know this how?

 

[Michael Cole]

You know this how?

Because she's smart. Why don't you know it?

 

[Paradoxical]

There were 13 false statements in the call with Raffensperger, take your pick:


The prosecution only needs to prove one.

No. You are wrong. False statements are protected free speech. WHERE do you get this nonsense from that it is a crime to make false statements??

PS. I am not saying that his statements were false. ANYONE can make claims and statements. this is a free country. At least it used to be. If Trump said, "I won Georgia by 10,000 votes" and the vote count shows he lost by 2,000 Fani is saying that it is a crime. She doesn't know what she is talking about.

 

[Paradoxical]

The indictment says it was an "overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy." Absent a criminal conspiracy, there's nothing illegal about it (much like buying rat poison is completley legal absent the plan to kill someone).

The crimes include: "false statements and writings, impersonating public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury"

This is false. Free speech includes lying and making false statements (unless your name is Trump)

 

[Paradoxical]

No, she did not. And how old are you?

It is a figure of speech and is not directed at a poster, and actually is the truth. Have you seen her?

 

[Michael Cole]

No. You are wrong. False statements are protected free speech.

These false statements are not. They are crimes.

WHERE do you get this nonsense from that it is a crime to make false statements??

From the law.

PS. I am not saying that his statements were false.

The state of GA has already proven them to be false. That's why he's being charged.

ANYONE can make claims and statements. this is a free country.

Yep. We're free to enact laws that criminalize certain false statements.

At least it used to be. If Trump said, "I won Georgia by 10,000 votes" and the vote count shows he lost by 2,000 Fani is saying that it is a crime. She doesn't know what she is talking about.

You haven't even read the indictment.

 

[Paradoxical]

She didn’t say that either. So you posted it…did you read it?

I Read the Georgia Indictment, So You Don’t Have To

The Georgia indictment relates to Donald Trump’s (and 18 other defendants’) post-election efforts to reverse the apparent result of the 2020 election, in Georgia and elsewhere. That Tru…

www.powerlineblog.com

The indictment alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators made a number of false statements, starting with Overt Act 1:

On or about the 4th day of November, 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP made a nationally televised speech falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election. Approximately four days earlier, on or about October 31, 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP discussed a draft speech with unindicted co-conspirator Individual 1, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud. The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The indictment sets out in detail statements that were made by the defendants about voter fraud in Georgia and other states, all of which are alleged to be false. Of course, in the wake of the election, there were many claims of voter fraud. Some of these proved to be true, I think, while others proved to be incorrect. But so what? It is not, in general, a crime to make false statements. If it were, Washington would be a ghost town.

The second main thrust of the indictment involves the fact that Trump and his “co-conspirators” arranged for an alternate slate of pro-Trump electors to be identified in Georgia. The indictment recites efforts by Trump and others to convince officials in Georgia and other states to certify his alternate slates, or otherwise to reverse the apparent results of the election in a particular state. These alternate electors were selected, as White House adviser Stephen Miller explained, to preserve Trump’s rights in the event that one or more of his legal challenges succeeded:

“As we speak, today, an alternate slate of electors in the contested states is going to vote and we’re going to send those results up to Congress,” he continued. “This will ensure that all of our legal remedies remain open. That means that if we win these cases in the courts, that we can direct that the alternate state of electors be certified.”

I don’t think that such alternate elector slates are unprecedented, and in any event there is nothing illegal about identifying such would-be electors, however futile it might be.

The indictment recites, with much repetition, the fact that Trump and his allies tried to persuade government officials in Georgia and other states to take actions that could result in the apparent election results being reversed. All of those efforts failed, culminating with the unsuccessful effort to convince Vice President Mike Pence that he had legal authority to exercise discretion in recognizing states’ electors in the event of a dispute.

“Overt Act 6” is a typical example of these allegations:

On or about the 21st day of November, 2020, MARK RANDALL MEADOWS sent a text message to United States Representative Scott Perry from Pennsylvania and stated, “Can you send me the number for the Speaker and the leader of PA legislature. POTUS wants to chat with them.” This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

But again, so what? Taking legal steps to try to overturn the apparent result of an election is not illegal. That is what Al Gore did. It is what Stacey Abrams did. It is how Al Franken got into the Senate. In Trump’s case, his legal arguments were uniformly weak. But it is not a crime to make a bad legal argument. If it were, the U.S. would be suffering from a shortage of lawyers.

In my view, there are only two small portions of the indictment that allege actual crimes. The first relates to some of the defendants gaining access to a voting machine, and also to some physical ballots, as part of their effort to find evidence of voter fraud. I assume that these actions were actually illegal as alleged in the indictment, but they are not particularly serious and hardly justify the grand conspiracy described in the indictment. The indictment also alleges that someone named Robert Cheeley committed perjury in his testimony before the Grand Jury. I have no idea whether that allegation is true, but if so, it obviously does constitute a crime.

But as to Trump, the indictment is mostly a howl of outrage at his temerity in claiming that the 2020 election was riddled with voter fraud and he should have been the winner. Trump may have been wrong about the extent of the fraud–which no doubt was considerable–and I am sure he was not the rightful winner. But expressing his opinions on these subjects, and pursuing legal remedies to vindicate what he saw as his rights, are not crimes.

 

[Paradoxical]

And FYI, here is a link to Al Gore's shenanigans: It just about destroys Fanis allegations that there were "crimes".

DERSHOWITZ: Gore's team and I contested 2000 vote. Why go after Trump?

DERSHOWITZ: Electoral challenges have long been part of American history, only now are they being criminalized. I was one of the lawyers involved in objections to Florida's presidential vote in 2000.

www.dailymail.co.uk

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Al Gore, his legal team and I tried to find uncounted presidential votes, lobbied officials and fought in the courts in 2000. The only difference now? The candidate's name is Donald Trump... That's why this prosecution is an outrage​

 

[Michael Cole]

I Read the Georgia Indictment, So You Don’t Have To

The Georgia indictment relates to Donald Trump’s (and 18 other defendants’) post-election efforts to reverse the apparent result of the 2020 election, in Georgia and elsewhere. That Tru…

www.powerlineblog.com

The indictment alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators made a number of false statements, starting with Overt Act 1:


The indictment sets out in detail statements that were made by the defendants about voter fraud in Georgia and other states, all of which are alleged to be false. Of course, in the wake of the election, there were many claims of voter fraud. Some of these proved to be true, I think, while others proved to be incorrect. But so what? It is not, in general, a crime to make false statements. If it were, Washington would be a ghost town.

The second main thrust of the indictment involves the fact that Trump and his “co-conspirators” arranged for an alternate slate of pro-Trump electors to be identified in Georgia. The indictment recites efforts by Trump and others to convince officials in Georgia and other states to certify his alternate slates, or otherwise to reverse the apparent results of the election in a particular state. These alternate electors were selected, as White House adviser Stephen Miller explained, to preserve Trump’s rights in the event that one or more of his legal challenges succeeded:


I don’t think that such alternate elector slates are unprecedented, and in any event there is nothing illegal about identifying such would-be electors, however futile it might be.

The indictment recites, with much repetition, the fact that Trump and his allies tried to persuade government officials in Georgia and other states to take actions that could result in the apparent election results being reversed. All of those efforts failed, culminating with the unsuccessful effort to convince Vice President Mike Pence that he had legal authority to exercise discretion in recognizing states’ electors in the event of a dispute.

“Overt Act 6” is a typical example of these allegations:


But again, so what? Taking legal steps to try to overturn the apparent result of an election is not illegal. That is what Al Gore did. It is what Stacey Abrams did. It is how Al Franken got into the Senate. In Trump’s case, his legal arguments were uniformly weak. But it is not a crime to make a bad legal argument. If it were, the U.S. would be suffering from a shortage of lawyers.

In my view, there are only two small portions of the indictment that allege actual crimes. The first relates to some of the defendants gaining access to a voting machine, and also to some physical ballots, as part of their effort to find evidence of voter fraud. I assume that these actions were actually illegal as alleged in the indictment, but they are not particularly serious and hardly justify the grand conspiracy described in the indictment. The indictment also alleges that someone named Robert Cheeley committed perjury in his testimony before the Grand Jury. I have no idea whether that allegation is true, but if so, it obviously does constitute a crime.

But as to Trump, the indictment is mostly a howl of outrage at his temerity in claiming that the 2020 election was riddled with voter fraud and he should have been the winner. Trump may have been wrong about the extent of the fraud–which no doubt was considerable–and I am sure he was not the rightful winner. But expressing his opinions on these subjects, and pursuing legal remedies to vindicate what he saw as his rights, are not crimes.

Trump wasn't seeking legal remedies. He was trying to get government officials to engage in illegal activities.

"Just say you've recalculated."
^^^ felony

 

[Brack]

Jack Jones, Mary Smith, and thousands of others dead or moved for at least 10 years. The polling places still send him or her ballots, either intentionally or by mistake. Those ballots get returned as undeliverable. They are kept aside. They are ballots that are blank. People fill in straight-line Democrat votes and sign the ballot with a scribble and send it in at the very last minute. No one checks when the ballot is opened as we saw in the Kari Lake election.

That didn't happen in Maricopa County. Kari Lake was a terrible candidate who lost Maricopa County by 2.43% while GOP County Attorney Rachel Mitchell won Maricopa County by 5.74%.

 

[BabaVoss]

No. You are wrong. False statements are protected free speech. WHERE do you get this nonsense from that it is a crime to make false statements??

It is nonsense to believe that making false statements is always protect free speech.

 

[Paradoxical]

Look, everyone, I know you think these prosecutors know everything but they don't. They don't even know that the highest court in the land says lying by a politician is not a crime. Here ya go from a simp[le query to ChatGPT "Has the Supreme Court ruled that it is not a crime for a politician to lie?"

Yes, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that lying by politicians is protected by the First Amendment because it is an expression of their religion1. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court declared that any attempt to restrict or punish lying by politicians is an unconstitutional infringement on a religion they have practiced for decades1. The Court’s decision won praise from politicians of both parties, with many saying that the Justices’ recognition of lying as a religion was “long overdue”1.

In another case, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a politician’s right to lie during a campaign is protected under the free speech provision of the First Amendment2. Similarly, in United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court essentially stated that the First Amendment protects intentional lies3. States have tried to limit lying in political campaigns, but those attempts have met with lawsuits3.

I hope this information helps! Is there anything else you would like to know?


PS. Do leftists know how to do independent research? Even IF Trump was lying (and he wasn't) it is not a crime. This fat Fani cannot take multiple lies (that she believes are lies) and put them on paper and say "He 'lied' 20 times" and therefore this is a RICO case." Also, see my link to Al Gore where he said Al Gore did this very same thing.

This case is weaker than these two leftists:

 

[Paradoxical]

It is nonsense to believe that making false statements is always protect free speech.

See above.

 

[Paradoxical]

That didn't happen in Maricopa County. Kari Lake was a terrible candidate who lost Maricopa County by 2.43% while GOP County Attorney Rachel Mitchell won Maricopa County by 5.74%.

Got it. thanks for your help.

 

[Michael Cole]

Look, everyone, I know you think these prosecutors know everything but they don't. They don't even know that the highest court in the land says lying by a politician is not a crime. Here ya go from a simp[le query to ChatGPT "Has the Supreme Court ruled that it is not a crime for a politician to lie?"

Yes, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that lying by politicians is protected by the First Amendment because it is an expression of their religion1. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court declared that any attempt to restrict or punish lying by politicians is an unconstitutional infringement on a religion they have practiced for decades1. The Court’s decision won praise from politicians of both parties, with many saying that the Justices’ recognition of lying as a religion was “long overdue”1.

In another case, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a politician’s right to lie during a campaign is protected under the free speech provision of the First Amendment2. Similarly, in United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court essentially stated that the First Amendment protects intentional lies3. States have tried to limit lying in political campaigns, but those attempts have met with lawsuits3.

I hope this information helps! Is there anything else you would like to know?


PS. Do leftists know how to do independent research? Even IF Trump was lying (and he wasn't) it is not a crime. This fat Fani cannot take multiple lies (that she believes are lies) and put them on paper and say "He 'lied' 20 times" and therefore this is a RICO case." Also, see my link to Al Gore where he said Al Gore did this very same thing.

This case is weaker than these two leftists:

View attachment 67463745

Such a waste of good bandwidth.

GOP Rep. Jeff Fortenberry guilty of three felonies in campaign contributions case

Fortenberry, 61, was charged last October with three felony counts, including one count of scheming to falsify and conceal material facts and two counts of making false statements to federal investigators.

 

[poweRob]

"Requesting"...? The word I heard was "recalculate".

"Find me x amount of votes" is no where near that softball bullshit he was just peddling.

 

[Michael Cole]

See above.

See above.

 

[exoplanet]

No. You are wrong. False statements are protected free speech. WHERE do you get this nonsense from that it is a crime to make false statements??

PS. I am not saying that his statements were false. ANYONE can make claims and statements. this is a free country. At least it used to be. If Trump said, "I won Georgia by 10,000 votes" and the vote count shows he lost by 2,000 Fani is saying that it is a crime. She doesn't know what she is talking about.

There are plenty of situations where it is a crime to make false statements, in the court of law it's called perjury, on a loan application it's called fraud, etc.. There are obvious limits to free speech that I shouldn't have to educate you about.
I already cited the specific law for you (O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 False statements and writings, concealment of facts, and fraudulent documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions) that relates to Trump's phone call with Raffensperger.

 

[mike2810]

No. You are wrong. False statements are protected free speech. WHERE do you get this nonsense from that it is a crime to make false statements??

PS. I am not saying that his statements were false. ANYONE can make claims and statements. this is a free country. At least it used to be. If Trump said, "I won Georgia by 10,000 votes" and the vote count shows he lost by 2,000 Fani is saying that it is a crime. She doesn't know what she is talking about.

Why the If statement regarding Trump? If leaves you an out because it says you do not know exactly what Trump said.
Quote exactly what Trump said and then tell us why it is not an issue or crime.

Your example is worthless unless you can prove that is exactly what Trump said.

Not all false statements are "protected" free speech and I suspect you know that.

 

[Paradoxical]

There are plenty of situations where it is a crime to make false statements, in the court of law it's called perjury, on a loan application it's called fraud, etc.. There are obvious limits to free speech that I shouldn't have to educate you about.
I already cited the specific law for you (O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 False statements and writings, concealment of facts, and fraudulent documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions) that relates to Trump's phone call with Raffensperger.

See post 2267. Trump was not under oath so your post is irrelevant gaslighting.