Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

Final Report of the Special Counsel Under 28 C.F.R. § 600.8

Quote

VOLUME ONE: THE ELECTION CASE

On November 18, 2022, the Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel to oversee an ongoing investigation into "whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021." See Office of the Attorney General, Order No. 5559-2022, Appointment of John L. Smith as Special Counsel (Nov. 18, 2022). As a result of that investigation, on August 1, 2023, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia charged Donald J. Trump with four felony offenses arising from his efforts to unlawfully retain power by using fraud and deceit to overturn the 2020 election results. After the Supreme Court held last summer that Mr. Trump was immune from prosecution for certain misuse of official power alleged in the indictment, a second grand jury found probable cause to return a superseding indictment charging the same offenses based on his non-immunized conduct. Mr. Trump was thereafter reelected as President of the United States, and as a result, on November 25, 2024, the Special Counsel moved to dismiss the case against Mr. Trump because of the Department of Justice's longstanding position that the Constitution forbids the federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President. This Volume focuses on the Election Case against Mr. Trump and, consistent with the applicable regulations, provides an explanation of the prosecution decisions reached by the Special Counsel. See 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). The first section of this Volume sets forth a summary of key facts gleaned from the investigation, a vast majority of which are already a matter of public record through the litigation that occurred before the district court. The second section discusses the statutes that Mr. Trump was charged with violating, applying the facts developed during the investigation to the law as the Special Counsel's Office (the Office) understood it. This section also addresses other charges that the Office considered but did not pursue, and the defenses that the Office expected Mr. Trump to raise at trial. The third section explains why the Special Counsel's decision to prosecute Mr. Trump was fully consistent with and indeed was compelled by the Principles of Federal Prosecution. The fourth section describes the Office's investigative procedures and policies. Finally, the fifth section of this Volume discusses a series of investigative and prosecutive issues that the Office confronted in the Election Case.

VI. CONCLUSION

On remand from the Supreme Court's decision in Trump, the district court set a litigation schedule whereby the parties would submit briefs regarding whether any material in the superseding indictment was subject to presidential immunity. ECF No. 233. The parties were in the middle of that process when the results of the presidential election made clear that Mr. Trump would be inaugurated as President of the United States on January 20, 2025. As described above, it has long been the Department's interpretation that the Constitution forbids the federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President, but the election results raised for the first time the question of the lawful course when a private citizen who has already been indicted is then elected President. The Department detem1ined that the case must be dismissed without prejudice before Mr. Trump takes office, and the Office therefore moved to dismiss the indictment on November 25, 2024. See ECF No. 281. The district court granted the motion the same day. ECF No. 283. The Department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not tum on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.

Such indictment and prosecution with EVIDENCE is NOT "lawfare," it is the standard of JUSTICE for EVERYONE in the US.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

I mentioned before, I have read Jack Smith's entire 165-page filing in the case of The United States of America vs. Donald Trump. (dated October 2, 2024)

It lays out the evidence to support the case in Trump's illegal attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/10/gov.uscourts.dcd_.258148.252.0.pdf

And now I am going to read the entire 174-page Final Report (dated January 7, 2025)

https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

And now I am going to read the entire 174-page Final Report (dated January 7, 2025)

From page 2:

Attorney General Edward H. Levi, who assumed the Department's helm in the wake of Watergate, summed up those traditions best:

[O]ne paramount concern must always guide our way. This is the keeping of the faith in the essential decency and even-handedness in the law, a faith which is the strength of the law and which must be continually renewed or else it is lost. In a society that too easily accepts the notion that everything can be manipulated, it is important to make clear that the administration of federal justice seeks to be impartial and fair ....

  • Thanks 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

And now I am going to read the entire 174-page Final Report (dated January 7, 2025)

Our work rested upon the fundamental value of our democracy that we exist as "a government of laws, and not of men." John Adams, Novanglus, No. VII at 84 (Mar. 6, 1775)

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

nd now I am going to read the entire 174-page Final Report (dated January 7, 2025)

My Office had one north star: to follow the facts and law wherever they led. Nothing more and nothing less.

  • Like 1
Posted

 

30 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

And now I am going to read the entire 174-page Final Report (dated January 7, 2025)

 

... when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he reso1ied to a series of criminal efforts to retain power. This included attempts to induce state officials to ignore true vote counts; to manufacture fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he had lost; to force Justice Department officials and his own Vice President, Michael R. Pence, to act in contravention of their oaths and to instead advance Mr. Trump's personal interests; and, on January 6, 2021, to direct an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then leverage rioters' violence to further delay it.

Posted

The Co-conspirators:

 

These individuals included Co-Conspirator 1, a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that Mr. Trump's Campaign attorneys would not; Co-Conspirator 2, a private attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ministerial role in the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification; Co-Conspirator 3, a private attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud Mr. Trump privately acknowledged were "crazy," but which he embraced and publicly amplified nonetheless; Co-Conspirator 4, a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with Mr. Trump, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud; Co-Conspirator 5, a private attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding; and Co-Conspirator 6, a private political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

Posted
16 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

The Co-conspirators:

 

These individuals included Co-Conspirator 1, a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that Mr. Trump's Campaign attorneys would not; Co-Conspirator 2, a private attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ministerial role in the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification; Co-Conspirator 3, a private attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud Mr. Trump privately acknowledged were "crazy," but which he embraced and publicly amplified nonetheless; Co-Conspirator 4, a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with Mr. Trump, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud; Co-Conspirator 5, a private attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding; and Co-Conspirator 6, a private political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

So still no convictions.

Okay  :)  

Posted

As December 14-the date the ECA required each state's electors to vote and send their certificates of vote to Congress-approached, Mr. Trump and co-conspirators launched another plan. Under this plan, they would organize the people who would have served as Mr. Trump's electors, had he won the popular vote, in seven states that Mr. Trump had lost-Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin-and cause them to sign and send to Washington false certifications claiming to be the legitimate electors.

Posted

Oh good. A one sided story with no opportunity for a counter argument. This should be valuable.

  • Like 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted

For the most part, the co-conspirators deceived Mr. Trump's elector nominees in the targeted states by falsely claiming that their electoral votes would be used only if ongoing litigation were resolved in Mr. Trump's favor.

Posted
1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

Oh good. A one sided story with no opportunity for a counter argument. This should be valuable.

Yes, unfortunately this seems to be what passes for a conviction in radiorum's head

He would have us believe that evidence put before the court is irrefutable and always 100% correct. Why, there's barely any reason to have a trial in fact.

That's why he keeps quoting these sections which have not been tested in a court of law as if it were fact. 

And then they wonder why nobody respects their opinions

2 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

For the most part, the co-conspirators deceived Mr. Trump's elector nominees in the targeted states by falsely claiming that their electoral votes would be used only if ongoing litigation were resolved in Mr. Trump's favor.

Still have to lie to yourself in order to try and prop up your failing argument I see

Posted

On December 13, Co-Conspirator 5 sent Co-Conspirator 1 a memorandum that envisioned a scenario in which the Vice President would use the fraudulent slates to claim that there were dueling slates of electors from the targeted states and negotiate a solution for Mr. Trump to seize power.

Posted

Throughout the post-election period, Justice Department officials reviewed Mr. Trump's claims of election fraud, found no support for any of them, and informed him of such. 65 In one such discussion, when the Acting Attorney General advised Mr. Trump that the Justice Department could not just "snap its fingers" and change the election outcome, 66 Mr. Trump told the Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General that they should "just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Throughout the post-election period, Justice Department officials reviewed Mr. Trump's claims of election fraud, found no support for any of them, and informed him of such. 65 In one such discussion, when the Acting Attorney General advised Mr. Trump that the Justice Department could not just "snap its fingers" and change the election outcome, 66 Mr. Trump told the Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General that they should "just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.

Hey, no joke. If all you're going to do is spam the forum every 5 minutes people here, including me, are going to lose any respect for you and that's how you'll be treated from here on out.  That's not a cool thing to do, If you have someting to add or a legit thing you really feel specifically needs to be looked at then fine but right now you're just dos'ing everyone's notifications. 

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes, unfortunately this seems to be what passes for a conviction in radiorum's head

We know why this never came to trial, but that does not alter its factuality.

From page 21:

In repeated conversations, day after day, Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Pence to use his ministerial position as President of the Senate to change the election outcome, often by citing false claims of election fraud as justification; he even falsely told Mr. Pence that the "Justice Department [was] finding major infractions." 82 When Mr. Pence repeatedly refused to act as Mr. Trump wanted, 83 Mr. Trump told him that "hundreds of thousands" of people would "hate his guts" and think he was "stupid," and that Mr. Pence was "too honest."

Edited by Radiorum
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

I mentioned before, I have read Jack Smith's entire 165-page filing in the case of The United States of America vs. Donald Trump. (dated October 2, 2024)

It lays out the evidence to support the case in Trump's illegal attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/10/gov.uscourts.dcd_.258148.252.0.pdf

And now I am going to read the entire 174-page Final Report (dated January 7, 2025)

https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf

Except the fact the Supreme Court has already ruled on this nonsense 

Posted

Anyone with eyes, ears and a brain knows the scumbag only ran to avoid jail. It's the mass of people without any moral standing whatsoever who helped him do that.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted

I understand that many Trump supporters are in denialism about just what Trump is. Maybe they don't want to admit that they were wrong, maybe they don't want to be embarrassed, but maybe the truth can set you free. 

3 minutes ago, West said:

Except the fact the Supreme Court has already ruled on this nonsense 

No, not on this. What they did was give Trump immunity for official acts. But Trump has captured the courts - one of the main signposts on the way to autocracy.

Posted
1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

From page 2:

Attorney General Edward H. Levi, who assumed the Department's helm in the wake of Watergate, summed up those traditions best:

[O]ne paramount concern must always guide our way. This is the keeping of the faith in the essential decency and even-handedness in the law, a faith which is the strength of the law and which must be continually renewed or else it is lost. In a society that too easily accepts the notion that everything can be manipulated, it is important to make clear that the administration of federal justice seeks to be impartial and fair ....

Meaningless

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

Our work rested upon the fundamental value of our democracy that we exist as "a government of laws, and not of men." John Adams, Novanglus, No. VII at 84 (Mar. 6, 1775)

Meaningless

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

My Office had one north star: to follow the facts and law wherever they led. Nothing more and nothing less.

Meaningless

51 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

 

 

... when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he reso1ied to a series of criminal efforts to retain power. This included attempts to induce state officials to ignore true vote counts; to manufacture fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he had lost; to force Justice Department officials and his own Vice President, Michael R. Pence, to act in contravention of their oaths and to instead advance Mr. Trump's personal interests; and, on January 6, 2021, to direct an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then leverage rioters' violence to further delay it.

DNC talking points.

46 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

The Co-conspirators:

 

These individuals included Co-Conspirator 1, a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that Mr. Trump's Campaign attorneys would not; Co-Conspirator 2, a private attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ministerial role in the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification; Co-Conspirator 3, a private attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud Mr. Trump privately acknowledged were "crazy," but which he embraced and publicly amplified nonetheless; Co-Conspirator 4, a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with Mr. Trump, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud; Co-Conspirator 5, a private attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding; and Co-Conspirator 6, a private political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

More DNC talking points.

29 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

As December 14-the date the ECA required each state's electors to vote and send their certificates of vote to Congress-approached, Mr. Trump and co-conspirators launched another plan. Under this plan, they would organize the people who would have served as Mr. Trump's electors, had he won the popular vote, in seven states that Mr. Trump had lost-Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin-and cause them to sign and send to Washington false certifications claiming to be the legitimate electors.

More DNC talking points. JFK did this exact thing in Hawaii.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

Meaningless

maybe to you.

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

DNC talking points.

No, this is what happened. I know, the truth can be hard to accept.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

I understand that many Trump supporters are in denialism about just what Trump is. Maybe they don't want to admit that they were wrong, maybe they don't want to be embarrassed, but maybe the truth can set you free. 

No, not on this. What they did was give Trump immunity for official acts. But Trump has captured the courts - one of the main signposts on the way to autocracy.

He can't be tried on this because he was a presiding president and securing elections is within his perview. 

They lied about him inciting violence even though he said to peacefully walk to the Capitol. 

Smith is a partisan and a danger to a functioning legal system

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,858
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    onegroupholiday
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • A Freeman went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Tony Eveland earned a badge
      First Post
    • Dick Green earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...