Takeaways from the Donald Trump indictment that alleges campaign of ‘fraud and deceit’
Jack Smith. Image via AP.

Jack Smith
Documents lay out a case against a half dozen co-conspirators as well.

The federal indictment of Donald Trump on Tuesday marks the first time the former President has been formally held accountable for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. It adds new details to what was already known about his actions, and those of his key allies, in the weeks leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection.

The newest charges — Trump’s third criminal indictment this year — include conspiracy to defraud the United States government and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, the congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s victory. It describes how Trump repeatedly told supporters and others he had won the election, despite knowing that was false, and how he tried to persuade state officials, his own Vice President and finally Congress to overturn the legitimate results.

Due to the “dishonesty, fraud and deceit” by Trump and some of his closest allies, the indictment says, his supporters “violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding.” In the attack, his supporters beat and injured police officers and broke through windows and doors, sending lawmakers running for their lives.

Takeaways from Tuesday’s indictment

As Trump schemed to overturn the 2020 election, many of his aides and allies were under no illusion that Trump — a longtime provocateur — had actually won.

Some aides directly refuted conspiracy theories stirred by Trump and his lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Others told him point blank he had lost.

“There is no world, there is no option in which you do not leave the White House (o)n January 20th,” an unnamed deputy White House counsel told Trump, according to the indictment. Another wrote in an email: “I’ll obviously hustle to help on all fronts, but it’s tough to own any of this when it’s all just conspiracy s— beamed down from the mothership.”

But Trump continued to tell “prolific lies,” the indictment says, about the outcome of the election, even after being warned of his false statements by top government officials — citing thousands of dead voters in Georgia, an overcount in Pennsylvania and tens of thousands of noncitizen voters in Arizona. Those theories had been disputed by state and federal officials and even his own staff.

“These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false,” the indictment states.

At the same time, Trump privately acknowledged his loss. After the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff urged Trump to not take action on a national security issue, Trump agreed, according to the indictment.

“Yeah, you’re right, it’s too late for us,” Trump said during a Jan. 3 meeting. “We’re going to give that to the next guy.”

All the while, he repeatedly tweeted and encouraged his supporters to come to Washington on Jan. 6.

Pence’s memos

The indictment includes new details from former Vice President Mike Pence, who had fought efforts to answer questions about his role in presiding over the congressional certification.

Prosecutors cite Pence’s “contemporaneous notes” about his interactions with Trump as the former President tried to convince him to delay or reject the legitimate election results on Jan. 6.

The indictment lists several conversations between Trump and Pence in those weeks, including some that were previously unknown. On Dec. 25, Pence called Trump to wish him a Merry Christmas, prosecutors said. But Trump “quickly turned the conversation to January 6 and his request that the Vice President reject electoral votes that day.” The Vice President pushed back, telling Trump he didn’t have the authority.

In another of the calls, on Jan. 1, Trump told Pence, “You’re too honest,” according to the indictment.

Late night calls

The indictment says that Trump “redoubled” his efforts even in the late night hours after his supporters attacked the Capitol. It lays out several attempts by Trump, through his aides and co-conspirators, to contact multiple senators and at least one House member just before the two chambers reconvened to finally certify Biden’s win.

At 7:01 p.m. that night, the indictment says, as Trump’s allies were making calls, White House counsel Pat Cipollone called Trump to ask him to withdraw any objections and allow the certification. Trump refused, the indictment says.

“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 indictment says.

Fake electors duped into ‘crazy play’

Early on, Trump’s team orchestrated a scheme to enlist officials in seven states he had lost — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin — to have them submit alternate election certificates saying he had actually won when Congress met to certify the vote Jan. 6.

The conspirators told most of the local officials that the certificates they were signing saying Trump won the election in their states would only be used if the court cases being waged over the election results showed that outcome.

But prosecutors allege that’s not true.

What started as a legal strategy quickly evolved into a corrupt plan to stop Biden’s count on Jan. 6, the indictment said.

Told by a colleague what was going on, Trump’s deputy campaign manager called it a “crazy play.” They refused to put their names on a statement about it, because none of them could “stand by it.”

The co-conspirators

The indictment alleges Trump enlisted six people to help him try to overturn the 2020 election. The six people are not explicitly named, but the indictment includes details that make it possible to identify most of them.

As “Co-Conspirator 1” and “Co-Conspirator 2,” lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman are quoted from their remarks at the “Stop the Steal” rally prior to the riot urging Pence to throw out the votes of valid electors.

A third lawyer, Sidney Powell, named as “Co-Conspirator 3,” filed a lawsuit in Georgia that amplified false or unsupported claims of election fraud. The indictment quotes Trump as privately conceding Powell’s claims sounded “crazy.”

Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department official who championed Trump’s false claims of election fraud, is described as “Co-Conspirator 4.”

“Co-Conspirator 5” is lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who the indictment says “assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.”

“Co-Conspirator 6” is an unknown political consultant who also assisted with the fake electors plan.

There are no known charges against the listed co-conspirators.

Giuliani aide Ted Goodman said in a statement that “every fact” the former New York City Mayor had “establishes the good faith basis President Donald Trump had for the actions he took during the two-month period charged in the indictment.” Eastman lawyer Harvey Silverglate said his client denied any wrongdoing.

Congressional inspiration

Much of the evidence in the indictment — including repeated efforts by White House advisers to tell Trump that he lost the election — was first laid out by the Democrat-led House Jan. 6 committee last year.

In its final report issued in December, the committee said it was making several so-called criminal referrals for Trump to the Justice Department, including obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

A criminal referral from Congress is not binding, but it is a formal notification from Congress to the Justice Department that lawmakers believe they have found criminal activity.

The panel’s final report asserted that Trump criminally engaged in a “multi-part conspiracy” to overturn the results and failed to act to stop his supporters from attacking the Capitol.

Trump’s mounting legal bills

The sheer number of investigations, criminal cases and lawsuits brought against Trump are unprecedented for a former President. The same could be said for the tens of millions of dollars in legal fees paid out to attorneys representing him and his allies, straining the finances of his campaign.

An Associated Press analysis of recent fundraising disclosures shows Trump’s political committees have paid out at least $59.2 million to more than 100 lawyers and law firms since January 2021.

The threat posed by the colossal drain of resources has led Trump’s allies to establish a new legal defense fund, the Patriot Legal Defense Fund.

___

Republished with permission of The Associated Press.

Associated Press


5 comments

  • Dont Say FLA

    August 2, 2023 at 7:26 am

    How did it take so long to come with up the announcement that Trump did dishonesty, fraud and deceit? Obviously that’s what was going to do. That’s been the man’s M.O. his entire life. Anybody ever watched The Apprentice, they should have known from that TV show he’s a fraud. Old Man George was the only person on the Trump side of the boardroom table that had any discernible brains whatsoever.

    That said, his popularity among Republicans will continue to go up, and Rhonda will continue to go down.

  • Earl Pitts "Legal Expert" American

    August 2, 2023 at 7:42 am

    Good mornting America,
    Stay tuned for your mornting wake up call from America’s beloved Super Hero, Earl Pitts American:
    …yawn…nobody on the left or the right is paying attention to “The Dook 4 Brains Leftists” old tired indicte, repeat, threepeat, fourpeat song and dance Trump lame @55 indictments…yawn…yawn…yawn…yawn. Oh wait one more…yawn.
    Thank you America,
    EPA

    • Dont Say FLA

      August 2, 2023 at 2:45 pm

      Dammit pops now you got me yawnin’

  • Diddiedol

    August 2, 2023 at 10:39 pm

    In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Supreme Court found that the “First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed.” Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination. Trump had every right to be CRITICAL of our government process. If the standard to prosecute Trump is based on others not liking his ideas than Jacky Smith better file charges against these folks:
    1. Sen. Cory Booker urged people to answer a “call to action” to protest at the Capitol. “Please, get up in the face of some congresspeople,” Booker said at a conference.
    2. In 2018, failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said: “You can’t be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for and what you care for.”
    3. In 2019, Rep. Joaquin Castro said Democrats would “fight [Trump] and challenge him in every way that we can in the Congress, in the courts, and in the streets and protests.”
    4. Rep. Maxine Waters of California also urged activists to physically confront the Trump administration in public places, saying, “You get out and create a crowd. You push back on them. You tell them they are not welcomed anymore or anywhere.”Waters continued her narrative in an interview with MSNBC’s Joy Reid, telling people to be “more forceful, more confrontational, and more prepared to push back on this administration.”
    5. Sen. Jon Tester of Montana encouraged people to “punch Trump in the face.”
    6. In regards to J6 protest: Trump said: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Does that sound like he’s inciting violence? Nope. Even using the word “fight for something” is not fighting words when that words means ADVOCATE strongly. There was no intent from Trump to create violence. Trump is not a mindreader. He can’t predict who is going to go sideways in the same way DEMOCRAT senators can’t predict which BLM protestors are going to TORCH BUILDINGS while they encourage them to peacefully protest. Trump can’t be blamed for individuals who took it upon themselves to do harm, many of them who took advantage of the situation and were AGAINST Trump. As in the FBI informants and operatives at protest who encouraged protestors to storm capitol and who were never arrested.
    At some people the obsessive hatred for Trump has got to stop. It is a cancer that has spread. It’s a very pernicious form of groupthink. And the etiology is other people don’t like Trump’s ideas or how he talks. He’s from New York. A person from New York can say, “Let’s fight to the finish!” or “I’m gonna kill you you dumb bastard” and that means something very different than someone else who didn’t grow up with this type of speech and dialect. Someone from New York says this stuff everyday and it’s harmless. Others say it and mean it. You can’t just apply a more stringent scrutiny of speech to one person because you hate their guts. That’s not the way free speech works.

    • Dont Say FLA

      August 3, 2023 at 8:55 am

      Thanks for that, Diddiedoll. We will let you know if The Donald gets charged by anyone at all for saying stuff during his rallies / speeches.

      As of yet, nada, just like the folks you referenced weren’t charged for any of their rallies or speeches no matter how offensive or out of line their speech may have been.

Comments are closed.


#FlaPol

Florida Politics is a statewide, new media platform covering campaigns, elections, government, policy, and lobbying in Florida. This platform and all of its content are owned by Extensive Enterprises Media.

Publisher: Peter Schorsch @PeterSchorschFL

Contributors & reporters: Phil Ammann, Drew Dixon, Roseanne Dunkelberger, A.G. Gancarski, Ryan Nicol, Jacob Ogles, Cole Pepper, Jesse Scheckner, Drew Wilson, and Mike Wright.

Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @PeterSchorschFL
Phone: (727) 642-3162
Address: 204 37th Avenue North #182
St. Petersburg, Florida 33704