There goes my head.
This is unbelievable: I saw the story yesterday and ignored it assuming it was a hoax or something. But no.
Hours before a Georgia grand jury handed down a pack of indictments yesterday charging Donald Trump and 18 lawyers, allies and associates with crimes in their efforts to challenge the 2020 election, a document was posted on the court’s website stating that the former President had already been charged. The grand jury hadn’t even voted yet. Oopsie!
The Associated Press, now a consistently biased news source that gives every Trump story as hard a pro-Democratic Party, Trump Derangement spin as possible, notes that this bizarre episode “gave the former president an opening in court and on the campaign trial to try to paint Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ case as tainted and the criminal justice system as rigged against him.” Gee, ya think, AP? Just because the court announced the jury’s decisions before they made it? Boy, those Republicans will pounce on anything!
You know, I try to eschew sarcasm, but only disgust and mockery will do in this case. “There is no evidence that the grand jury process was somehow compromised, or that the document was intentionally leaked by prosecutors or court officials,” says the AP, in a spectacular example of Rationalization #64, “It isn’t what it is.” There’s no evidence—except for the fact that the grand jury’s conclusion was publicized before it was reached! I’d call that rather substantial evidence that the process was compromised and the document was leaked, wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t anybody? Wouldn’t particularly those Americans who are convinced that the Democrats have weaponized the legal system to hold power and to imprison the opponent and critic whom they most fear come to that conclusion? Shouldn’t they?
To make things worse, the court clerk, Che Alexander, could do little more than emulate Ralph Kramden’s immortal babble “huminhuminahumina” when confronted with the botch. Alexander’s office released a statement calling the document “fictitious,” then arguing that documents without official case numbers “are not considered official filings and should not be treated as such.” The document that appeared online DID have a case number, however, though a different one from the final grand jury findings. Then, later, when Willis was asked about the apparent leak, “I can’t tell you anything about what you refer to.”
So it’s “No comment,” then, is it? Yeah, that’s going to put all those conspiracy theories to rest.
Naturally, this episode didn’t slow down the unethical Trump Deranged lynch mob at all. “Trump’s lawyers will try to jump on it, as they jump on every possible avenue of defense, and argue that someone leaked it just to embarrass him,” said Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a Washington criminal defense attorney. Yeah, wow, imagine: his lawyers are going to argue that there’s something fishy about a grand jury indictment being announced before its handed down! Those hacks… happens all the time! (In fact, it never happens. But just as a wild coincidence, it happened to the former President the Democrats have decided to crush by any means necessary.)
In related news, the Chicago Project on Security & Threats did a survey indicating that eighteen million Americans, or 6.9%, feel that violence may be justified to ensure Trump is not successfully kept out of the White House by undemocratic means. 62% of this group believe the proliferating prosecutions of Trump are intended to hurt his chances in 2024. What’s the matter with these deplorables? Why ever would they think that?
But seriously, though, folks, breaking with all tradition and democratic norms to seek to jail an active and legitimate political foe should require unusual certainty, competence, and care. Instead, Trump’s Inspector Javerts are behaving like Inspector Clouseau.
This doesn’t help.
UPDATE: Finally, the court clerk has issued an explanation after obfuscating and tap-dancing for a day. You can make your own assessment, but her first instinct was to lie; there’s no reason to trust her new spin.
Ethics Alarms 
Just to clarify for other readers that Donald Trump and 18 lawyers, allies and associates were charged with crimes in their efforts to change the outcome of the 2020 election, not “challenge”
– Kate
The purpose of challenging an election is to change the outcome.
When John Podesta asked for an intelligence briefing for the electors in 2016, he was seeking to change the outcome of the 2016 election.
It can be, but that’s not the case here.
It’s like taking someone to challenge someone in court vs robbing them.
Both end the same, but one is a legal process, one is not.
There is no difference other than the party of the individual making the challenge. Your approval of one challenge over the other doesn’t make the circumstances different anywhere but in your head.
No, there’s absolutely a difference.
It’s not my fault you fail to see it.
You can challenge the election legally like it Court where you give the other side a chance to challenge you back, or you can attempt to overturn the results through brute force, which is what Trump tried to do.
John Podesta did not go to court; he issued a statement calling for the electors to receive an intelligence briefing from intelligence agencies.
And that was constitutionally protected petition to the government for the redress of grievances. Despite the Clinton campaign’s goal of overturning the 2016 election, issuing a statement for an intelligence briefing for the electors was no crime. Even when I actually read about that from an article written by Michael Tracey, it never occurred to me that it was a crime.
To be sure, Glen Greenwald admitted that certain actions, even those taken to overturn an election, may very well be crimes. Bribery, threats of criminal violence, extortion are most certainaly crimes, and there is no “it was to overturn a fraudulent election” defense.
What was a crime was paying for the Steele dossier and categorizing it as a legal expense. What was a crime was Kevin Clinesmith altering an e-mail that was sent to the FISA court to obtain a warrant against Carter Page, which constitutes perjury and tampering with evidence. Given these crimes, there is probable cause that the whole “Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election” was a criminal racket.
But it would be a criminal racket not because trying to overturn an election is an illegal goal,. but because of the crimes committed in pursuit of that goal.
K
Moderation warning: You’ve now used this obnoxious device twice. Don’t use it again: I won’t let it stay up. Either offer a substantive rebuttal, or be quiet.
But since the election wasn’t corrupted, Trump is trying to disenfranchise all American voters then?
Is that your point?
I’d argue Trump is trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters since their votes are the ones that would have not been counted and the election wasn’t corrupted.
You know it isn’t. Trolling again.
No more so than John Podesta and the Clinton Campaign were trying to disenfranchise voters.
I know it isn’t?
Huh?
– Kate
I wrote: “Believing that an election was corrupted means that one believes that all Americans are being disenfranchised: the vote is meaningless for all if the elections have no integrity. Having an election turn out the way a group of citizens wants doesn’t mean the right to vote has been upheld.”
By no possible interpretation or rule of English does that statement mean “But since the election wasn’t corrupted, Trump is trying to disenfranchise all American voters then.” It means that since Trump genuinely believes that the election was corrupted, he also believed he was acting within his Constitutional powers to correct the results of that corruption. Stating as fact that the election wasn’t corrupted is at least as foolish as stating as fact that it was.
Remember, John Podesta called for an intelligence briefing for the electors in 2016.
“genuinely believes that the election was corrupted, he also believed he was acting within his Constitutional powers to correct the results of that corruption. Stating as fact that the election wasn’t corrupted is at least as foolish as stating as fact that it was.”
Who cares what Trump apparently thought, it doesn’t change the reality that he was attempting to disenfranchise millions of Biden voters.
“Stating as fact that the election wasn’t corrupted is at least as foolish as…”
Huh? How? All facts and evidence show the election wasn’t corrupted.
“also believed he was acting within his Constitutional powers”
Not only was he not acting within his Constitutional powers, your claim Trump “believed” anything is pure mind reading.
– Kate
Kate—
1. “Who cares what Trump apparently thought, it doesn’t change the reality that he was attempting to disenfranchise millions of Biden voters.” No, he was trying to correct what be believed was a breach of the Constitution, which his oath obligates him to defend. What the President believes is essential to his determination of what his duties are. What no one should car about is what YOU think he was thinking.
2. The facts show that the election was held without sufficient protections, chain of custody control and adherence to the law. That it could not be proved to what extent, if any, this affected vote totals and final results does not mean that it was ever proved that that such corruption didn’t take place.
3. It’s not mind-reading. Everything he said and continues to say indicate that he believed the election had been corrupted, and his legal advisors were encouraging that belief. To the contrary, the only reason to believe his belief was in bad faith is the bias against him by people like you. He was 100% wrong in his approach to the problem he discerned, but Presidents are allowed to be wrong.
Just like how the Clinton campaign was trying to disenfranchise millions of Trump voters?
“No, he was trying to correct what be believed was a breach of the Constitution, which his oath obligates him to defend.”
Where in the constitution or list of Presidential duties does it say a President is above the law and can do whatever he wants (like disenfranchising millions of voters) just because he pretends to believe he is protecting the constitution?
You’re arguing as long as a President thinks he’s upholding the constitution, he can do whatever he wants. Which is obviously absurd.
No one is arguing Trump isn’t allowed to uphold the constitution, but what he cant do is break the law doing it.
We call it disenfranchisement because that would have been the outcome if Trump succeeded, since there was no reason to believe the election outcome was the wrong one.
None of the election “anomalies” you’ve mentioned altered the results in any way. No state election officials claim there was an integrity issue with the election. No states claim their electoral votes they cast didn’t reflect the will of the people.
This is trolling rhetoric and I tire of it. You can characterize matters as you wish, but they don’t become facts because you want them to be. If the President reasonably deems action necessary to protect the people and the Constitution, he is empowered to act. This is what a President has criminal immunity from almost any action taken within the performance of his duties.
“We call it disenfranchisement because that would have been the outcome if Trump succeeded, since there was no reason to believe the election outcome was the wrong one.” Stop saying that: it’s idiotic. The only way Trump could have succeeded was if it was proven in court that the election had been decisively stolen. The issue was time: there was not enough time to get the courts to delay the process, like they did (often dubiously) in 2000. If the election was “stolen,” it was a fete accompli. But even the fake electors would only come into play if there was real, strong evidence that the election had been tampered with. The lectors were a contingency, a desperate, stupid one, but in practical terms, harmless. Such fudging around the laws by Presidents have never been prosecuted. Ever. In some cases, the “illegal” acts saved the country.
I will repeat this.
John Podesta called for an intelligence briefing for the electors.
The only purpose was to convince them to vote for Hillary Clinton because of a belief that Russia interfered with the 2016 election.
No the President does not have “criminal immunity” from performing his duties.
Where did you get that idea from?
The theory has never been tested, but there is plenty of scholarship that holds that he does; the office is definitely immune from civil suits and “civil arrest.” Nobody’s tried to indict a President before, because it’s such a terrible idea. The theory is that doing so is a breach of separation of powers. I believe that if it ever came before SCOTUS, the 9 would indeed hold that the Constitution’s intent is exactly as I stated it.
You really make a lot of assertions with great certitude despite not having a clue what you’re talking about. That’s not how we operate here.
Also:
“The only way Trump could have succeeded was if it was proven in court that the election had been decisively stolen.”
I’m not sure this is true, but even if it is…
Irrelevant to if he broke the law.
Irrelevant to what he was trying to accomplish (disenfranchise millions of voters).
“The issue was time: there was not enough time to get the courts to delay the process…”
Again, no.
And even if you do need more time, you dont fabricate and submit fake evidence in court.
Also, they got to the courts, and had no evidence for any of their claims. Even the claims they said they needed more time for proved to be false and fabricated.
There was no foundation for their claims to begin with. They could have had until the end of time and there would still be no proof.
No, there absolutely is no difference. You want to go down this path of destructive totalitarianism, own it. Admit what you are supporting.
I just explained the difference.
You can try to overturn the election by challenging the results legally in court, or you can try to overturn the election by lying, disenfranchising voters. and committing fraud.
Trump committed the latter.
Which voters did he disenfranchise?
Think you meant which voters did he “try” to disenfranchise, and he “tried” to disenfranchise everyone who voted for Biden. So millions of voters.
That comment is a tell, KN. Believing that an election was corrupted means that one believes that all Americans are being disenfranchised: the vote is meaningless for all if the elections have no integrity. Having an election turn out the way a group of citizens wants doesn’t mean the right to vote has been upheld.
That implies that John Podesta, when he called for an intelligence briefing for the electors in 2016, was trying to disenfranchise everyone who voted for Trump?
It’s easier than that: The entire resistance/Democratic Party was trying to disenfranchise Trump voters when they began working up contrived grounds for impeachment, like the “Emoluments Clause” and the others EA documented.
There were crimes committed to further this propaganda campaign.
Someone creative could argue a RICO case against Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Barack Obama, FJB, Adam Schiff, Peter Strzok, and Robert Mueller.
No, he did not. He did exactly the same thing Democrat presidential candidates have done for decades. No amount of gaslighting is going to obscure the truth. Democrats have embraced totalitarianism and turned the United States into a banana republic. You support totalitarianism, two tiered justice and corruption.
Here is Glenn Greenwald.
https://rumble.com/v37z0jb-system-update-131.html
I have to manually type this, as Rumble does not seem to provide a transcript. Start at 1:05:44
“You could think of crimes that could be easily committed in furtherance of a criminal scheme to overturn an election. Threatening people with violence, using violence, blackmail, extortion, bribery, et cetera. Trump did none of that. You really have to stretch in terms of crimes.”- Glenn Greenwald
K
https://rumble.com/v37z0jb-system-update-131.html
I have to manually type this, as Rumble does not seem to provide a transcript. Start at 1:05:44
“You could think of crimes that could be easily committed in furtherance of a criminal scheme to overturn an election. Threatening people with violence, using violence, blackmail, extortion, bribery, et cetera. Trump did none of that. You really have to stretch in terms of crimes.”- Glenn Greenwald
Good thing the Al Gore regime and the sainted David Boies didn’t try to change the outcome of an election. Whew!
“Trump’s lawyers will try to jump on it, as they jump on every possible avenue of defense, and argue that someone leaked it just to embarrass him,” said Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a Washington criminal defense attorney.
Gee, Jeffrey, you really think Trump’s criminal defense lawyers, you know like you are, will really jump on every possible avenue of defense, you know, like criminal defense lawyers are supposed to do as part of, you know, providing an adequate defense? I’m shocked. Ever heard of the concept of effective assistance of counsel? Failure to provide an adequate defense? Ring any bells?
And people get paid to go on TV and say things like that? As professionals and experts in their field? The mind boggles.
Other Bill,
That is what I thought: they complain that Trump’s lawyers are doing their job.
-Jut
It’s even sillier, isn’t it, Jut? They MIGHT have the NERVE to do their job. “I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you.”
Don’t foget the interviews with the Grand Jury member earlier in the year. No telegraphing or anything…
Headline in the Arizona [Not]Republic[an]: “Will Arizona be Next?”
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/08/15/will-arizona-be-next-for-indictments-on-trump-related-charges-what-to-know-about-mayes-investigation/70593316007/
Jesus H. Christ. Democrat AGs Pounce! When did the Dems get so big on states’ rights? Doesn’t the federal government pre-empt everything?
The Biden administration and the entire Democrat party is an existential threat to the country.
They have become the party of Maraxus.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3857818#p3857818
Click that link and read the posts by Maraxus, so you can be sufficiently horrified.
But not the guy who actually tried to overturn a Presidential election and steal the seat for himself like a tyrant.
Not him though. He’s no threat. Nothing to see here!
John Podesta tried to overturn an election by calling for an intelligence briefing for the electors., with a clear implication of what is to be done with the briefing information too obvious to be settled outright.
Of courser, the Clinton campaign paid for the Steele dossier and then reported it as a legal expense, to hide the fact that they paid for it. That was a crime.
Kevin Clinesmith altered an e-mail presented to the FISa court pursuant to an application for a warrant against Carter Page. That was tampering with evidence and perjury, both of which are crimes.
I wonder if it will be long before Jack writes his fully dedicated post on these indictments.
Now here is a comment on a Reason.com article.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/15/the-georgia-case-against-trump/?comments=true#comment-10199257
Glenn Greenwald speaks out.
https://rumble.com/v37z0jb-system-update-131.html
Here is Alan Dershowitz’s take.
https://rumble.com/v37xe13-indictment-iv-my-legal-analysis-of-the-rico-persecution..html
I’m going to say this once, get ignore and you’ll all continue uncritically repeating whatever the right-wing media says.
Suppose you wanted to cause a panic, get some people to injure themselves and others, maybe damage some property. You gather two friends and say let’s do some crime, how do we pull it off?
Friend one says we set off firecrackers and yell gun, huge panic.
Friend two says but we need people, tweet out to everyone to show up at a certain place at a specific time.
You’ve entered a criminal conspiracy, but you’re still on the right side of the law. Wanting to do crime isn’t enough, agreeing to do crime isn’t enough.
Then you go buy firecrackers, legal in your jurisdiction–lucky you, no additional charge. But now you’re a criminal because you furthered the conspiracy.
Then you tweet–legal to ask people to meet you somewhere–but you’re a criminal; that furthered the conspiracy.
You show up, and before you light the firecrackers a cop grabs your arm and stops you, you get charged.
At trial you claim the first amendment allows you to speak to people and ask them to peaceably assemble.
The prosecution says. You planned a panic, you tweeted for people to show up, you bought firecrackers and then shows the receipt, and the tweet, and gets the testimony of your friend who totally flipped to save her ass.
You go to jail. Even though tweeting in and of itself is legal, it just has to be a way to help your ultimate criminal goal.
The prosecutor must still give an explanation as to how a particular act furthered a conspiracy. “Defendant drove a car with two robbers in the back” is not enough. Just because the two passengers were robbers does not mean the driver was part of a conspiracy to commit robbery. Even if this were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be insufficient to prove that the driver participated in a conspiracy to commit robbery.
“Defendant parked the car near the scene of the robbery, allowed the robbers to enter the car, and drove the car away from the scene” would be an overt act that furthered a conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
Charlie Kirk posted some portions. ACT 22 alleged that Trump tweeted a public hearing in Georgia was now on OANN, and that it was an overt act to further the conspiracy. There was no explanation how exactly this tweet furthered a conspiracy. Acts 100 and 101 have similar issues, alleging that an act furthered a conspiracy, without explaining how.
At the trial.
Better than nothing, and I do use quotes myself for brevity, but I also show recipes. Here’s the whole document.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23909543-23sc188947-criminal-indictment
In law, you need to allege sufficient, non-conclusory allegations of fact.
Others have used the example of purchasing a duct tape as an example of furthering a conspiracy for kidnapping. But that does not further the conspiracy; what would further the conspiracy would be the person with the duct tape giving the duct tape to the kidnapper. Surely, the prosecutor is not to argue that the conspirator bought the duct tape, and then by some unknown method, it ended up in the possession of the kidnapper, with no further action from the person who purchased the duct tape.
Now take a look here.
Charlie Kirk is right. Maraxus’s ideals are the rules now.
We must stop Maraxus at any and all costs!
https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/15/how-should-republicans-respond-to-fulton-county-indict-the-left/
“You’ve come a long way, Baby” said Virginia Slim back in ’68. There’s Fani Willis standing on the shoulders of brave and proper predecessors, but arrogantly, enterprisingly . . arrogantly stumping for a shot at Merrick Garland’s job, some day step into the moccasins of Ketanji Brown, adopt a new pronoun, taking you back to the DRC. Not a mistype – I didn’t mean to type DNC, Democratic National Committee, a criminal enterprise, easily the most commanding and well-funded, backroom, below-the-belt such enterprise in the USA, I meant Democratic Republic of the Congo. (Check out its place in the annals of mal-governance; right up there with Syria, South Sudan and Somalia.) Laws? Statutes? political opposition, that morally untouchable pinnacle of racial advancement – Black Lives Matter, free speech, and so on ad nauseum … scramble em and whaddaya got? Indictment by a grand jury whose forewoman is so flakey as to belong in the theatre of the absurd. (Emily Kohrs) (And for a laugh, and to confirm what you already know, check out the Che cat.) No, this is about Might, making and keeping, indeed expanding, Might. Pre-civilizationally, Might made right.
Just askin for a friend, definitely not connecting dots, not drawing subsaharan parallels to America’s legal inversion, not saying Trump is treated similarly to how Niger’s president is being treated: Say, is the USA in all its international glory, Obama inspired morality, and Dudley Do-Right mindset fighting for the rights of President Bazoum? He got couped and is under house arrest.
PS. Enough already about firecrackers and duct tape, parsing words, enough legal prescience. There’ll be no sense made of this farce. I’m wit you Jack – for now sarcasm from the cheap seats is all the Might we have, that and incredulity. Someone’s gonna have to set this to rights.
I think by now they’re so desperate to find some way to get Trump off the 2024 ticket they have at least one more indictment waiting in the shadows, and possibly more. Accordingly, I think they don’t really care if people see all this for the shallow political persecution it is, they’ll keep on issuing the standard denials and blabber about no one being above the law, etc.
I believe their fear of Trump is so unabiding they’ve even considered a last resort, which is assassination.
Remember, Hillary did say: If Trump gets elected we’re all going to go to jail.