In my opinion, the entire Jan. 6th investigation comes down to this one piece of evidence.

[fightforfreedom]

It has already been proven Trump and his inner circle tried to stop the votes from being counted on Jan.6th. People like Navarro admitted on TV they tried to stop the vote. They even gave it a name, The Green Bay Sweep. Navarro went into great detail about what they did. This would be easy to prove in court.

Trumps lawyer Boris, admitted on TV Rudy was in charge of the fake electors. The fake electors who signed their names saying they were the true electors. They may be in big trouble. That is fraud.

Eastman admitted he came up with the idea on how to stop the vote. Stopping the vote, blocking congress, for any reason is a crime. I believe a jury would convict them. However if we really want to nail these traitors we need this one piece of evidence.

Trump and his inner circles defense is, we believed the election was stolen. That's it, that's all they got. If you can prove they knew the election was not stolen, then you prove they are guilty. A jury would convict them if they knew the election was not stolen.

I believe the committee has that evidence. If they have it Garland will have it.

The largest, most sensitive, complicated, investigation in our history may come down to, did they know the election was not stolen.

[sop]

1. It's the Seinfeld Defense.

As George said, "Remember, Jerry...it's not a lie...if you believe it."

[LiberatedUSA]

12. And if that won't work...

…the George Costanza defense:

Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, 'cause I've worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.

[Grasswire2]

2. the call to Georgia was evidence, too

Trump's voice on tape, threatening, cajoling official to find a precise number of votes, no need to verify them, he and GOP operatives will do what's necessary.

[fightforfreedom]

3. One more point.

I believe Garland has enough evidence to indict Trump and his inner circle for obstructing congress. That is a felony. However, prove they knew the election was not stolen and that could prove seditious conspiracy.

What ever happens, this is going to be one hell of a ride.

[malaise]

4. Of course they knew

Rec

[Joinfortmill]

5. Totally agree.

[chowder66]

6. You might enjoy this article: Prosecuting Trump for the insurrection

snip....

One of those prongs was a campaign by Trump to persuade various federal and state officials to take actions aimed at undoing Biden’s win and allowing Trump to remain in office. This included the former president’s efforts (beginning before votes were cast) to claim the election was fraudulent; to coerce Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have” in order to overturn the result in Georgia; to convince DOJ officials to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me;” and, of course, to harangue Vice President Pence into setting aside his legal duties as President of the Senate under the Electoral Count Act based on Eastman’s scheme – which Eastman himself admitted was so clearly unlawful that it would be rejected by all nine Supreme Court justices. An obstruction charge based on this prong would most likely focus on the pressuring of Pence in his role as a legislative officer, with the other actions serving as evidence of Trump’s overall malign intent. We know that Trump was repeatedly told by the Attorney General and others that his election fraud claims were unfounded, and that he was surely aware of the more than 60 court decisions rejecting all such claims. Key evidence still to be uncovered (or publicly revealed) includes whether Trump was privy to Eastman’s own views of the meritlessness of his claim that Pence could legally refuse to certify the election.

The second prong was the storming of the Capitol by a violent mob aimed at physically disrupting the constitutionally mandated proceeding to formalize the election results. Trump’s relationship to that mob remains a subject of investigation by the Select Committee, litigants in several civil lawsuits (disclosure: I and my organization Protect Democracy are co-counsel in one of those cases), and likely the DOJ, but we already know that Trump weaponized the mob to pressure Pence. We know that members of the mob, including militia leaders who have been charged with coordinating efforts to storm the Capitol, were drawn to Washington, D.C., by Trump’s lies about election fraud and his Dec. 19, 2020, tweet calling for his supporters to assemble for a rally on January 6 that “will be wild.” We know that many of the rioters breached the Capitol intending to stop Pence from counting the electoral votes. We know that militia leaders who planned the breach of the Capitol had close ties to Trump consigliere Roger Stone. We also know that Trump addressed a large crowd at the White House Ellipse that ended just after the electoral count proceeding began at 1 pm, and after Pence informed Trump that he would not go along with his unlawful scheme to reject certain states’ votes. Trump exhorted the crowd to go with him to the Capitol and “fight like hell” to get Pence to “do the right thing.”

Later, twenty minutes after he was told by his Chief of Staff that the mob was inside the Capitol, he poured gasoline on the fire by tweeting: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify.” He then proceeded for a period of several hours to ignore multiple pleas to call off the mob from lawmakers inside the Capitol and his own aides, who evidently believed that the mob was taking instruction from him. At 3:13 p.m. Trump tweeted for the crowd to “stay peaceful,” but pointedly did not call on them to leave the Capitol so the proceedings could resume. Instead, Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Eastman continued to attempt to persuade lawmakers to delay the counting of the votes. The mob’s efforts succeeded in delaying certification of Biden’s win until 3:42 am on January 7. The continuing investigations will likely focus on what Trump knew about the prospect of militias breaching the Capitol, pressuring Pence, and delaying the certification and what his intentions were when he addressed the crowd at the Ellipse and afterwards in failing to call them off. It is worth noting in this regard that Judge Amit Mehta, who is overseeing DOJ’s cases against Stewart Rhodes and other members of the Oath Keepers, has held that the well-pleaded facts set forth in complaints on behalf of several members of Congress and Capitol Police officers plausibly establish a conspiracy between Trump and those who stormed the Capitol. While the plausibility standard is obviously lower than reasonable doubt, that decision illustrates how a court has already assessed Trump’s use of the mob to orchestrate interference with the electoral count proceeding.

It is possible that the DOJ could elect to charge Trump with obstruction based solely on his own (and Eastman’s) efforts to pressure Pence to ignore his legal duties. A lead DOJ prosecutor verified the viability of that theory during a pretrial hearing for one of the Jan. 6 defendants. And DC courts have held that inducing another person to violate a legal duty in relation to an official proceeding meets the definition of acting with an unlawful purpose. Former United States Attorney Barbara McQuade has explained in detail how a prosecution that does not include Trump’s connection to the mob could be carried out.

https://www.justsecurity.org/81597/prosecuting-trump-for-the-insurrection-the-well-founded-case-for-optimism/

[fightforfreedom]

9. Excellent, thank you.

This is why I have been so optimistic many people will be indicted. The evidence is overwhelming.

[chowder66]

10. It's hard to say what will happen but some good points are made.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. The illegality of numerous acts has been discussed everywhere

1) conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States (fraudulent electors)
2) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding (both inciting the riot and pressuring Pence)
3) seditious conspiracy (all of it)

[WarGamer]

14. Let me know when someone is charged.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. So, you admit you're no expert, then claim nothing illegal occurred...

Despite numerous experts who have outlined the various crimes that were committed.

Unless you live in a cave without internet, you’ll know when someone is charged.

But I get it, nobody has been charged yet, so I guess nobody ever will.

[WarGamer]

18. Let's be honest...

4 years of Lucy holding the football.

The first few times I stood up straight and got excited.

I'm not sure who lied to me but there was nothing "there" or no one wanted to prosecute...

So here we are now... in (almost) Summer of 2022 and I'm hearing "experts" saying how the DoJ theoretically COULD charge someone.

Eventually the dog stops "sitting" when you don't give the milk bone.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Hope you understand.

[Kingofalldems]

22. The right wing wants us to give up.

[fightforfreedom]

15. It is illegal to interfere with congress when they are voting, period.

The loophole was made up.

If an election is stolen you take it to a court of law, they decide. You cannot block congress from doing their constitutional duties.

Trump took it to court over sixty times and was told, you got nothing.

[Hoyt]

20. Agree, no matter how disappointing it is. Sorry, missed your post earlier and posted below.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. The GBS is important, but not the only important piece of evidence

Just a few more weeks until we get a clear summation of all the committee has.

[Hoyt]

19. Unfortunately, that is not exactly what happened. The "fake electors" weren't really billed as

being official, that is from the state agency responsible for official electoral votes, usually the Secretary of State.

The letters accompanying the list of electors weren't sent with fake letterhead, seal, etc., to appear as coming from an official source. Didn't read all of them, but the letters essentially said, "If for some reason, you do not accept the 'official electors,' here is a list of people we would like you to consider (followed by a bunch of trump lovers)."

So, why would they think enough Electoral Votes would not be accepted? Well, on Jan 6, 2017, seven Democratic Representatives tried to challenge trump's electoral votes just like GOPers in 2021 (sans the attack on the Capitol). It didn't work in 2017 because then VP Biden properly shut the them down. (We would have been better off if trump was not installed, but that's another matter.)

So, they didn't really commit fraud because they never tried to pass off the electors as official. Immoral, Unethical, should be a law, etc., all apply. But probably not criminal.

Link to 2017 challenge: https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html


If trump runs in 2024 -- which is highly unlikely, IMO -- we are going to have to beat him at the polls unless they have other evidence. Even, if he doesn't run, someone like him will.

[fightforfreedom]

21. I am not sure that is correct. I will have to look it up.

I remember the fake electors from a couple of states covered themselves when they sent in their fake electors list. I seem to recall the fake electors from other states did not cover themselves. They said they were the real electors on the list they sent in.

[Hoyt]

23. Let us know after you look it up. In any event, not sure one can tie it CRIMINALLY to trump.

I'll be glad to be eat crow.

[dpibel]

26. Except for the facts, you've nailed it

Was too busy to research and reply yesterday when this was a live thread. But you trot this argument out on a regular basis, so am dropping this in so I have the link readily at hand.

You claim here, and have claimed elsewhere, that the fake certificates of ascertainment were not really fraud because of the "if you don't accept the real electors, we're here" disclaimer.

You are 29% right.

There were seven states that submitted ersatz certificates of ascertainment. Of those, New Mexico and Pennsylvania used the conditional language on which you rely to absolve culpability. Five did not: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

The documents are here: https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors

Now you can read all of them. (It is surpassing strange that you make such a flat assertion while admitting that you've not read what you purport to be proclaiming on.) Feel free to correct me if I've miscounted.

I have, honestly, no idea what your both-sides bit about 2017 challenges is supposed to add to the mix. Did any Senator join a Representative's challenge? Were the proceedings delayed while the challenges were debated? Can you see even a tiny bit of difference between the cases?

[Kingofalldems]

24. Kick this one.

[sop]

25. There is one inescapable fact:

The individual at the center of all the crimes committed in the effort to overturn Biden's election was Donald J. Trump. He was running everything; every act in furtherance of this criminal enterprise was carried out at the behest of Trump, none of it would have occurred but for Donald Trump, and no one else stood to gain but Trump.

If Trump skates simply because he "believed" the 2020 election was stolen, this country is lost.