Arizona Grand Jury Indicts Donald Trump Allies, 11 Fake Electors

Thank you for the rightist propagandist revision. Your righties got your election result and that is all that matters to you. It is quite telling that the Democrats in the Senate decided to gracefully accept the apparent outcome by not endorsing the objection to the result(all that was needed was one Senator). Instead of forcing a Constitutional crisis, they did what was best for the country.

Unlike the Orange Stain and his supporters have done and will never do.

 

The Grand Jury charged Trump for conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, sure sounds like Trump has been “charged with conspiracy”
(https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith/speech/special-counsel-jack-smith-delivers-statement-0)

Trump supporters did more than protest on January 6th, and it wasn’t bought about by the election, rather Trump and his surrogates refusing to accept the will of the American voters

And Smith has a good case, the only reason it hasn’t hit the court room yet is because of the delays, appeals, and more delays orchestrated by Trump’s army of attorneys with an assist from his SCOTUS

 

There is no causality from the mere event on Jan 6. The meeting of the Joint Session of Congress has nothing to do with riots, nor could you logically place it on the chain of causality. The 'but for' method must be applied to the first item in the chain of causality onward, otherwise we could claim the cause of 1/6 was Trump's mother and father having sex, which is as absurd as claiming the scheduled joint session was an item on the chain of causality. But why stop there, we could claim that a exploding nebula led to the stardust that led to the solar system that led to the earth, which eventually sprang Trump yadda yadda yadda. To find the truth of an argument, do a 'reductio ad absurdum' logic method to find out if it's logical or not. If you follow through on your logic via reduction and it leads to you absurdity, you will know your argument lacks merit.

I didn't. Nor can you draw such an inference.

I didn't. Nor can you draw such an inference.

We have evidence from which can rightfully infer why he didn't. Note that he didn't indict the 6 co-conspirators. The only logical reason is the time constraint of the upcoming election, that he went with the least time consuming strategy that could conceivably allow him to get to trial before the election. This was desirable so that the electorate would be in a better position to make an informed choice regarding for whom to vote.

Charging the co-conspirators, and more complex charges like sedition, would have assured the trial starting later than the election. His going with the lowest hanging fruit at least gave him a shot at it. Looks like he won't, anyway, but he did, at the outset, have a shot at going to trial before the election. My view is that once the trial begins, he will add the co-conspirators and more serious charges, especially if more evidence turns up especially if he is forced to go to trial after the election (and he loses).

Not true. Understand that they were part of the larger, multifaceted unprecedented and illegal scheme by Trump and his co-conspirators to subvert the 2020 election.

Consider the available evidence that connects the concept of alternate electors with the events of January 6th. Alternate electors were part of a broader strategy to deny Biden his winning results of the 2020 presidential election. The hope was if any of the legal challenges were successful, and Biden's elector slates were nullified, then standby Trump electors would replace them. At this stage they were dubious and might not have been pursued in some states as being illegal, but.......

..... in a number of states, the disclaimer was not included on the Certificate of Ascertainment, (big honkin' mistake) nor were any of them signed by a governor, as required, which means their failures to get Governors' endorsements means they were considered 'forged' as they were submitted to all normal points for CoAs, the archives, congress, judges, etc., and sending forged documents to the government is illegal. If I understand the law correctly a 'forged document' doesn't have to be a facsimile, it need only to attempt to deceive. Now, Smith, I believe, does acknowledge that many of the electors were tricked into going along with the scheme, and they will probably not suffer prosecution, especially if they testify for Smith.

This plan involved submitting lists of electors who pledged to vote for Donald Trump from battleground states that Joe Biden won, aiming to create confusion and delay the certification of electoral results. This deliberate delay makes the actions illegal. This action was directly linked to the unrest on January 6th, as the certification of the election results was the specific event that the Capitol riot aimed to disrupt.

Therefore, the move to put forward alternate electors was not just a separate maneuver but an integral part of the events leading up to and culminating in the assault on the Capitol. The electors were one branch of a multifaceted scheme to disrupt the lawful transfer of power and for Trump to deny Biden his lawful win inorder for Trump to retain power, i.e.,, a 'bloodless coup'.

 

Yes, the deep state is at it again and why it must be defeated. Trump is not only going to win Arizona but just about every single swing state. Trump will be your president. Will you accept him as the legitimately elected president or will you start claiming the election is fraudulent, just as you did in 2016?

 

If there was plenty of evidence, dont you honestly believe that this current republican house would have brought articles of impeachment by now? Seriously?

They dont have it. And they know it. Their prize witness turned out to be a complete and total fraud.

If they had it, they would bring it.

They dont, and havent. And likely wont.

 

But for the election there would have been no Jan 6.

But for you Trump has never been charged with incitement or conspiracy as part of the violence that occurred that day nor urged anyone to engage in it. Stop projecting on to him in order to ignore the REAL failures that day.

Then you agree Trump had every right to speak that day and the peaceful protest he called for had every right to take place. Everyone was well within their rights as long as they did not engage in violence nor trespass?

He's had over THREE YEARS. Why is he not carrying out his duty to enforce the law and rather using his office to try and influence the election. If what you are saying is true then you should be calling for his immediate firing. Are you? The fact is there is not a scintilla of evidence Trump engaged with or conspired with or planned with anyone who engaged in any violence that day nor that he called for violent acts to occur and even YOU cannot show it.

Conjecture and supposition prove NOTHING. Smith has given NO indication of what you are saying and would derelict while at the same time abusing his power to influence an election.

True they had nothing to do with the riot that occured. I would even bet that most of those who did engage in the rioting and little knowledge of any alternate electors.

And nothing more the intent quite clear.

They would only be forged if they had a forged signature, had they been needed then the Governor would have signed them, the Constitution requires the VOTES be cast by the certain day.

AGAIN how was the Trump campaign going to FOOL everyone into think they were the REAL electors and just slip those votes in? They were CONTINGENT..................ALTERNATE. To be used if by some miracle a legal challenge LEGALLY prevailed.

No more than when Dems challenged the votes during the counting. And NO riots were part of ANY Trump plan the riot in fact prevented him from continuing to try DUH.

Nope a total non-sequitur. No one charge in the riot has been charged with ANYTHING to do with any other Trump plan to challenge the voting.

 

Then refute what I posted, what is not factual and be specific

Well that is the leftwing propagandist revision. The fact is the states selected Bush43 with it coming down to Florida where Bush won and then Gore tried to overturn the results in the circuit court and summarily lost. It was over then. But he convinced the Florida Supreme Court to inject itself where it had no jurisdiction to change election rules so he could overturn the results with his cherry picking vote divining scheme. Bush sued to stop the unconstitutional acts and the Supreme Court enjoined and asked the FSC to explain where it got the authority to do what it did. Instead on a split decision, the chief jistice writing in the decent, the FSC simply ordered the recounts restarted. The SCOTUS asked again where they got the authority and when the FSC could not explain they stayed the recounts again and the SecState certified the actual official count.

Had the SCOTUS not stopped the illegal and unconstitutional hand recounts the Florida Legislature was prepared to appoint alternate, OH MY FAKE, electors in order to protect the states EC votes.

 

Where did he charge him in a conspiracy WITH the rioters to ENGAGE in violence or a takeover of the Capitol?

Some didn't do anything that day, a FEW engaged in a riot at the Capitol. Is there a law which says citizens must accept the outcome of an election without question?

So he doesn't have a right to prepare a proper defense and challenge the charges against him?

 

Dodge noted, there was always a threat as long as there was a challenge.

What would have happened to AZ's votes had they not recorded those votes and fraud was declared in court or Congress and the Biden electors disqualified.

 

“conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceedings,” the goal of 1/6 was to stop the Constitutional transfer of power so Trump could stay in power

I believe the “FEW” have already numbered over a hundred found guilty, and you do know just being in the building was unlawful. Sure, one can challenge an election, Trump did it over sixty times, and anyone can protest, but not break the law doing such without expecting consequences

And no one said Trump can’t prepare a defense, I was responding on why it hasn’t hit the Courts yet

 

Dodge noted, since there was never a credible challenge.

And if martians invaded AZ, their delegation might never have made to Congress.

 

Challenge nonetheless for which they had tje ALTRENATE electors. Dodge noted again.

 

The goal was to LEGALLY challenge what was believed to be a fraudulent outcome. To assert the goal was to have a riot is patently absurd becaise it prevent attempting the legal challenges.

A "few" compared to the TENS OF THOUSANDS who were there.

You do know that peaceful and unlawful are not mutually exclusive.

Trump did not break the law challenging the vote.

He HAS hit the court and continues to so ands go over the evidence dumps for the four trials he faces.

 

No credible challenge and for which they crafted a criminal plan using FALSE electors not lawfully appointed. Dodge noted again.

'We've got lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence' - Rudy Giuliani to Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers(R)

 

Isn't that the literal definition of treason ?

 

And, as a reminder, the indictments are up to 18, including 2 state senators and the former head of the Arizona Republican party,
Jake Hoffman,Anthony Kern and Kelli Ward.

 

Could be a definition, but not the constitutional definition.

 

Was that why one attorney, in an email, said 'change the word 'fake' to 'alternate'? Hint: 'fake' is illegal. Yeah, it was so 'legal' that Chesebro plead guilty, and Eastman was disbarred. Nice 'legal challenge' you got there.

The road to criminality is often paved with legal intentions.

There is such a thing as being so stupid it's criminal.

President Trump is practically, and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day [Jan 6], no question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President. And, having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hypole, which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet earth.--Mitch McConnell

You can argue that Trump didn't plan it, but he did call his fans there, and it will be 'wild', and his speech, with the help of Mo Brooks and Giuliani, whipped them up into a frenzy. Then it becomes a question, 'he should have known, as President of the United States' that his actions would cause a raucus, and damage was the foreseeable result.

There is such a thing as being so stupid it is criminal. "in my opinion'.

Yes, it bungled the 'plan' that was being executed in the Joint Session, but Trump is notorious for not being a strategic planner,. shooting from the hip, going with the moment. He's that stupid, as in criminally stupid.

To the six who died and the 140 who were injured, that point is meaningless.

If that were all he did, you'd have a point. But that's not 1/100th of what he did.

The events leading up to and including January 6, 2021, revolve around former President Donald Trump and his associates' concerted efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. This plan, which culminated in the storming of the U.S. Capitol, was not merely a challenge to the election outcome but a direct attempt to disrupt the democratic process and prevent the peaceful transition of power.

In the weeks following the November 2020 election, Trump and his allies propagated baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. Despite these allegations being consistently debunked by courts, state election officials, and members of his own administration, Trump continued to assert that the election was stolen. This misinformation campaign was crucial in rallying his supporters and sowing distrust in the electoral system.

Trump's legal team filed numerous lawsuits in key battleground states, attempting to challenge the election results. These legal efforts were largely unsuccessful; the vast majority were dismissed due to lack of evidence. Parallel to these legal maneuvers, Trump exerted pressure on state officials to "find" votes or otherwise alter the election outcomes in his favor. One of the most blatant examples was a recorded phone call on January 2, 2021, in which Trump urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" enough votes to reverse Biden's victory in the state.

The other was the meetings he and/or his team (Giuliani, et al) met with Arizona Speaker of the House, Rusty Bowers, who testified to both the 1/6 committee and Special counsel Jack Smith. Currently, there are indictments in a number of states for the phone elector schemes.

As these efforts failed, attention turned to January 6, the date Congress was scheduled to certify the Electoral College results. Trump encouraged his followers to come to Washington, D.C., promising it would be "wild." On that day, Trump held a rally near the White House, where he reiterated his false claims and urged his supporters to march to the Capitol and "fight like hell" to save their country. Following his exhortation, thousands of his supporters stormed the Capitol, leading to widespread violence, the evacuation of Congress members, and the deaths of several individuals.

The attack on the Capitol was not an isolated incident but the climax of a deliberate campaign to usurp the will of the voters and cling to power unlawfully. This multifaceted scheme involved spreading disinformation, attempting to coerce officials into violating their duties, and inciting a violent attack on the legislative seat of the nation, all aimed at overturning a legitimate electoral outcome. This represents a stark departure from any standard political challenge and veers into the realm of criminal conspiracy aimed at undermining the very foundations of American democracy.

With 88 counts remaining, good luck, Mr Criminal Defendant Trump.

 

Most murderers are apolitical or unknown. When it's known, its a mix. I call bullshit.

 

I think he is basing his claim on a right wing echo chamber meme, put into the chamber for echoing by Ted Cruz, based on a survey of ex felons (now out of prison and rehabbed) who mostly voted democratic. See, the fallacy is that they are not criminals at the juncture of the survey, so the claim is false.

But, it's just one survey, and one survey is not proof of anything in any science, soft sciences include (especially the soft sciences).

 

well sadly for you there has been an extensive study done by Stanford Law Professor (and former NAACP general counsel-a brilliant far left lesbian legal scholar Pam Karlan) when she started to try to win felons their rights to vote back. Her studies indicated that when felons can vote, they usually vote Democrat which is why she started her crusade

 

Do you think since they are no longer felons, they should be able to get their RKBA back?

 

The impeachment inquiry is not over.... Comer has already uncovered boat loads of evidence and still working on it.

 

You made an incredibly broad sweep allegation against democrats, a veritable cavalierly tossed troll post if there ever were one, which was arrived at via looking at the subject from a hard right wing lens straight out of the right wing echo chamber, an accusation that begs for qualification, that is, if you were honest.

"IF".

You know darn well that No one study is the final word of anything, especially from the soft sciences, especially an accusation like that which ignores contextual details like, once criminals are in prison, they have plenty of time to reflect on their crimes, review law books regarding their cases, be exposed to politics, especially when they are in the 'belly of the beast' of the system, whereby when they committed their crimes, they were pretty much a-political (I used to work with felons in the 70s, via 'Narconon' of which my roommate was a graduate of that program [yes, I later learned it was a front for a cult, but that's beside the point] and I don't recall them being political at all).

This idea that that your right wing meme proves your ultra troll post point, insofar as your disingenuous motive to smear democrats, is one that I can't, in good conscience, dignify a response (other than this one). If a claim begs for qualification, and you are honest, you will qualify your claim.

But,. what qualification does this following claim require? I can't think of any.

The fact that Republicans in the WH exec branch commit the vast majority of crimes in the exec branch is not based on scant evidence. The crimes surrounding Nixon, Reagan, and now Trump, are well known and voluminous, towering over the peccadillos of Bill Clinton, and maladministration of Hillary. Hell, look at Trump, the modern fruition of T party/Freedom caucus politics, viola, the *biggest criminal conman pervert fraudster threat to US National Security, ever to seek the office. Is that a claim that beckons for qualification? I can't think of any. Is that a cheap shot? Tell me how it is a cheap shot (Trump's life story is one of cheating, corruption, bullying, screwing people, etc, and we can start with the film entitled, "You've Been Trumped" about how he f*cked over the good people of Aberdeen Scotland by sucking up all the town's water supply with his golf resort). https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...cumentary-mollie-michael-forbes-a7383311.html

*substantiation on request

I know you guys would love to have evidence on Joe Biden, but it just isn't there. You guys can't escape the fact that US Attorney Weiss has never brought charges of money laundering and influence peddling, the big accusations against Joe from the right, in the last six years. Comer's house investigation has crumbled for lack of evidence, you know, the kind of evidence that actually proves their allegations. All they ever proved was that Joes kids earned money abroad, and did not hide the fact they used the family name to get business, as does Trump's kids, as well, as does the siblings of a lot of famous people, such is not a crime.

 

it's far more accurate then the incredibly broad sweep false allegations you cast against the NRA and gun owners. You are in no position to attack the honesty of other posters. I merely asked you if you thought felons should get their RKBA rights back. what you stated had nothing to do with what you quoted