Trump.

[Jon Miller]

Trump said he would be a dictator for a day. The Trump-selected Supreme Court has taken away the right for all Americans to be tried under the law and has ruled that one class of persons (maybe even one person) is immune from criminal prosecution. Both of these are huge threats to my freedom.

Trump tried in the past to take away my right to vote and have the votes of myself and Americans select our president and maintains he will do so in the future. Self-determination is a key freedom that I and other Americans enjoy. Trump tried in the past to take away the rights of people like my wife (an immigrant, now a citizen) and may try to again. While that isn't my freedom, or the freedom of my family (although I think there are parts of the Trump campaign who would like to take away their freedom, but I don't think Trump is included), it is the freedom of people who I consider my peers.

JM

[Geronimo]

Trump said he would be a dictator for a day. The Trump-selected Supreme Court has taken away the right for all Americans to be tried under the law and has ruled that one class of persons (maybe even one person) is immune from criminal prosecution. Both of these are huge threats to my freedom.

Trump tried in the past to take away my right to vote and have the votes of myself and Americans select our president and maintains he will do so in the future. Self-determination is a key freedom that I and other Americans enjoy. Trump tried in the past to take away the rights of people like my wife (an immigrant, now a citizen) and may try to again. While that isn't my freedom, or the freedom of my family (although I think there are parts of the Trump campaign who would like to take away their freedom, but I don't think Trump is included), it is the freedom of people who I consider my peers.

JM

Has there ever been any president challenged to surrender anything through the courts who didn't cite executive privilege to try to avoid doing so? Why would Trump be expected to the abuse this new delimited power more than Biden would in Biden's second term? I cynically assume that all presidents will exploit all privileges and powers to accomplish their goals and protect their agendas. I don't see how we will be any less free if Trump is elected in that regard than any other president. Why did it so happen to be Trump who was the plaintiff that forced the court to decide on this previously unconsidered constitutional issue? Probably because he was the first facing criminal charges for acts as performed as president. True, you surely believe that this is because only Trump would ever commit a felony in office but I entertain other possibilities such as that only Trump would be pursued for a felony crime (at least any of these crimes) performed while in office as the US president. Explain how the huge threat to your freedom in this area exists if Trump wins but not if Biden or Harris or anyone else wins?

Tell me about how Trump tried to take away your right to vote. Is there more than one way to take away your right to vote? What makes you sure that the other candidates won't take away your right to vote?

I'm certainly interested in establishing a difference in how free Americans would be under Trump vs Biden.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

If the puppet was all you say.... why and how are the dems where they are today?? Trump has the lead in polls. Why?

[ricketyclik]

The American education system?

[Geronimo]

I don't think there is a rational explanation for why Trump got the nomination let alone for why he leads in the polls.

[Jon Miller]

Has there ever been any president challenged to surrender anything through the courts who didn't cite executive privilege to try to avoid doing so?

You don't appear to understand the indictment. The issue isn't that Trump said 'I did nothing wrong with having these documents'. The issue is that Trump lied about having them, tried to hide them, ordered other people to hide them and lie about them, and so on.

It isn't that Trump cited executive privilege.

For your information https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v...a-23-80101.pdf

Why would Trump be expected to the abuse this new delimited power more than Biden would in Biden's second term?

Because he abused and claimed powers in Trump's first term that Biden didn't claim or abuse in his second term. Trump was trying to get the DoJ to go after his opponents; Biden didn't do that.

Here is the Trump immunity opinion https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3-939_e2pg.pdf

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents immunity for their official acts is deeply wrong. As troubling as this criminal immunity doctrine is in theory, the majority’s application of the doctrine to the indictment in this case is perhaps even more troubling. In the hands of the majority, this new official-acts immunity operates as a one-way ratchet.

First, the majority declares all of the conduct involving the Justice Department and the Vice President to be official conduct, see ante, at 19–24, yet it refuses to designate any course of conduct alleged in the indictment as private, despite concessions from Trump’s counsel.6 Trump’s counsel conceded, for example, that the allegation that Trump “turned to a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results” “sounds private.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 29. He likewise conceded that the allegation that Trump “conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by [Trump] that contained false allegations to support a challenge” “sounds private.” Ibid.; see also id., at 36–37 (Trump’s counsel explaining that it is not “disputed” that such conduct is “unofficial”). Again, when asked about allegations that “[t]hree private actors . . . helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding, and [Trump] and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort,” Trump’s counsel conceded the alleged conduct was “private.” Id., at 29–30. Only the majority thinks that organizing fraudulent slates of electors might qualify as an official act of the President, see ante, at 24–28, or at least an act so “interrelated” with other allegedly official acts that it might warrant protection, ante, at 28. If the majority’s sweeping conception of “official acts” has any real limits, the majority is unwilling to reveal them in today’s decision.

Second, the majority designates certain conduct immune while refusing to recognize anything as prosecutable. It shields large swaths of conduct involving the Justice Department with immunity, see ante, at 19–21; see also Part V, supra, but it does not give an inch in the other direction. The majority admits that the Vice President’s responsibility “‘presiding over the Senate’” is “‘not an “executive branch” function,’” and it further admits that the President “plays no direct constitutional or statutory role” in the counting of electoral votes. Ante, at 23–24. Yet the majority refuses to conclude that Trump lacks immunity for his alleged attempts to “enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” App. 187, Indictment ¶10(d). Instead, it worries that a prosecution for this conduct might make it harder for the President to use the Vice President “to advance [his] agenda in Congress.” Ante, at 24. Such a prosecution, according to the majority, “may well hinder the President’s ability to perform his constitutional functions.” Ibid. Whether a prosecution for this conduct warrants immunity should have been an easy question, but the majority turns it into a debatable one. Remarkably, the majority goes further and declines to deny immunity even for the allegations that Trump organized fraudulent elector slates, pressured States to subvert the legitimate election results, and exploited violence at the Capitol to influence the certification proceedings. It is not conceivable that a prosecution for these alleged efforts to
overturn a Presidential election, whether labeled official or unofficial under the majority’s test, would pose any “‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch,’” ante, at 14, and the majority could have said as much. Instead, it perseverates on a threshold question that should be immaterial.

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the
President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the
most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

I cynically assume that all presidents will exploit all privileges and powers to accomplish their goals and protect their agendas.

But you would be wrong.

Trump:

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/trump-doj-officials-supreme-court-made-easy-trump-attack-enemies-rcna160144

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/donald-trump-wants-control-justice-department-fbi-his-allies-have-plan-2024-05-17/

https://www.americanoversight.org/investigation/trump-administrations-politicization-justice-department

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/trump-revenge-second-term/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/09/trump-interview-univision/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html

https://rollcall.com/2017/11/03/trump-urges-doj-to-investigate-his-political-foes/

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/trump-doj-investigate-hillary-clinton-244505

https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-whitehouse-seek-justice-department-records-on-trump-admin-interference-that-reportedly-halted-caterpillar-investigation

Biden:

https://www.justice.gov/sco-durham

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

I don't see how we will be any less free if Trump is elected in that regard than any other president. Why did it so happen to be Trump who was the plaintiff that forced the court to decide on this previously unconsidered constitutional issue?

It wasn't a previously unconsidered issue. Multiple presidents and the founders all said that Presidents were not immune.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/founding-era-history-doesnt-support-trumps-immunity-claim

https://rollcall.com/2024/07/01/historians-legal-experts-express-dismay-at-trump-immunity-ruling/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nations-founders-pushed-elected-king-framing-presidential-powers/story?id=111621798

Probably because he was the first facing criminal charges for acts as performed as president. True, you surely believe that this is because only Trump would ever commit a felony in office but I entertain other possibilities such as that only Trump would be pursued for a felony crime (at least any of these crimes) performed while in office as the US president. Explain how the huge threat to your freedom in this area exists if Trump wins but not if Biden or Harris or anyone else wins?

Trump tried to invalidate the vote of the American people in late December 2020 and early January 2021. No other president, even FDR, Lincoln, Nixon and Reagan, after attempted to do something so anti-democratic.

The indictment for Trump conspiring to defraud the US population of their vote : https://abcnews.go.com/US/latest-fed...y?id=101918701

Tell me about how Trump tried to take away your right to vote. Is there more than one way to take away your right to vote? What makes you sure that the other candidates won't take away your right to vote?

I and the American people voted in 2020. When the counts were finished, when the court cased were concluded, when everything was done, Trump had lost. He hadn't shown that there was fraud or any effort to fake the vote. Despite this, he instructed and conspired with people in 7 states (Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada and New Mexico) to introduce illegal and false electors (that were known to be) and instructed and directed people like his Vice President Pence (and the DoJ) to make sure that the false electors were counted instead of the true ones. When this didn't work (because Barr and Pence and others refused him), he then called together a crowd, incited them and instructed them to go and make Pence change his mind.

Read the indictment. It is the worst crime against the American people by a president in US history. https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v..._23_cr_257.pdf
[quote]
The Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020. The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.

Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.

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. 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. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

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.
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").

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference. The Conspiracy

From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, 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.

Purpose of the Conspiracy

The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.

The Defendant's Co-Conspirators

The Defendant enlisted co-conspirators to assist him in his criminal efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election and retain power. Among these
were:
a. Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign
attorneys would not.
b. Co-Conspirator 2, an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election.
c. Co-Conspirator 3, an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the Defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded "crazy." Nonetheless, the Defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-Conspirator 3's disinformation.
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 and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.
e. Co-Conspirator 5, an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.
f. Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

The federal government function by which the results of the election for President of the United States are collected, counted, and certified was established through the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act (ECA), a federal law enacted in 1887. The Constitution provided that individuals called electors select the president, and that each state determine for itself how to
appoint the electors apportioned to it. Through state laws, each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia chose to select their electors based on the popular vote in the state. After election
day, the ECA required each state to formally determine—or "ascertain"—the electors who would represent the state's voters by casting electoral votes on behalf of the candidate who had won the
popular vote, and required the executive of each state to certify to the federal government the identities of those electors. Then, on a date set by the ECA, each state's ascertained electors were
required to meet and collect the results of the presidential election—that is, to cast electoral votes based on their state's popular vote, and to send their electoral votes, along with the state executive's certification that they were the state's legitimate electors, to the United States Congress to be counted and certified in an official proceeding. Finally, the Constitution and ECA required that
on the sixth of January following election day, the Congress meet in a Joint Session for a certification proceeding, presided over by the Vice President as President of the Senate, to count
the electoral votes, resolve any objections, and announce the result—thus certifying the winner of the presidential election as president-elect. This federal government function—from the point of
ascertainment to the certification—is foundational to the United States' democratic process, and until 2021, had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years.

Manner and Means

The Defendant's conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means:
a. The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate
election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant's opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the
pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss
legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.
b. The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New
Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution
and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate
electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were
legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the
Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. The Defendant and co-conspirators then
caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the
certification proceeding on January 6.
c. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime
investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may
have impacted the election outcome; that sought to advance the Defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to
falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted
states' legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.
d. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to
fraudulently alter the election results. First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince
the Vice President to use the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state
legislatures for review rather than counting them. When that failed, on the morning of January 6, the Defendant and co-conspirators repeated
knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election
results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent
actions he had previously refused.
e. After it became public on the afternoon of January 6 that the Vice President would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd—
including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results—
violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by
redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.

The Defend ant's Knowledge of the Falsity of His Election Fraud Claims

The Defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents made knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election. These prolific lies about election fraud included dozens of specific claims that there had been substantial fraud in certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise
ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for the Defendant to votes for Biden. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. In fact,
the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts—
and he deliberately disregarded the truth. For instance:
a. The Defendant's Vice President—who personally stood to gain by remaining in office as part of the Defendant's ticket and whom the Defendant asked to study fraud allegations—told the Defendant that he had seen no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud.
b. The senior leaders of the Justice Department—appointed by the Defendant and responsible for investigating credible allegations of election crimes— told the Defendant on multiple occasions that various allegations of fraud were unsupported.
c. The Director of National Intelligence—the Defendant's principal advisor on intelligence matters related to national security—disabused the Defendant of the notion that the Intelligence Community's findings regarding foreign interference would change the outcome of the election.
d. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ("CISA")—whose existence the Defendant signed into law to protect the nation's cybersecurity infrastructure from attack—joined an official multi-agency statement that there was no evidence any voting system had been compromised and that declared the 2020 election "the most
secure in American history." Days later, after the CISA Director—whom the Defendant had appointed—announced publicly that election security
experts were in agreement that claims of computer-based election fraud were unsubstantiated, the Defendant fired him.
e. Senior White House attorneys—selected by the Defendant to provide him candid advice—informed the Defendant that there was no evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, and told him that his presidency would end on Inauguration Day in 2021.

[\quote]

I should keep posting. It is a a terrible accusation. Not business as usual, or even things like Iran-Contra or Watergate.

If what Trump did was right, then anyone who thinks it is right (and so acts similarly) will make sure there is never another democratically elected president again.

Trump's defense isn't that he didn't do the above. His defense is that he is immune, and that he had the right to do it.

I'm certainly interested in establishing a difference in how free Americans would be under Trump vs Biden.

It is the likely end of the republic. Maybe after Trump dies it could be recovered, but I wouldn't bet on it.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Has there ever been any president challenged to surrender anything through the courts who didn't cite executive privilege to try to avoid doing so?

You don't appear to understand the indictment. The issue isn't that Trump said 'I did nothing wrong with having these documents'. The issue is that Trump lied about having them, tried to hide them, ordered other people to hide them and lie about them, and so on.

It isn't that Trump cited executive privilege.

For your information https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v...a-23-80101.pdf

Why would Trump be expected to the abuse this new delimited power more than Biden would in Biden's second term?

Because he abused and claimed powers in Trump's first term that Biden didn't claim or abuse in his second term. Trump was trying to get the DoJ to go after his opponents; Biden didn't do that.

Here is the Trump immunity opinion https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3-939_e2pg.pdf

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents immunity for their official acts is deeply wrong. As troubling as this criminal immunity doctrine is in theory, the majority’s application of the doctrine to the indictment in this case is perhaps even more troubling. In the hands of the majority, this new official-acts immunity operates as a one-way ratchet.

First, the majority declares all of the conduct involving the Justice Department and the Vice President to be official conduct, see ante, at 19–24, yet it refuses to designate any course of conduct alleged in the indictment as private, despite concessions from Trump’s counsel.6 Trump’s counsel conceded, for example, that the allegation that Trump “turned to a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results” “sounds private.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 29. He likewise conceded that the allegation that Trump “conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by [Trump] that contained false allegations to support a challenge” “sounds private.” Ibid.; see also id., at 36–37 (Trump’s counsel explaining that it is not “disputed” that such conduct is “unofficial”). Again, when asked about allegations that “[t]hree private actors . . . helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding, and [Trump] and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort,” Trump’s counsel conceded the alleged conduct was “private.” Id., at 29–30. Only the majority thinks that organizing fraudulent slates of electors might qualify as an official act of the President, see ante, at 24–28, or at least an act so “interrelated” with other allegedly official acts that it might warrant protection, ante, at 28. If the majority’s sweeping conception of “official acts” has any real limits, the majority is unwilling to reveal them in today’s decision.

Second, the majority designates certain conduct immune while refusing to recognize anything as prosecutable. It shields large swaths of conduct involving the Justice Department with immunity, see ante, at 19–21; see also Part V, supra, but it does not give an inch in the other direction. The majority admits that the Vice President’s responsibility “‘presiding over the Senate’” is “‘not an “executive branch” function,’” and it further admits that the President “plays no direct constitutional or statutory role” in the counting of electoral votes. Ante, at 23–24. Yet the majority refuses to conclude that Trump lacks immunity for his alleged attempts to “enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” App. 187, Indictment ¶10(d). Instead, it worries that a prosecution for this conduct might make it harder for the President to use the Vice President “to advance [his] agenda in Congress.” Ante, at 24. Such a prosecution, according to the majority, “may well hinder the President’s ability to perform his constitutional functions.” Ibid. Whether a prosecution for this conduct warrants immunity should have been an easy question, but the majority turns it into a debatable one. Remarkably, the majority goes further and declines to deny immunity even for the allegations that Trump organized fraudulent elector slates, pressured States to subvert the legitimate election results, and exploited violence at the Capitol to influence the certification proceedings. It is not conceivable that a prosecution for these alleged efforts to
overturn a Presidential election, whether labeled official or unofficial under the majority’s test, would pose any “‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch,’” ante, at 14, and the majority could have said as much. Instead, it perseverates on a threshold question that should be immaterial.

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the
President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the
most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

I cynically assume that all presidents will exploit all privileges and powers to accomplish their goals and protect their agendas.

But you would be wrong.

Trump:

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/trump-doj-officials-supreme-court-made-easy-trump-attack-enemies-rcna160144

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/donald-trump-wants-control-justice-department-fbi-his-allies-have-plan-2024-05-17/

https://www.americanoversight.org/investigation/trump-administrations-politicization-justice-department

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/trump-revenge-second-term/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/09/trump-interview-univision/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html

https://rollcall.com/2017/11/03/trump-urges-doj-to-investigate-his-political-foes/

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/trump-doj-investigate-hillary-clinton-244505

https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-whitehouse-seek-justice-department-records-on-trump-admin-interference-that-reportedly-halted-caterpillar-investigation

Biden:

https://www.justice.gov/sco-durham

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

I don't see how we will be any less free if Trump is elected in that regard than any other president. Why did it so happen to be Trump who was the plaintiff that forced the court to decide on this previously unconsidered constitutional issue?

It wasn't a previously unconsidered issue. Multiple presidents and the founders all said that Presidents were not immune.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/founding-era-history-doesnt-support-trumps-immunity-claim

https://rollcall.com/2024/07/01/historians-legal-experts-express-dismay-at-trump-immunity-ruling/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nations-founders-pushed-elected-king-framing-presidential-powers/story?id=111621798

Probably because he was the first facing criminal charges for acts as performed as president. True, you surely believe that this is because only Trump would ever commit a felony in office but I entertain other possibilities such as that only Trump would be pursued for a felony crime (at least any of these crimes) performed while in office as the US president. Explain how the huge threat to your freedom in this area exists if Trump wins but not if Biden or Harris or anyone else wins?

Trump tried to invalidate the vote of the American people in late December 2020 and early January 2021. No other president, even FDR, Lincoln, Nixon and Reagan, after attempted to do something so anti-democratic.

The indictment for Trump conspiring to defraud the US population of their vote : https://abcnews.go.com/US/latest-fed...y?id=101918701



JM

[Jon Miller]

[quote]
Tell me about how Trump tried to take away your right to vote. Is there more than one way to take away your right to vote? What makes you sure that the other candidates won't take away your right to vote?
[\quote]

I and the American people voted in 2020. When the counts were finished, when the court cased were concluded, when everything was done, Trump had lost. He hadn't shown that there was fraud or any effort to fake the vote. Despite this, he instructed and conspired with people in 7 states (Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada and New Mexico) to introduce illegal and false electors (that were known to be) and instructed and directed people like his Vice President Pence (and the DoJ) to make sure that the false electors were counted instead of the true ones. When this didn't work (because Barr and Pence and others refused him), he then called together a crowd, incited them and instructed them to go and make Pence change his mind.

Read the indictment. It is the worst crime against the American people by a president in US history. https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v..._23_cr_257.pdf
[quote]
The Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020. The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.

Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.

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. 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. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

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.
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").

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference. The Conspiracy

From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, 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.

Purpose of the Conspiracy

The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.

The Defendant's Co-Conspirators

The Defendant enlisted co-conspirators to assist him in his criminal efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election and retain power. Among these
were:
a. Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign
attorneys would not.
b. Co-Conspirator 2, an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election.
c. Co-Conspirator 3, an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the Defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded "crazy." Nonetheless, the Defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-Conspirator 3's disinformation.
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 and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.
e. Co-Conspirator 5, an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.
f. Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

The federal government function by which the results of the election for President of the United States are collected, counted, and certified was established through the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act (ECA), a federal law enacted in 1887. The Constitution provided that individuals called electors select the president, and that each state determine for itself how to
appoint the electors apportioned to it. Through state laws, each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia chose to select their electors based on the popular vote in the state. After election
day, the ECA required each state to formally determine—or "ascertain"—the electors who would represent the state's voters by casting electoral votes on behalf of the candidate who had won the
popular vote, and required the executive of each state to certify to the federal government the identities of those electors. Then, on a date set by the ECA, each state's ascertained electors were
required to meet and collect the results of the presidential election—that is, to cast electoral votes based on their state's popular vote, and to send their electoral votes, along with the state executive's certification that they were the state's legitimate electors, to the United States Congress to be counted and certified in an official proceeding. Finally, the Constitution and ECA required that
on the sixth of January following election day, the Congress meet in a Joint Session for a certification proceeding, presided over by the Vice President as President of the Senate, to count
the electoral votes, resolve any objections, and announce the result—thus certifying the winner of the presidential election as president-elect. This federal government function—from the point of
ascertainment to the certification—is foundational to the United States' democratic process, and until 2021, had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years.

Manner and Means

The Defendant's conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means:
a. The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate
election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant's opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the
pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss
legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.
b. The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New
Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution
and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate
electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were
legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the
Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. The Defendant and co-conspirators then
caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the
certification proceeding on January 6.
c. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime
investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may
have impacted the election outcome; that sought to advance the Defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to
falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted
states' legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.
d. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to
fraudulently alter the election results. First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince
the Vice President to use the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state
legislatures for review rather than counting them. When that failed, on the morning of January 6, the Defendant and co-conspirators repeated
knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election
results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent
actions he had previously refused.
e. After it became public on the afternoon of January 6 that the Vice President would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd—
including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results—
violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by
redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.

The Defend ant's Knowledge of the Falsity of His Election Fraud Claims

The Defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents made knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election. These prolific lies about election fraud included dozens of specific claims that there had been substantial fraud in certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise
ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for the Defendant to votes for Biden. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. In fact,
the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts—
and he deliberately disregarded the truth. For instance:
a. The Defendant's Vice President—who personally stood to gain by remaining in office as part of the Defendant's ticket and whom the Defendant asked to study fraud allegations—told the Defendant that he had seen no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud.
b. The senior leaders of the Justice Department—appointed by the Defendant and responsible for investigating credible allegations of election crimes— told the Defendant on multiple occasions that various allegations of fraud were unsupported.
c. The Director of National Intelligence—the Defendant's principal advisor on intelligence matters related to national security—disabused the Defendant of the notion that the Intelligence Community's findings regarding foreign interference would change the outcome of the election.
d. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ("CISA")—whose existence the Defendant signed into law to protect the nation's cybersecurity infrastructure from attack—joined an official multi-agency statement that there was no evidence any voting system had been compromised and that declared the 2020 election "the most
secure in American history." Days later, after the CISA Director—whom the Defendant had appointed—announced publicly that election security
experts were in agreement that claims of computer-based election fraud were unsubstantiated, the Defendant fired him.
e. Senior White House attorneys—selected by the Defendant to provide him candid advice—informed the Defendant that there was no evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, and told him that his presidency would end on Inauguration Day in 2021.

[\quote]

I should keep posting. It is a a terrible accusation. Not business as usual, or even things like Iran-Contra or Watergate.

If what Trump did was right, then anyone who thinks it is right (and so acts similarly) will make sure there is never another democratically elected president again.

Trump's defense isn't that he didn't do the above. His defense is that he is immune, and that he had the right to do it.

I'm certainly interested in establishing a difference in how free Americans would be under Trump vs Biden.

It is the likely end of the republic. Maybe after Trump dies it could be recovered, but I wouldn't bet on it.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Tell me about how Trump tried to take away your right to vote. Is there more than one way to take away your right to vote? What makes you sure that the other candidates won't take away your right to vote?

I and the American people voted in 2020. When the counts were finished, when the court cased were concluded, when everything was done, Trump had lost. He hadn't shown that there was fraud or any effort to fake the vote. Despite this, he instructed and conspired with people in 7 states (Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada and New Mexico) to introduce illegal and false electors (that were known to be) and instructed and directed people like his Vice President Pence (and the DoJ) to make sure that the false electors were counted instead of the true ones. When this didn't work (because Barr and Pence and others refused him), he then called together a crowd, incited them and instructed them to go and make Pence change his mind.

Read the indictment. It is the worst crime against the American people by a president in US history. https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v..._23_cr_257.pdf
[quote]
The Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020. The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.

Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.

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. 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. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

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.
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").

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference. The Conspiracy

From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, 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.

Purpose of the Conspiracy

The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.

The Defendant's Co-Conspirators

The Defendant enlisted co-conspirators to assist him in his criminal efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election and retain power. Among these
were:
a. Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign
attorneys would not.
b. Co-Conspirator 2, an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election.
c. Co-Conspirator 3, an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the Defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded "crazy." Nonetheless, the Defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-Conspirator 3's disinformation.
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 and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.
e. Co-Conspirator 5, an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.
f. Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

The federal government function by which the results of the election for President of the United States are collected, counted, and certified was established through the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act (ECA), a federal law enacted in 1887. The Constitution provided that individuals called electors select the president, and that each state determine for itself how to
appoint the electors apportioned to it. Through state laws, each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia chose to select their electors based on the popular vote in the state. After election
day, the ECA required each state to formally determine—or "ascertain"—the electors who would represent the state's voters by casting electoral votes on behalf of the candidate who had won the
popular vote, and required the executive of each state to certify to the federal government the identities of those electors. Then, on a date set by the ECA, each state's ascertained electors were
required to meet and collect the results of the presidential election—that is, to cast electoral votes based on their state's popular vote, and to send their electoral votes, along with the state executive's certification that they were the state's legitimate electors, to the United States Congress to be counted and certified in an official proceeding. Finally, the Constitution and ECA required that
on the sixth of January following election day, the Congress meet in a Joint Session for a certification proceeding, presided over by the Vice President as President of the Senate, to count
the electoral votes, resolve any objections, and announce the result—thus certifying the winner of the presidential election as president-elect. This federal government function—from the point of
ascertainment to the certification—is foundational to the United States' democratic process, and until 2021, had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years.
[\quote]


JM

[Jon Miller]

Tell me about how Trump tried to take away your right to vote. Is there more than one way to take away your right to vote? What makes you sure that the other candidates won't take away your right to vote?

I and the American people voted in 2020. When the counts were finished, when the court cased were concluded, when everything was done, Trump had lost. He hadn't shown that there was fraud or any effort to fake the vote. Despite this, he instructed and conspired with people in 7 states (Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada and New Mexico) to introduce illegal and false electors (that were known to be) and instructed and directed people like his Vice President Pence (and the DoJ) to make sure that the false electors were counted instead of the true ones. When this didn't work (because Barr and Pence and others refused him), he then called together a crowd, incited them and instructed them to go and make Pence change his mind.

Read the indictment. It is the worst crime against the American people by a president in US history. https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v..._23_cr_257.pdf
[quote]
The Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020. The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.

Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.

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. 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. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

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.
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").

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference. The Conspiracy

From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, 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.

Purpose of the Conspiracy

The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.

The Defendant's Co-Conspirators

The Defendant enlisted co-conspirators to assist him in his criminal efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election and retain power. Among these
were:
a. Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign
attorneys would not.
b. Co-Conspirator 2, an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election.
c. Co-Conspirator 3, an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the Defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded "crazy." Nonetheless, the Defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-Conspirator 3's disinformation.
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 and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.
e. Co-Conspirator 5, an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.
f. Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

The federal government function by which the results of the election for President of the United States are collected, counted, and certified was established through the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act (ECA), a federal law enacted in 1887. The Constitution provided that individuals called electors select the president, and that each state determine for itself how to
appoint the electors apportioned to it. Through state laws, each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia chose to select their electors based on the popular vote in the state. After election
day, the ECA required each state to formally determine—or "ascertain"—the electors who would represent the state's voters by casting electoral votes on behalf of the candidate who had won the
popular vote, and required the executive of each state to certify to the federal government the identities of those electors. Then, on a date set by the ECA, each state's ascertained electors were
required to meet and collect the results of the presidential election—that is, to cast electoral votes based on their state's popular vote, and to send their electoral votes, along with the state executive's certification that they were the state's legitimate electors, to the United States Congress to be counted and certified in an official proceeding. Finally, the Constitution and ECA required that
on the sixth of January following election day, the Congress meet in a Joint Session for a certification proceeding, presided over by the Vice President as President of the Senate, to count
the electoral votes, resolve any objections, and announce the result—thus certifying the winner of the presidential election as president-elect. This federal government function—from the point of
ascertainment to the certification—is foundational to the United States' democratic process, and until 2021, had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years.

Manner and Means

The Defendant's conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means:
a. The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate
election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant's opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the
pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss
legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.
b. The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New
Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution
and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate
electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were
legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the
Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. The Defendant and co-conspirators then
caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the
certification proceeding on January 6.
c. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime
investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may
have impacted the election outcome; that sought to advance the Defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to
falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted
states' legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.
d. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to
fraudulently alter the election results. First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince
the Vice President to use the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state
legislatures for review rather than counting them. When that failed, on the morning of January 6, the Defendant and co-conspirators repeated
knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election
results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent
actions he had previously refused.
e. After it became public on the afternoon of January 6 that the Vice President would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd—
including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results—
violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by
redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.

The Defend ant's Knowledge of the Falsity of His Election Fraud Claims

The Defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents made knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election. These prolific lies about election fraud included dozens of specific claims that there had been substantial fraud in certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise
ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for the Defendant to votes for Biden. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. In fact,
the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts—
and he deliberately disregarded the truth. For instance:
a. The Defendant's Vice President—who personally stood to gain by remaining in office as part of the Defendant's ticket and whom the Defendant asked to study fraud allegations—told the Defendant that he had seen no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud.
b. The senior leaders of the Justice Department—appointed by the Defendant and responsible for investigating credible allegations of election crimes— told the Defendant on multiple occasions that various allegations of fraud were unsupported.
c. The Director of National Intelligence—the Defendant's principal advisor on intelligence matters related to national security—disabused the Defendant of the notion that the Intelligence Community's findings regarding foreign interference would change the outcome of the election.
d. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ("CISA")—whose existence the Defendant signed into law to protect the nation's cybersecurity infrastructure from attack—joined an official multi-agency statement that there was no evidence any voting system had been compromised and that declared the 2020 election "the most
secure in American history." Days later, after the CISA Director—whom the Defendant had appointed—announced publicly that election security
experts were in agreement that claims of computer-based election fraud were unsubstantiated, the Defendant fired him.
e. Senior White House attorneys—selected by the Defendant to provide him candid advice—informed the Defendant that there was no evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, and told him that his presidency would end on Inauguration Day in 2021.

[\quote]

I should keep posting. It is a a terrible accusation. Not business as usual, or even things like Iran-Contra or Watergate.

If what Trump did was right, then anyone who thinks it is right (and so acts similarly) will make sure there is never another democratically elected president again.

Trump's defense isn't that he didn't do the above. His defense is that he is immune, and that he had the right to do it.

I'm certainly interested in establishing a difference in how free Americans would be under Trump vs Biden.

It is the likely end of the republic. Maybe after Trump dies it could be recovered, but I wouldn't bet on it.


JM

[EPW]

Yes JM, but what about Hunter Biden's laptop?

[Lorizael]

which candidate will take more freedom? specifically which freedoms will be lost and who will lose them?

Women, minorities, and LGBT citizens are probably the most likely to lose freedoms under a second Trump term, because they already have lost freedoms as a direct result of the things Trump did during his first term that he said he was doing in order to take away the rights of women, minorities, and LGBT citizens. Women: bodily autonomy; minorities: voting, housing, citizenship status, etc.; LGBT: self-determination, medical care, discrimination protections, existence, etc.

[Geronimo]

Women, minorities, and LGBT citizens are probably the most likely to lose freedoms under a second Trump term, because they already have lost freedoms as a direct result of the things Trump did during his first term that he said he was doing in order to take away the rights of women, minorities, and LGBT citizens. Women: bodily autonomy; minorities: voting, housing, citizenship status, etc.; LGBT: self-determination, medical care, discrimination protections, existence, etc.

Trump appointed judges that didn't recognize Roe v Wade as a valid decision and essentially vacated that decision. Roe v Wade only indirectly made anybody less free by making states not free to legislate limits on abortion beyond an arbitrarily determined gestational window. Unless a candidate gets to appoint a supreme court justice in the next 4 years that's not going to apply. If they do get to appoint a supreme court you have to assume that whoever is appointed to the supreme court by Trump will be interested in looking for new opportunities to limit the rights of all of the these people. Even then you have to believe that the supreme court arbitrarily defining new rights without respect to the constitution is true freedom and not possibly a double edged sword that is just as capable of removing rights. Trump is on the record as opposing federal limits on abortion.

I would like to hear more about how minorities or any protected class will become less free under Trump with respect to housing and voting, citizenship status, etc. That's definitely a big deal. Sometimes I think it's just a knee-jerk talking point but I don't put anything past Trump.

I don't think Trump has been anywhere near as active as Desantis and a few others with respect to LGBT but even they seem to be content solely with protecting some kind of parental veto over gender identity related medical treatments rather than outright bans or in the most extreme cases only adults can seek such care regardless of parental consent. Trump has not personally been advocating LGBT limits of any kind and doesn't have a history of doing so. However, you might know some specific examples that show there is more danger there.

[Geronimo]

Thanks for the long replies JM. I think generally long well considered replies deserve long well considered replies of their own. I'll try to follow up more a bit later.

[Jon Miller]

Here is another article to read

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/supreme-court-immunity-corruption/679107/

JM

[Jon Miller]

Thanks for the long replies JM. I think generally long well considered replies deserve long well considered replies of their own. I'll try to follow up more a bit later.

I cut my post, and then tried to split it into three, but I still had difficulty posting it. Sorry about that.

JM