A president has been accused of betraying his country

The Defamation of the Trump Campaign: A High-Sensitive Attorney’s Perspective on a Case Study of Election Corruptcy

At last. One of the most dishonest, malicious and damaging conspiracies in the history of the United States will be fought by the federal criminal justice system. Tuesday’s indictment of Donald Trump, brought by the special counsel Jack Smith’s office, is the culmination of a comprehensive effort to bring justice to those who attempted to overthrow the results of an American presidential election.

At the risk of oversimplifying an indictment that contains four distinct counts — conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights — it can be broken down into two indispensable components. First, it will be necessary to prove what Trump knew. It is necessary to prove what he did. There is a first count of the indictment which is conspiracy to defraud the United States. The statute is designed to criminalize any interference or obstruction of a “lawful governmental function” by “deceit, craft or trickery.”

The legal system was in a crouch in the weeks after the 2020 election as it was attacked by frivolous claims aimed at reversing the results. The legal system has changed over the last couple of years after the violent insurrection in January of 2011. With all deliberate speed, prosecutors first brought charges against Trump’s foot soldiers, the men and women who breached the Capitol. Prosecutors pursued the organizers of Trumpist militias, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who were engaging in a conspiracy to keep Trump in the White House.

Even his own advisers had told him what was being told to him. There was no evidence of widespread fraud that would change the election’s outcome.

Dozens of lawsuits were brought in states where Trump didn’t win in the election. Courts repeatedly rejected the Trump team’s election fraud claims.

Instead, he kept raising money off of his false claims. Between Election Day and January 6, there was a $250 million raised by Trump.

Trump, leaning on legal theories proposed by outside attorney John Eastman, wanted Pence to refuse to count certain Electoral College votes — a theory that Pence rejected as unconstitutional.

Eastman is trying to keep his law license. The State Bar of California opened a case against him in June and has argued that Eastman knowingly and willfully pushed false allegations of voter fraud during the 2020 election.

Republican officials in Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia were pushed to vote for an alternate slate of electors by Trump advisers, even though Biden had won the states.

But as Congress was meeting on Capitol Hill, Trump was hosting a rally down by the White House. He told the crowd to “fight like hell” and march to Congress after he repeated his claims of election fraud.

On that day, Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, injuring scores of law enforcement officers, forcing a panicked evacuation of the nation’s political leaders and threatening the peaceful transfer of power after Trump lost the 2020 presidential election.

The Justice Department launched a nationwide investigation, one of the largest in the department’s history, immediately to find those who broke into the Capitol and to hold them accountable. Over one thousand people have been arrested in relation to the attack.

After the indictment was handed down, Trump and his allies were calling it a sham and accusing the Biden administration of trying to interfere with the election.

Trump is facing several criminal charges. In Florida, he was accused of withholding classified documents, and in New York, he was accused of accounting for hush money payments.

The grand jury indicted the former President on four counts relating to attempts to change the result of the 2020 presidential election.

The Case of Donald Trump: Prosecutoral Misconduct and Political Persecusion in a Washington, D.C., Circuit Court

Chutkan was nominated to the bench by President Barack obama and has been taking the hardest line on Jan. 6 defendants of any judge in Washington’s federal trial court.

Chutkan was the leader for the tough punishment of the Jan. 6 rioters. Chutkan imposed harsher penalties than federal prosecutors sought for the rioters.

A serious Washington, D.C. federal judge with decades of experience is also facing Donald Trump in this case. The case was assigned to Judge Chutkan.

On Truth Social, Trump said a “Fake Indictment” was evidence of “prosecutorial misconduct.” His campaign issued a formal statement (and, later, a fund-raising pitch) calling it “election interference.” And his Republican allies in Congress — plus even some of his GOP primary foes — cast the indictment as political persecution at the hands of the Biden administration.

This case involves more people — at least six unnamed co-conspirators are listed by prosecutors as part of the alleged conspiracy — and is widespread geographically compared to the case brought so far in New York and Florida, Tobias noted.

Tobias noted that prosecutors used this charge especially during the Civil Rights era to prosecute those who intimidated and terrorized Black voters at that time as well.

It was passed after the Civil War to stop the members of the Ku Klux Klan from harassing and threatening Black voters.

The FBI’s FBI Special Counsel Report on the January 6th, 2021, Election Crime Indictment: The Case of DePerno

And all of these investigations are happening separately from the Justice Department’s sprawling and complex investigation into the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

The special prosecutor investigating the case claims that DePerno has been charged with conspiracy, possession of a voting machine, and willfully damaging a voting machine.

And it works. Less than half of the voters in Republican polling gave Trump their support several weeks before the first indictment. His numbers went up to 50% the day after he was charged.

That’s because, after two impeachments, three indictments and quite a few scandals in between, Trump has conditioned his supporters to see each allegation against him as a reason to rally around him.

Franco Ordoez, NPR White House correspondent, said in an interview with All Things Considered that the attacks from Trump and his supporters are focused on the process, not the substance.

And their descriptions line up with that of people who could be of interest to investigators, such as former Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and Sidney Powell, and former DOJ attorney Jeffrey Clark.

Some are attorneys who helped promote bogus election fraud claims. Co-conspirator 3 is described as an attorney who privately acknowledged that the unfounded election fraud claims were “crazy.” One of theconspirators, a Justice Department official, worked on civil matters and tried to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations to influence state legislatures.

Only Trump is charged in this indictment and he is the only one. But the court document scatters some clues for the future in terms of who else might potentially face charges.

The attack on the Capitol on January 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on American democracy, said the special counsel in a statement before reporters. “It was fueled by lies, as described in the indictment.” The defendants were targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government.

The Indictment of President Trump in the House of Representatives for Inciting an Insurrection as a Test of the First Amendment

Despite being summoned to appear in court, Trump is still the top candidate in the Republican primary race. If he pleads not guilty (as he has with the other indictments), we could be hearing about his trial as he makes his case for the White House.

Mr. Smith nixed the referral for Mr. Trump to be investigated for inciting an insurrection. The insurrection charge has not been charged by the Justice Department since the 19th century, even though they were involved in the Capitol attack. Of course, no president has engaged in it since then — but since no one else has been charged with that crime relating to Jan. 6, it likely would have been an issue. If it was true that the defendant would not be able to hold federal office, it would fuel a claim that the Justice Department was used to defeat a political rival.

Well, political speech covers even information that turns out not to be true. So it’s all protected by free speech. The government will never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump didn’t believe in the righteousness of his cause.

Exactly. Political advocacy involves acting on the free speech. If I were to take a position that I do not agree with, there is a Supreme Court case saying I should register young men for service. Even though I am advocating a certain action or inaction, it’s still protected by the First Amendment.

So prosecutors are saying that these are criminal acts, but you’re making the argument that former President Trump was exercising his constitutionally protected right to free speech. Is that the case you planned to make?

Well, it’s not a big surprise. When you look at this indictment, it doesn’t really say much other than President Trump was exercising his right to talk about the issues and advocate politically for his belief that the election was stolen and was improperly run. He got advice from counsel — very, very wise and learned counsel — on a variety of constitutional and legal issues. He was right to advocate for a position that he believed in and his supporters believed in. For the first time in United States history, a sitting administration has criminalized speech against a prior administration. It’s really quite unprecedented and it really will politicize the criminal justice system, which is terrible to see.

It depends on what is provided. The indictment has election issues in seven states. So we’ll be litigating a case of unprecedented magnitude. I’ve been involved in large white collar cases for many years, over 40 years of practicing law, this is going to be one of the biggest cases in the history of the United States. The trial could last for up to a year. It’s insane to expect that counsel is going to prepare for a case in 90 days.

It’s up to the court. The Secret Service and United States marshals can have an effect on it. Certainly, we have no objection to appearing in court, and that’s the way that it is going to roll out.

Jack Smith’s case for a speedy trial: Why West Virginia is not a state with a more balanced jury pool and why is it worth it?

Well, we’re looking for a more diverse area that has a more balanced political jury pool. You know, the country is very, very divided politically right now, this is a very divisive indictment. It goes to issues of free speech and political activity. We’re looking for a jury that’s more balanced. Even though West Virginia was a state, it was more evenly divided. And we’re hoping for a jury that doesn’t come with any implicit or explicit bias or prejudice. So it makes sense to go to a place like West Virginia.

Jack Smith stated that this will be a quick trial. Do you think it’s worth it to bring this case to a trial before the election?

Yes, the arraignment is under a summons, which is a voluntary way of requesting the presence of a party before the court and obviously the president will comply.

He told NPR that his legal team wants enough time to study the documents, interview witnesses and look at the evidence in its totality, making this the biggest case in the United States’ history.

John Lauro is one of Trump’s attorneys in this case and pushed back against special counsel Jack Smith’s call for a speedy trial, saying that the right to a speedy trial belongs to defendants rather than the government.