18 US Code 2384, Did the trump gang do this?

[Beachnutt]

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[brooklynite]

1. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a minute...

If I were Trump's lawyer, I'd say the the leaders of the Oath Keepers were convicted of conspiracy, but no evidence was presented that linked them to Trump or his staff, and Trump was told by his advisers that there were legal actions that could be taken by Congress or the States to rescind the election results/Electoral vote reports.

Folks here have been saying that all the evidence needed to indict Trump is already apparent. So what evidence would you present to a Jury that would prove intent to overthrow the Government by force?

[Beachnutt]

2. This possibly..

https://m.

and the Willard hotel gang maybe

[Justice matters.]

9. Yeah, but stochastic terrorist hair furhair said "peacefully" in the mic...

[progressoid]

8. Yup.

Trump won't face the music for Jan 6th.

[TigressDem]

10. Except whatever Jan 6 Committee has to throw in there.

I think everything they have will be made public, I heard, and THEN the DOJ will have a run at him.

He's thrown so many people under the bus, now it's his turn.

[Orrex]

12. Point of clarification?

Folks here have been saying that all the evidence needed to indict Trump is already apparent. So what evidence would you present to a Jury that would prove intent to overthrow the Government by force?

Have these folks been saying that that all the evidence needed to indict Trump for intent to overthrow the Government by force is already apparent? Or are they saying sufficient evidence of other indictable crimes is already apparent?

[brooklynite]

13. These claims go back more than a year, when insurrection was generally seen as the crime.

[Orrex]

18. That is interesting

Last edited Thu Dec 1, 2022, 06:59 AM - Edit history (1)

I'll have to look for those year-old posts asserting that all the evidence needed to indict Trump for intent to overthrow the Government by force was already apparent at that time.

There's definitely been a lot of talk along the lines of "Trump is obviously guilty," because he is, and his guilt is indeed obvious, but it is unfortunately true that this may not amount to indictable evidence.


On a related note, I'm sure that there are lots of cases of people being caught red-handed with stolen classified materials and still not being indicted for weeks or months (or ever?), even after publicly bragging about possessing those materials.

[Beachnutt]

21. Nailed it..

[ancianita]

19. Oathkeepers trial shows that juries know Rhodes & Meggs didn't have to act to conspire sedition.

Last edited Thu Dec 1, 2022, 12:46 AM - Edit history (1)

The same logic applies to Trump as was explained tonight on MSNBC by Andrew Weissman and Rep. Daniel Goldman.

So what evidence would you present to a Jury that would prove intent to overthrow the Government by force?

As you know, playing devil's advocate is easy, and much harder to answer with evidence that's taken hundreds of others 19 months (and counting) to obtain. And even though you're speaking to one person, there's an audience here; being in it, I'll give it a shot.

1.
We all saw in the Jan 6 committee hearing #3 about the force conspiring after a Dec 18 WH meeting, with Trump's Dec 19 middle-of-the-night "Will be Wild" tweet, then his subsequent Dec 21 WH meeting with Scott Perry and other congress members, and Meadows.

Just from the 3rd Jan 6 hearing, facts given in sworn testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson, Spec. Asst. to Trump and aide to Meadows:

-- the facts of Trump's demand, while he was in the Ellipse, to let the armed into the Ellipse because they were not there for him;
-- the Secret Service being told by Trump to take him where the force on the capitol was so that he could join his people, yet to be countered by any Jan 6 Secret Service;
---- factual witnesses seeing Trump sitting for hours watching the overthrow forces on the capitol.

As Rhodes did.

If there's evidence of Trump's direct contact with those who acted, we haven't yet seen it; but his inner circle have testified before the DOJ grand jury; and the DOJ will obtain more evidence from at least 30 who took the 5th in Jan 6 Committee depositions.

Beyond Jan 6 Committee hearings, the DOJ does have documents, phone transcripts, texts, depositions, wire transfer records, grand jury testimony, and more coming.


Soon the DOJ will have Jan 6 Committee transcripts by the thousands.


2.
Which presents -- in tandem with the OP question -- hard evidence of Trump not just condoning force, but conspiring to defraud the United States -- 18 U.S. Code 371

There's the Jan 6 hearing #2 in which Zoe Lofgren proves with docs and witness testimony that after Trump KNEW he lost, Stepien testifies that tfg rejected Stepien’s "Team Normal" and pushed forward Giuliani’s Team Crazy — Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Peter Navarro, Mick Mulvaney;
During that hearing, Lofgren submits a video for the Jan 6 Committee's record of Trump's attempt to grift millions in defiance of what he KNEW.

His "Save America" PAC, set up on Nov 9, 2020, raised $250 MILLION.
Then Trump's "Save America grift PAC" sent that money to the

Conservative Partnership Institute -- $1 million
America First Policy Institute -- $1 million
Trump Hotel Collection -- $204,857
Event Strategies Inc -- $5 MILLION

The Jan 6 committee will give that evidence -- docs, transcripts, financial records, wire transfer records, etc. -- to the DOJ for its federal fraud case against Trump.

There will be the transcripts of eyewitness testimony from former DOJ officials, Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, Asst. AG for DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Steve Engel, and one other DOJ official whose name I can't remember.

Trump's lawyer, John Eastman, asks Pence's lawyer, Greg Jacob, to convey that the request that Pence commit a crime against the 12 Amendment and the Electoral Count Act.

"Eastman: 'I'm here to request that you reject the electors.' So on the 4th that had been that path that I am not recommending that you do this but on the 5th he came in expressly requested that you do that.”

There's evidence of:
-- Trump/Meadows/Clark/Eastman’s knowledge that Trump lost the election
— Trump/Meadows/Clark/Eastman’s knowledge that Pence didn’t have authority
— whether Trump was personally involved in false electors scheme
— state elections officials reactions to Trump pressure

There's all kinds of DOJ investigative evidence that proves FL man was out to defraud the U.S. which no one outside the no-leak DOJ even has access to yet. Now in comes the Jack Smith team.

Finally.
With what we know so far, who could even know what kind of jury would likely know what the prosecution has left out?
With what we know so far, what do you think could make a sedition or fraud charge fail?

[Orrex]

22. Excellent post (nt)

[gab13by13]

3. Bad idea indicting Trump for seditious conspiracy.

[Beachnutt]

4. Which law that he broke should he be

indicted on ?
Or should he at all ?

[gab13by13]

11. Obstructing or impeding an official act of Congress,

Obstruction of justice and crimes against the Espionage Act for his theft of documents.

[ancianita]

25. By my count there are 17. That was a month and a half ago.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217257964

[Ford_Prefect]

5. IMO that would depend on the evidence more so than the potential jury.

[Mr.Bill]

6. It's pointless to debate this,

since we don't even know all the evidence against Trump in the DOJ's possesion. We haven't even seen the unredacted Mueller report, but they are sitting on something they don't want us to know about...yet.

[ShazzieB]

14. I agree.

"...they are sitting on something they don't want us to know about...yet."

I think this is a real possibility. It's one reason I get so tired of people making pronouncements about what evidence the DOJ has or doesn't have to convict TFG of which crimes and what they should do with said evidence. The fact is, we on the outside have access to only a portion of what the DOJ knows. I have a feeling we're all going to get some very big surprises one of these days.

I know some will poohpooh this idea, but I'm past caring very much. Anyone who has already given up hope is beyond my power to influence anyway.

[TheRickles]

7. Wouldn't it be more direct to start with the Emoluments Clause violations?

Charging exorbitant rents at his hotels, making money via gov't connections, etc. Very black and white, no arcane constitutional issues to befuddle the American public, and probably much quicker to charge, indict and convict. And then from there, go on to the J6 sedition charges. Of course, both courses could be pursued simultaneously.

[James48]

16. Just a note:

Taking an emolument - that isn’t a felony or a misdemeanor. It’s only a violation of the Constitution itself, but is not codified into criminal statutes.

No prison time prescribed in law for that.

[TheRickles]

23. Thanks, I didn't know that. Seems odd that a violation of the Constitution isn't a punishable crime.

Here's one of many good links that illustrates your point: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/congress-can-give-emoluments-clause-real-teeth|

[James48]

15. Tax violations.

It worked for J. Edgar Hoover and Al Capone. It can work the same for Trump.

[former9thward]

20. What are the violations?

The IRS has had his returns since the 60s under several Democratic administrations. The State of NY has had them also under Democratic administrations. Why has no one found violations?

[Solomon]

24. obviously they weren't looking for violations.

they'd be crazy if they aren't looking now.

[Liberty Belle]

17. Stealing classified documents including nuclear secrets is another serious crime.

He's admitted to taking the documents, so this one is easy to prove.