National Security Officials File Amicus Brief Slamming Donald Trump

[TobyOne]

Are these the same people that said Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation ?

 

[Athanasius68]

Striking a match is perfectly legal, and walking in a building with a gallon tank of gasoline is legal , so the defendant must be innocent of arson.
***

No. There is a statute on the books that says arson is illegal.

Had Smith said Trump bribed people, threatened people, blackmailed people in trying to 'overturn' then you would have a stronger argument.
Because then the actual statute would be cited.

But Trump didn't do any of the above. So Smith is left trying to shoehorn the facts into those other charges.

Name one single thing trump claimed during the call to Raffensperger that was true.

You still didn't answer which of the 124 examples is not an example of the Counts 1-4.

 

[soap box]

No. He is guilty because there is a statute saying he cannot rob a bank.

Exactly like the Smith Indictment. He committed acts, both legal and illegal, to reverse a valid and legal election. So when you say something he did isn't illegal, it's an example of his conspiracy of obstruction and attempt to prevent authentic ballots from being counted. ( Since we know there is a right to vote, and there's a law, which he is charged with and that shows his contempt, to deny the right to vote to registered voters. )

18 USC §241 read it sometime.

The issue here then is how broad his constitutional authority is.


That's the allegation.







As above



Probably that he had been on Georgia ballot.


Missing what I have said

You think it's missing what you said because you don't understand any of this. If you can figure out why the questions are at the core of the indictment , you'll have an answer.


You don't have an answer because you won't read the indictment. That's totally pitiful that the only true statement to Raffensperger is something the whole world already knew. I'm talking about lying to an election official. The SOS of the state. But , it's revealing that you can't find a single true statement in the phone call.

Before our supreme Court was floundering in shameless bias, the question was already answered in Fitzgerald v Nixon. His authority cannot include being in control of deciding who won. But the pro-Trump court decided to consider the question , even though the motion to dismiss was absolutely squashed by the 11th circuit court of appeals. Their acceptance of the motion to dismiss did not exclude the acceptance of absolute immunity.

You still didn't answer which of the 124 examples is not an example of the Counts 1-4.

All 124 examples are in the indictment because they explain the four counts. So, try to find one that isn't relevant to the crimes he is charged with. Just like a true statement to Raffensperger, you can't find a real answer and that's why you don't understand this.

 

[soap box]

No. There is a statute on the books that says arson is illegal.

And that's exactly why your argument keeps making the same mistake. You say there's no law against this and that, therefore there's no crime.

Read the indictment with your brain.

Had Smith said Trump bribed people, threatened people, blackmailed people in trying to 'overturn

You mean falsified federal court documents, submitted fraudulent slates of electors, committed fraud by lying to senators and reps about the election, and scheming to deny the right to have one's vote counted

then you would have a stronger argument.

falsified federal court documents, submitted fraudulent slates of electors, committed fraud by lying to senators and reps about the election, and scheming to deny the right to have one's vote counted, are all evidence resulting in the charges.

Obstruction, fraud denial of rights.

Because then the actual statute would be cited.

But Trump didn't do any of the above. So Smith is left trying to shoehorn the facts into those other charges.

All four statues are included. You're neglecting to see there's evidence for each count. 124 examples!!

 

[Athanasius68]

Exactly like the Smith Indictment. He committed acts, both legal and illegal, to reverse a valid and legal election.

No. If there was a law saying that an election cannot be overturned, or if Trump was charged with specific actions in an effort to 'overturn' the election that are crimes (such as the aforementioned bribery), then there would be the stronger case.

So when you say something he did isn't illegal, it's an example of his conspiracy of obstruction and attempt to prevent authentic ballots from being counted. ( Since we know there is a right to vote, and there's a law, which he is charged with and that shows his contempt, to deny the right to vote to registered voters. )

So, there isn't a 'right' to vote. Felons (for the most part), under 18, those deemed not mentally competent, non citizens, can be denied the vote.

Moreover, there are no claims that anyone who wanted to and were legally allowed to vote, were denied the vote.

You think it's missing what you said because you don't understand any of this. If you can figure out why the questions are at the core of the indictment , you'll have an answer.

You don't have an answer because you won't read the indictment. That's totally pitiful that the only true statement to Raffensperger is something the whole world already knew. I'm talking about lying to an election official. The SOS of the state. But , it's revealing that you can't find a single true statement in the phone call.

Shrug. It was more a tongue and cheek comment on my end.
I understand what you are saying.

Before our supreme Court was floundering in shameless bias, the question was already answered in Fitzgerald v Nixon.

Civil immunity

His authority cannot include being in control of deciding who won.

He never made the claim.

But the pro-Trump court decided to consider the question , even though the motion to dismiss was absolutely squashed by the 11th circuit court of appeals. Their acceptance of the motion to dismiss did not exclude the acceptance of absolute immunity.

You still didn't answer which of the 124 examples is not an example of the Counts 1-4.

All 124 examples are in the indictment because they explain the four counts. So, try to find one that isn't relevant to the crimes he is charged with. Just like a true statement to Raffensperger, you can't find a real answer and that's why you don't understand this.

No. You miss the point because Smith is trying to apply the statutes in a way in which it's not intended to be applied.

 

[Athanasius68]

And that's exactly why your argument keeps making the same mistake. You say there's no law against this and that, therefore there's no crime.

Read the indictment with your brain.
View attachment 67504332


You mean falsified federal court documents, submitted fraudulent slates of electors, committed fraud by lying to senators and reps about the election, and scheming to deny the right to have one's vote counted



falsified federal court documents, submitted fraudulent slates of electors, committed fraud by lying to senators and reps about the election, and scheming to deny the right to have one's vote counted, are all evidence resulting in the charges.

Obstruction, fraud denial of rights.

I don't see a mention of a statute saying it's against the law to overturn the election.

I don't see the electoral count act being cited as a statute he violated.

I don't see incitement, insurrection, seditious conspiracy mentioned there either.

Smith doesn't identify any actual criminal actions by Trump.

What we do see is an effort by Smith to shoehorn facts into the statutes he does mention and charge.

 

[soap box]

No. If there was a law saying that an election cannot be overturned, or if Trump was charged with specific actions in an effort to 'overturn' the election that are crimes (such as the aforementioned bribery), then there would be the stronger case.

Smith did indeed include exactly that you're talking about.

So, which of the 124 examples is not evidence that demonstrates the four counts?

So, there isn't a 'right' to vote. Felons (for the most part), under 18, those deemed not mentally competent, non citizens, can be denied the vote.

Black people and women do not have a right to vote, and the voting rights act never happened /s.

No one said it was extended to every single living being. Do you have a right to vote?

Moreover, there are no claims that anyone who wanted to and were legally allowed to vote, were denied the vote.

Only because trump was stopped. He is charged for attempting it.

Shrug. It was more a tongue and cheek comment on my end.
I understand what you are saying.



Civil immunity

His brief clearly said absolute immunity.

He never made the claim.

Why would he have to say it when actions speak louder than words? A president is not authorized to decide the results of an election. The states decide. And the states said NO.

No. You miss the point because Smith is trying to apply the statutes in a way in which it's not intended to be applied.

• The attempt to submit fraudulent EC ballots is illegal because they were not submitted by the Governor or state legislature:

in order to satisfy legal requirements set forth for legitimate electors under state law, state officials were enlisted to provide the fraudulent electors access to state capitol buildings so that they could gather and vote there. In many cases, however, as Co-Conspirator 5 had predicted in the Fraudulent Elector Instructions, the fraudulent electors were unable to satisfy the legal requirements.

• Trump knowingly signed a filing in a federal court claiming the number of dead voters in Georgia was 10,000 while he was fully aware the actual number was 12.

a. An agent of the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1 falsely claimed that more than 10,000 dead people voted in Georgia. That afternoon, a Senior Advisor to the Defendant told the Defendant's Chief of Staff through text messages,

"Just an FYI . [A Campaign lawyer] and his team verified that the 10k+ supposed dead people voting in GA is not accurate. .. . It was alleged in
[Co-Conspirator l's] hearing today." The Senior Advisor clarified that he believed that the actual number was

• He instructed co-conspirator Jeffrey Clark to send a letter to state representatives claiming that the DOJ has evidence of fraud when none existed.

d. Co-Conspirator 4, a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with the Defendant, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations

Now that you can read for yourself just three principal crimes that are cited in the indictment that substantiate the Counts 1-4, you may also read the rest to see how the 124 examples of fraudulent statements and actions are indeed in the Indictment.

What was Trump's purpose in the 124 examples?
That answer is the 4 counts. These are acts both legal and illegal that demonstrate the Charges.

4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant Perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:
a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18. U.S.C. § 1512(k);and

c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

Unless you can quote anything that is not supporting evidence of the Counts 1-4.

 

[soap box]

I don't see a mention of a statute saying it's against the law to overturn the election.

I don't see the electoral count act being cited as a statute he violated.

I don't see incitement, insurrection, seditious conspiracy mentioned there either.

Smith doesn't identify any actual criminal actions by Trump.

What we do see is an effort by Smith to shoehorn facts into the statutes he does mention and charge.

Quote the examples that are not supporting the Counts 1-4.

 

[soap box]

I don't see a mention of a statute saying it's against the law to overturn the election.

I don't see the electoral count act being cited as a statute he violated.

I don't see incitement, insurrection, seditious conspiracy mentioned there either.

Smith doesn't identify any actual criminal actions by Trump.

What we do see is an effort by Smith to shoehorn facts into the statutes he does mention and charge.

How did you recognize the Electoral count act?

So you do know. You knew it was about the electoral count act. Yes you did. But how did you recognize it?

You recognized it is about overturning an election. That's count 4 . How did you realize that? How did you know that?

 

[ClaraD]

Actually, Trump never said the president has that authority.
He said the VP had that authority.


Obviously, that isn't true else the people who who pressured Congress to overturn the election of George Santos (elected quite democratically) would, or should, face criminal charges.

The VP doesn’t have the authority either

 

[Athanasius68]

The VP doesn’t have the authority either

No, the VP does not.

 

[Athanasius68]

Smith did indeed include exactly that you're talking about.

You are going to have to show the cited statutes.

So, which of the 124 examples is not evidence that demonstrates the four counts?

Black people and women do not have a right to vote, and the voting rights act never happened /s.

No one said it was extended to every single living being. Do you have a right to vote?

The vote can't be denied because of the above.

Only because trump was stopped. He is charged for attempting it.

There have been no allegations by anyone that people who wished to vote on Election Day were prevented from voting.
By Trump or anybody.

His brief clearly said absolute immunity.

Trump brief said that.
SCOTUS taking it up does not.

Why would he have to say it when actions speak louder than words? A president is not authorized to decide the results of an election. The states decide. And the states said NO.

Back to the open question as to whether states can change their minds on it.

• The attempt to submit fraudulent EC ballots is illegal because they were not submitted by the Governor or state legislature:

They were invalid anyhow.

• Trump knowingly signed a filing in a federal court claiming the number of dead voters in Georgia was 10,000 while he was fully aware the actual number was 12.

That would be an action that would violate a specific statute.
Smith doesn't allege it though. There appears to be an evidence problem.

• He instructed co-conspirator Jeffrey Clark to send a letter to state representatives claiming that the DOJ has evidence of fraud when none existed.

Now that you can read for yourself just three principal crimes that are cited in the indictment that substantiate the Counts 1-4, you may also read the rest to see how the 124 examples of fraudulent statements and actions are indeed in the Indictment.

What was Trump's purpose in the 124 examples?
That answer is the 4 counts. These are acts both legal and illegal that demonstrate the Charges.



Unless you can quote anything that is not supporting evidence of the Counts 1-4.

 

[soap box]

You are going to have to show the cited statutes.

You already know what they are.

The vote can't be denied because of the above.


There have been no allegations by anyone that people who wished to vote on Election Day were prevented from voting.
By Trump or anybody.

Count 4 is about having your vote counted. That's in the Voting Rights Act.

Trump brief said that.
SCOTUS taking it up does not.

Quote the scotus brief where they describe what they will decide.

Back to the open question as to whether states can change their minds on it.

Regardless of the illegality, they refused but trump continued the Big Lie. The president can't enforce a law when no election laws were broken. The president doesn't decide who wins an election.

They were invalid anyhow.

Exactly, showing that it was an illegal, fraudulent scheme.

That would be an action that would violate a specific statute.
Smith doesn't allege it though. There appears to be an evidence problem.

You still can't find am example that isn't supporting the charges. There's 124 examples and they all are evidence to support the charges. Find an example that doesn't.

I believe your argument is that he didn't specify the laws for you.

If you recognized those things, why does Smith have to write the citations in the indictment just for you since you already know a few of them. That will be during the trial. Do you think for a minute that he doesn't have them already?

If you could recognize them, what are you saying? You're saying that the actions both legal and illegal substantiate the charges, but it's weak because he didn't cite them in the Indictment?

That's nothing because he'll specify all that in the trial.

You didn't need the citations to know what laws were involved.

 

[Buckeyes85]

For each and every of Trump's prosecutions, and for each and every charge in each of those prosecutions, those beholden to him try to play armchair lawyer arguing what they think the facts are and what they think the statutes mean that he has been charged under.

In both criminal and civil law, the defendant can file a motion at the early stage of litigation arguing even if the facts as alleged are trued, the elements of the crimes/claims are not satisfied, so the charges must be dismissed.

Trumps crack legal team has filed a nearly endless string of motions to dismiss arguing has his fans do here: the charges simply don't apply to anything he has done.

And they have lost at every stage.
And when the evidence in each trial concludes, his attorneys will renew those motions, seeking a directed verdict arguing the evidence as presented, doesn't fit the charges.

And they will lose most, if not all of those.

If you Trumpers really want answers as to why your legal analysis is wrong, go read the motions Trump's attorneys have filed, the prosecutions response, and the decisions rejecting them. They are all a matter of public record.

 

[Tangmo]

Trump thinks soldiers are suckers and losers

Most Americans think the armed forces will do Trump's will against the people as Trump orders 'em to do.

Fact is the armed forces will never obey an illegal and unconstitutional order by Trump to install him in office once again.

His reelection would in fact be against the Constitution the armed forces are sworn to "support and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic."

Either way, win or lose the election, Trump will never be president / commander in chief again. This will break Putin which is good. Moscow Magas will freak out.

 

[Athanasius68]

Count 4 is about having your vote counted. That's in the Voting Rights Act.

Votes were counted. Nobody votes were suppressed; there was no voter fraud.

Quote the scotus brief where they describe what they will decide.

Supreme Court takes up Trump immunity appeal - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In a one-page unsigned order, the justices ordered a federal appeals court to continue to keep on hold its ruling rej

www.scotusblog.com

Regardless of the illegality, they refused but trump continued the Big Lie. The president can't enforce a law when no election laws were broken. The president doesn't decide who wins an election.

So-- since its not against the law for the states to change their electoral vote, what is the conspiracy?

 

[soap box]

Votes were counted. Nobody votes were suppressed; there was no voter fraud.

As you like to say, he's not charged with that, he attempted to keep the votes from being counted.

Supreme Court takes up Trump immunity appeal - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In a one-page unsigned order, the justices ordered a federal appeals court to continue to keep on hold its ruling rej

www.scotusblog.com

Where does it say they will not decide to uphold Trump's motion to dismiss on grounds of absolute immunity?

The response granting certiorari says, "without expressing a view on the merits"

Can you quote the part where they've already decided they will not uphold absolute immunity since they described " to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity"

- Which leaves open the option that the extent is all the way to complete and absolute immunity.

I hope not, but I don't trust them.

So-- since its not against the law for the states to change their electoral vote, what is the conspiracy?

The conspiracy is that Trump and co-defendants acted , both legally and illegally, through forgery, fraud and total lies to election officials and state legislators. Which we both know the law will be cited during the trial.


Where's the citations for state legislators changing their EC delegation after the certification?

 

[Athanasius68]

As you like to say, he's not charged with that, he attempted to keep the votes from being counted.

Trump didn't do that. It's pretty clear-- he wanted the legislatures to reconsider and rescind their electoral votes.

Where does it say they will not decide to uphold Trump's motion to dismiss on grounds of absolute immunity?

The response granting certiorari says, "without expressing a view on the merits"

Can you quote the part where they've already decided they will not uphold absolute immunity since they described " to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity"

That's the question.

- Which leaves open the option that the extent is all the way to complete and absolute immunity.

I don't think so.

I hope not, but I don't trust them.

The conspiracy is that Trump and co-defendants acted , both legally and illegally, through forgery, fraud and total lies to election officials and state legislators. Which we both know the law will be cited during the trial.

Smith doesn't just get to assume that Trump committed a crime. There is no such thing as a secret trial.

He has not charged Trump with forgery, and fully concedes that Trump can believe what he wants about the election result.

Where's the citations for state legislators changing their EC delegation after the certification?

?

 

[soap box]

Trump didn't do that. It's pretty clear-- he wanted the legislatures to reconsider and rescind their electoral votes.

And they refused repeatedly and trump still went ahead with his scheme to obstruct. That shows intent.

That's the question.

And the court didn't say how far they intend it to be. They said they would not remark on the merits.

I don't think so.




Smith doesn't just get to assume that Trump committed a crime. There is no such thing as a secret trial.

But you already recognized what the laws in the examples are. Why does he have to include them in the Indictment just for you?

He has not charged Trump with forgery, and fully concedes that Trump can believe what he wants about the election result.

Forgery is an example in furtherance of the charges against him. Which we both know will be presented during the trial, but not in the indictment.

?

You said it's not against the law for the states to rescind their EC delegations.

Post #116

"So-- since its not against the law for the states to change their electoral vote, what is the conspiracy?"

Please provide a citation that shows it is allowed. My understanding is that there's no consensus on this since it never was an issue before.

 

[Tangmo]

Ok-- be prepared for an investigation/ prosecution of former president Obama and various officials for conspiracy to commit murder.
It's a far worse allegation than anything that has been leveled against former president Trump.

Trump wants Gen. Milley now retired murdered for "treason" toward Trump and "disloyalty" to himself as the vessel of Putin's demands against the Constitution that Milley served and defended for 43 years in uniform and against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Your claim against Obama is also baloney.