Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding-18 U.S.C.Conspiracy to Defraud the United States-18 U.S.C.This explanation is borne out by the charges, which are: Each of these conspiracies-which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud-targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election (“the federal government function”).
A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. 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. In so doing, the Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:Ī. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.Ĥ. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. Indeed, the reader only has to reach the third and fourth paragraphs to find Jack Smith’s explanation of why Amash is wrong:ģ. Sorry, Justin, but a simple reading of the indictment (which is available online and I highly recommend it) explodes Amash’s claims. None other than Justin Amash made this claim in a tweet yesterday in which he opined that the indictment “attempts to criminalize Trump’s routine misstatements of fact and law in connection with the 2020 election.”
Those pieces are definitely worth visiting, but I want to address a third fallacy, namely the claim that Trump is being prosecuted for his speech. Additionally, Ken White, the former Twitter user better known as Popehat, has a substack that skewers Andrew McCarthy’s claim in “National Review” the fraud charges against Trump are illegitimate because there was no “money or tangible property” involved. I don’t subscribe to the Dispatch, but I’ve mentioned before that “Advisory Opinions” is an excellent podcast that is available without a subscription. The first is an overview of the statutes while the s econd revisits the erroneous claim that prosecutors do not have to prove intent. “Advisory Opinions,” the must-listen legal podcast with Sarah Isgur and David French, has two very good episodes on the laws involved. I’m not a lawyer so I’m going to defer on some of the technical legal questions. Some of it is the product of wishful thinking while some is the purposeful work of grifters who are trying to encourage Trump’s base. There is a lot of bad information out there about the recent Trump indictment relating to January 6. Photo by Voice of America, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
0 kommentar(er)
