INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

[Rolodex]

He has no one but himself to blame for the timing. Appeals and then then supreme court took its time (probably because turmp called thomas and told him to stretch it out). I hope we have a REALLY good week in November!

[Ben-Prime]

Cross posting:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 284fe&ei=5

The so-called "fake electors" plot didn't succeed after the 2020 election. And according to Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith's recently unsealed dossier, one reason may have been the incompetence of former President Donald Trump's then-personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Following his loss in the 2020 election, Trump put Giuliani in charge of his campaign's legal team. The former New York City mayor and ex-U.S. attorney then sought to have Republican officials in swing states Trump narrowly lost to President Joe Biden submit alternate slates of presidential electors in an effort to overturn election results. This included the states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In a Thursday article on Smith's dossier, the Guardian reported that Giuliani's plot to subvert election results was complicated by him apparently texting the details of the plot to the wrong number. While the identity of the intended recipient is unknown, Giuliani appeared to have sent instructions to a Republican lawmaker in Michigan on how to disrupt the awarding of the Mitten State's Electoral College votes to Biden.

“So I need you to pass a joint resolution from the legislature that states the election is in dispute, there’s an ongoing investigation by the legislature, and the Electors sent by Governor Whitmer are not the official electors of the state of Michigan and do not fall within the Safe Harbor deadline under Michigan law,” Giuliani texted.

In his recounting of the event, Smith's team of prosecutors wrote in the 165-page dossier that Giuliani ultimately never got in touch with the presumed Michigan lawmaker because "he put the wrong number into his phone." While the former New York Mayor's name is redacted in the dossier, context from the document reveals that the person Smith identified as "CC1" [co-conspirator one] is Giuliani. Earlier this year, Michigan investigators confirmed that Trump, Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows were all "unindicted co-conspirators" in the fake elector probe.

Smith clearly wants to make sure Rudy never ever ever gets paid. Not that he was going to be. But still.

[RTH10260]

I concur, how much more time do they need for finding that his actions have been of presidential nature all over, they had four years to prepare for that

[MN-Skeptic]

From Adam Klasfeld - Who’s Who in Jack Smith’s Immunity Brief

If you want to have a good list of who's who, this makes a good reference.

[Kendra]

From Adam Klasfeld - Who’s Who in Jack Smith’s Immunity Brief

If you want to have a good list of who's who, this makes a good reference.

TY.

[MN-Skeptic]

Also from Adam Klasfeld, the 165-page document with the redacted names inserted above their redactions, so you can essentially read the document as it was originally written - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... curity.pdf

[p0rtia]

Tx! Been waiting for that!

[RTH10260]

Next we will see the lawyers for DonOLD take the case up to SCOTUS cause Jack did not obfuscate the co-conspirators sufficiently, mark my words

[Sam the Centipede]

Do you think Rudy Giuliani is proud to be " CC1 ", clearly the Top Coconut, sorry, Coconspirator?

Imagine being P-seventy-something: you're a nobody! Or innocent of misdeeds, but anybody who chose to be Trump-adjacent is guilty by association in my view.

[Rolodex]

I've been slowly working my way through the unsealed (indictment? whatever it is). You know how trump always says something will come out "in two weeks" or similar? Health care plan. Infrastructure week. The video proving his people didn't shove the employee at Arlington National Cemetery a month or so ago. He's a one-trick pony - turns out he tried this trick on the governor of Arizona.
From page 18:

On November 9, for instance, two days after news networks
projected that Biden had won, the defendant called Arizona Governor (Ducey) to ask him
what was happening at the state level with the presidential vote count in Arizona. At that point,
though Fox News had projected that Biden had won the state, several other news outlets-
including ABC, NBC, CNN, and the New York Times-had not yet made a projection. -
walked the defendant through the margins and the votes remaining to be counted, which were
primarily from Pima County, which favored Biden, and Maricopa County, which was split.
Ducey described the situation to the defendant as "the ninth inning, two outs, and [the defendant]
was several runs down." The defendant also raised claims of election fraud, and Ducey asked
the defendant to send him supporting evidence. Although the defendant said he would-stating,
"we 're packaging it up"-he never did.

P 19:

During the call, the
defendant and Guiliani levied multiple false fraud claims-including of non-citizen, non-resident,
and dead voters that affected the defendant's race-and asked Bowers to use them as a basis to
call the state legislature into session to replace Arizona's legitimate electors with illegitimate ones
for the defendant. When Bowers voiced his deep skepticism, Guiliani said,"well, you know,
we're all kind of Republicans and we need to be working together." Bowers refused, and asked
Guiliani to provide evidence suppo1ting his fraud claims. Guiliani never did.
Indeed, Guiliani met with Bowers approximately a week later and still had
nothing to back up his claims.

[Dr. Ken]

[RTH10260]

DonOld's lawyers shirley have a long appendix of case law in support of this request

[Rolodex]

Can't wait for the respsonse. One sheet: Motion denied.

[Dr. Ken]

yup

[bill_g]

Fair to a fault, but it's also enabling him.

[RTH10260]

[MN-Skeptic]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

Special Counsel Jack Smith skewers Trump's arguments seeking to dismiss his obstruction counts following SCOTUS's ruling in Fischer.

That decision "expressly held" the statute could apply to using false evidence to obstruct the certification.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .262.0.pdf

[Kendra]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge ... 9c90&ei=17

WASHINGTON — A federal judge overseeing the federal election interference case against Donald Trump rejected the former president's claim that he was actually concerned about foreign influence and interference in the 2020 election — rather than the false claims about domestic voter fraud he continuously repeated in the weeks before the Jan. 6 attack.

There is “no reason to believe” that Trump's purported worries about foreign influence in the 2020 election “animated his concerns at the time,” Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote, adding that Trump's theories that such evidence would be relevant to his criminal case "do not withstand scrutiny."

Trump's team had asked Chutkan to compel prosecutors in special counsel Jack Smith's office to provide them with additional evidence, including "all information" about foreign interference and influence efforts in the 2020 election. It's part of the Trump team's attempt to present Trump's concerns about mass voter fraud — which were roundly rejected by independent arbiters and courts — as "reasonable" and grounded in reality.

[Reality Check]

Apparently the only :other legal option" Trump's team could come up with is to file another motion begging Judge Chutkan to delay the release of the 300 page appendix until November 14th. I have not seen a copy posted anywhere yet but Meidas Touch has a video.

[Kendra]

Thanks for that, interesting and can't wait

That said, how many times did she say basically in that short clip? I thought only the young kids abused that word

[Reality Check]

Thanks for that, interesting and can't wait

That said, how many times did she say basically in that short clip? I thought only the young kids abused that word

As with most MT videos I only watched the first minute or so. I will have to go back and check that out. Reminds me of people who begin every other sentence with "Yah know, ..."

[p0rtia]

Karen is not a natural speaker, but what she brings to the table in terms of knoweldge, experience, and character is priceless.

[RTH10260]

Trump Makes Sharply Incriminating Statement, Claiming "We (the Jan. 6 Mob) Were Not Armed That Day"

Glenn Kirschner
18 Oct 2024

Someone should really pull Donald Trump aside and tell him, "you know, you have the right NOT to incriminate yourself." In a recent town hall campaign event, Trump repeatedly said that "we did not have guns (at the US Capitol) on January 6."

By choosing to describe the insurrectionists using the personal plural pronoun "we", Trump directly aligned himself with the folks who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, there y incriminating himself (as he so often does).

Interestingly, that statement is actually an incriminating twofer, given that Trump lied about his angry mob not being armed with firearms on January 6. Trump was briefed on the morning of January 6 that members of the crowd WERE armed with firearms, to which Trump responded, "I don't care if they are armed, take down the f'ing mags (metal detectors), and let my people in, they're not here to hurt me, then we can all march to the Capitol from here."

Once Trump's cases move from the court of public opinion into courtrooms proper, Trump will be convicted in case after case after case.

[Reality Check]

Judge Chutkian denies Trump's motion to extend the stay of the release of Jack Smith's evidence.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 65.0_3.pdf

The court will order the release Friday.

As a result, it is in
fact Defendant’s requested relief that risks undermining that public interest: If the court withheld
information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely because of the potential
political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute—or appear to be—
election interference. The court will therefore continue to keep political considerations out of its
decision-making, rather than incorporating them as Defendant requests. Any argument about
“what needs to happen before or shouldn’t happen before the election is not relevant here.” Tr.
of Arraignment and Status Conference at 29, ECF No. 232.

For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Continue Stay of Order, ECF No. 264, is
hereby DENIED. In a separate order on October 18, 2024, the court will lift the stay and direct
the Clerk of the Court to docket the Appendix, with the Government’s proposed redactions.

[neonzx]