Famed Harvard Law Prof: Jack Smith Could be Indicted for Fraud

I’ve gotten where I stay off most all certain news regularly. I scan some nights on one then keep moving on.
I hate to break this to you, but they’re all biased. My question is, when was the last time you saw a legal “expert” or any other form of “expert” go against your news talking heads? Answer, zero.

 

Elle Honig does it all the time on CNN

 

If we re-elect someone convicted of trying to unlawfully overturn the previous election then our evolution to an idiocracy shall be complete.

And what's with the nonsense spewed on here (by others on this thread, not by you) "oh is it a crime to speak your opinion now"? This isn't remotely close to a first amendment case.

Knowingly putting forth a fake set of electors is potentially criminal, no matter who does it. Period. Full stop. It's got nothing to do with infringing on the expression of someone's "opinion" that the election was fraudulent (despite Trump literally losing all 70 of his election lawsuits and failing an investigation by his own DOJ that the election was fraudulent, he has the right to claim as much fake garbage as he likes about the election).

But somehow it's the guys on the left who are moving the goalposts on this one? Good grief, you guys have switched the entire playing field

What an absurdity. On 2d thought, maybe the idiocracy is already here.

What to know about the Trump 'fake electors' scheme in the 2020 election


"18 USC 1512 § (c)(2), which involves obstructing an official proceeding, is also charged. The official proceeding in this case would be the vote certification in Congress on Jan 6. The prosecutor’s argument would be that by submitting phony electoral certificates to the National Archives, Trump and his allies attempted to obstruct that normal certification process. This is a statute that has been charged frequently in other Jan. 6 cases, and has been upheld by the D.C.’s highest federal appeals court (where we believe the charges would happen).

18 USC § 371 is the other statute primarily at issue. That’s about conspiring to defraud the U.S. government. Again, the theory would be that Trump and others conspired to obstruct "the lawful federal government function" of collecting, counting and certifying the election results."

 

Ehhh, we didn't charge JFK with a crime when his campaign submitted fake electors in Hawaii in 1960. I'm not saying this scenario is the exact same, but I'm not sure it's the "full stop" crime you are describing it to be. The problem with Smith's indictment is that it includes a lot of things that are constitutionally protected, aside from the fake electors issue, which degrades the entire indictment. After all, it's still innocent until proven guilty and if the bar was ever higher for that standard, it's going to be for an ex-president. Add to that the leading opposition candidate in the next election. Your indictment has to be unassailable or the United States becomes a banana republic.

Perhaps we can at least find some common ground there. That an ex-president, leading opposition candidate should get every constitutional benefit of the doubt that exists. Because if that's not the case, then we have larger issues than Trump winning re-election. Tbh, I'm surprised he even wants it, because he has to know even if he wins the POTUS again, they're going to keep hammering him. He is not one of "them" and he never will be. Nearly 80, he's got more money than he knows what to do with. He can bequeath his real estate empire to his sons and daughter. I genuinely believe he believes he's supposed to do this. Why else would he? But hopefully you at least agree he should be afforded all of the constitutional outs that exists for a defendant. That is the bedrock of our democracy.

 

As to your first paragraph, that's why I said potentially criminal. Each situation stands on its own. I thought I had read that in 1960 Hawaii was still counting votes on the day Hawaii certified the election i.e., the state was still legitimately in dispute, after which the official recount actually tilted the election to Kennedy, and the then governor accepted the alternate slate to send to DC for the VP to count. So the circumstances surrounding Hawaii in 1960 certainly seem very different than in 2020 when by Jan 6 all the recounts were completed and the vast majority of lawsuits had been resolved against Trump, and all Trump was trying to do was bollix the Electoral College process to have Pence somehow punt it to the House, where the Gop held a majority of the States. Compared to JFK, Trump's whole intent seems in bad faith given what was known as the game was already over while Hawaii in 1960 was legitimately undergoing an active recount when the alternate slate of electors was submitted.

As to your 2d paragraph, the law is the law, whether you are the ex president or white house janitor. Same standard for everyone, you, me, Trump or Biden. As I have said on here many times, if either of the Clinton's or Biden was suspected of a crime, investigate them, charge them and if convicted punish them. Doesn't matter if it relates to Epstein Island, illegal payola, the Clinton Foundation or anything else. So yeah, he deserves the same constitutional protection ("benefit of the doubt" in your words?) we all get, no more no less. And I'm not really sure what a Constitutional "out" is so maybe you can explain what that means to me.

 

1960 Hawaii, when the Electoral College met, Hawaii was still recounting Nixon's win of about 160 total votes. The D Hawaiian electors did sign paperwork similar to the fake electors that Trump's supporters did in several states. The major difference is in all of Trump's states, counting and recounting were finished, and the counts were no longer in doubt.

In the end, the Hawaiian recount tilted the results to Kennedy, and VP Nixon acknowledged this fact, and during the final vote, actually sat the 3 D Hawaiian electors.

 

We both know all defendants aren’t given the same chance for justice. Some defendants are innocent. Some defendants can’t afford representation. Some defendants get lousy representation. Some defendants receive a favor. Some defendants get off the hook because they know some people or some things. Some defendants get off because they’re afforded an opportunity to flip on another defendant. Some defendants have a lousy prosecution. Some defendants get off on technicalities. Some defendants get off because their counsel is able to persuade a jury. Some defendants get off due to who is on the jury.

We will all feel the reverberations if an ex-POTUS doesn’t receive the best protections under the law. If the indictment or prosecution is tainted in any way, that has implications for us all.

 

I certainly don't disagree that outcomes can be widely disparate for a multitude of reasons, but I think that's different than having different standards as to who gets charged and who doesn't in the first place

And I agree the less tight Smith's case is, the worse it is for all of us.

 

I’ll have to look her up

 

Only idiots would compare this plot to 1960. There were multiple counts back then and each one produced a different winner. To save time when it was finally settled, both parties sent a slate of electors. No one on either side was perpetrating a fraud after the vote count was settled and certified by the state governors.

 

Well she’s a he so….

 

Elle? My bad, I call my daughter Ell

 

Derch of Epstein Island fame?

What is going on with all da lawyers

 

I misspelled its “Elie”. I assume it’s biblical

 

Book of Eli. Great movie