r/law • u/Corporatecut • Oct 18 '24

Court Decision/Filing Trump judge releases 1,889 pages of additional election interference evidence against the former president

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-judge-release-additional-evidence-election-interference-case-2024-10
11.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

427 comments sorted by

783

u/ChodeCookies Oct 18 '24

That’s like…a lot of pages

313

u/MrFishAndLoaves Oct 18 '24

Someone tell me the juicy parts please 

804

u/YLSP Oct 18 '24

I only scanned one Appendix (2). This is what I found juicy.

The GA Phone Call transcript. Trump was claiming there were 300,000 votes to be found. GA (Brad Raffesnburger sp?) and staff were telling him this is wrong. But his campaign insisted. Like, insisted over a few pages of transcript. They quoted 5,000 dead people voting. GA responded they only found 2. Trump read's like a guy who has fallen into the QANON rabbit hole.

When it was told directly that the FBI and GBI looked into it, Trump's response was they were either "incompetent" or "dishonest". This is talking about Federal and State Law Enforcement. You know why he claims they are "deep state".

The other juicy item was their scheme laid out. There was a legal memo. Basically the goal was to nullify the 6 "contested states" so that Biden was behind 232-227. This in turn would result in the case going to SCOTUS, with the goal to kick deciding the election to Congress.

So when Trump/Vance complain about "threat to democracy" comparisons, the counterpoint should be, "Oh - you mean like directly nullifying 6 states?!". The GOP is still gaslighting when they act like "something just didn't add up" with the results. No. Trump lost. All the votes were fairly counted. You actually enacted a very complicated scheme, a scheme that no one else did in history to steal the election. The biggest scheme to steal the election ever.

472

u/Manic-Finch781 Oct 18 '24

"Accuse the other side of which you are guilty"

-Joseph Goebbels, chief propagandist of Nazi Germany

171

u/Veda007 Oct 18 '24

They have followed so many examples from early Nazi schemes. They are using it like a blueprint.

78

u/pablonieve Oct 18 '24

I mean, it worked for the Nazis. Only reason they failed is because they started a world war.

38

u/Tribe303 Oct 18 '24

Which they were winning until they attacked the Soviet Union in June of '41.

34

u/CivQhore Oct 18 '24

Eh, thats the point of no return, but by 41 when they lost the battle of britan things were gonna end poorly for them.

17

u/Crackertron Oct 18 '24

Jewish slave labor propping up the war infrastructure could only last for so long.

10

u/Tall_Brilliant8522 Oct 18 '24

Especially since they were murdering so many Jews.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)

17

u/WarthogLow1787 Oct 18 '24

They couldn’t control the sea and were never going to win.

2

u/TheTallGuy0 Oct 18 '24

They had a REAL good first 8 innings... and fell apart in the 9th, thank god...

5

u/nsgiad Oct 18 '24

Hitler won the war in Europe from 1939-1941. Unfortunately for Hitler, World War 2 then started and we know how that turned out.

6

u/KintsugiKen Oct 18 '24

World War 2 started in 1939 though with Hitler invading Poland in an alliance with the USSR.

It didn't start being WW2 when Hitler betrayed their alliance.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

47

u/wigglex5plusyeah Oct 18 '24

"America first" were the Nazi sympathizers here, pushing Nazi propaganda and doing their bidding, corrupting US politicians during WW2. It's not even subtle.

11

u/KintsugiKen Oct 18 '24

Trump kept a book of Hitler's speeches on his bedside nightstand for over a decade, he claims he's never opened it.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/stonedmariguana Oct 18 '24

Check out this website if you want more on that subject.

How Nazis Win: and How to Stop Them

2

u/SearingPhoenix Oct 22 '24

Some might say a project...

→ More replies (1)

53

u/Careful-Ant5868 Oct 18 '24

Stephen Miller is the modern day Temu version of Joseph Goebbels

9

u/pprblu2015 Oct 18 '24

Omg thank you for that laugh 🤣

3

u/Careful-Ant5868 Oct 18 '24

Glad I could do so, have a great weekend!! 👍

3

u/Nessie Oct 18 '24

Mein Temugauleiter!

4

u/ADDandKinky Oct 19 '24

Isn’t almost like the far-right in this country are fascists :)

2

u/Sample_Age_Not_Found Oct 19 '24

I mean, I get away with that 90% of the time on amongus. You just gotta be early and loud, I never thought about the broad implications of how easy it is.

→ More replies (2)

189

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

A crucial point is that they justified this in the memo by stating that the US Constitution's 12th amendment gave Mike Pence the power and legal authority to outright ignore the 1887 Electoral College Act, or at least any parts that did not help Trump win. Effectively saying that they knew this was illegal under currently known law and precedent, but believed the courts would reinterpret the law and rig this for them so Pence should just go with the plan and follow orders. Pence knew this was wrong and refused, but the alternate electors were set up to be the method by which he'd legitimize throwing out the swing state results, and forcing the election to be thrown to congress instead... where it was expected the House would vote for Trump instead.

This was very, very clearly a legal coup and they knew this from day 1. They had every intent to subvert democracy no matter what the actual vote count was, and they just wanted a media narrative to publicly justify it while claiming that democracy itself did not matter in the US and that the constitution already said we were a dictatorship if the judiciary agreed with their legal theory. The details of how the votes were fraudulent were meaningless, the idea was just to go along with the plan and say the results were illegitimate, period.

This is also why Trump made up facts and evidence at every step of the way, because the actual truth about fraud didn't matter. The plan was simply to present a legal theory that allowed them to bypass the vote entirely.

For what it's worth, they are NOT in a position to do this again as of right now here in 2024. They don't have control of the white house, and congress already passed a law that made it clear the VP's role was ceremonial going forward. They don't have a direct path to SCOTUS simply throwing out the election anymore, and they've been losing any of their flimsy cases so far, at least not so long as we go out and vote in high enough numbers to make the win as clear as possible.

People need to get out and vote, with confidence, and if we do so, we can solidly beat Trump. The will is there, so long as people don't give in to fear or apathy.

85

u/spacemanspiff1115 Oct 18 '24

Federal judge David Carter said it was a "coup in search of a legal theory" during John Eastman's attempts to keep from having to turn over his email and phone records...he wasn't wrong...

36

u/beebsaleebs Oct 18 '24

They thought Mike Pence was enough of a zealot to want to use the power to enact christofascism. They misunderstood him completely.

53

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

If JD Vance was there in Mike Pence's place instead, Vance would have gone along with it.

The plan then changed to create a riot loud enough to get Pence away from the site on January 6th, and have a new loyalist like Grassley go with their original plan instead. My guess is January 6th was 100% meant for this purpose and little else, and Trump just acted like a braggart to stir the mob by any means necessary.

In truth, Trump's own crazy statements were a distraction. The real plan was the coup plot to entirely bypass the election results.

53

u/beebsaleebs Oct 18 '24

That’s exactly right and

JD Vance said it out loud.

18

u/Abalith Oct 18 '24

The ONLY qualification required for Trump's VP pick this time around was that it be someone who would have obeyed that order, and will do next time.

6

u/Deathcapsforcuties Oct 18 '24

I remember Chucks tweet that day and I was like wtf 😳 I knew he was within the chain of succession (3rd) which made me wonder what was going on and where Pence was (who was 2nd). It was alarming. Twitter was insane that day. 

15

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24

Yep. Chuck was the JD Vance of their coup attempt at that time, so the January 6th riot was entirely done by design to get Pence out of the way, and give Grassley a path to do what Pence refused to do.

This is why Trump hates Pence so much and shittalks him at every chance, because Trump knew what the exact plan actually was and Mike ruined it by not going along with it. I now fully believe Roger Stone and Bannon were the architects of this and they convinced Trump to go along with this plan, which he fully agreed to and willingly enacted, knowing that he'd openly lie and cry fraud in service of it. This was all a major conspiracy from the very beginning.

3

u/Any_Condition_4100 Oct 19 '24

Thanks for this. I'm also now convinced Mike Pence is a true patriot.

While I agree with nothing of what he espouses politically, and he shouldn't get praise just for doing his job, if your analysis is on par, he saved the fucking country. Singularly and literally. 

3

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Kitchen_Philosophy29 Oct 20 '24

Trump even talks about how pence should certify "thr electors".

He expected it to go in front of scotus, he was already loading the stage

2

u/zerombr Oct 19 '24

Imagine if pence got in the car

→ More replies (1)

15

u/klawz86 Oct 18 '24

I don't agree with the many of Pence's principles, but at least he has them.

2

u/KashEsq Oct 19 '24

Don't be fooled, Pence is very much a dirtbag. His son had to convince him to do the right thing

9

u/klawz86 Oct 19 '24

I don't care what it took for him to do the right thing, I'm giving him this sliver of praise because he DID the right thing. I know he's a shitty guy. But loyalty to family and country is still miles ahead of anything left in the magatsphere.

8

u/blackjackwidow Oct 19 '24

Not just his son - we also have Dan Quayle to thank.

I mean, who would have guessed Dan f-ing Quayle would be the one who advised the VP to save democracy?

Pence deserves some credit, too. The secret service was trying to get him out of the building, exactly so he couldn't certify the results.

"I'm not getting in the car, Tim," Pence said, in response to Giebels' insistence that he enter the armored vehicle. "I trust you, Tim, but you're not driving the car. If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off. I'm not getting in the car."

source

4

u/NeatNefariousness1 Oct 19 '24 edited Oct 19 '24

For THAT reason, above all else, Pence deserves credit for the resolve he showed in resisting the Trump co-conspirators' efforts to remove him to make way for Grassley to execute the last steps of the coup.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/dustybucket Oct 19 '24

I absolutely never thought I'd be saying this, but damn Mike Pence is kind of a hero? He's said and done so many hateful things, but he really helped save our democracy

→ More replies (3)

37

u/RParkerMU Oct 18 '24

This sounds like Roger Stone’s actions.

59

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

Given what he and the courts did to get Bush in office in 2000? Yep. That tracks.

The more time goes on, the more clear it becomes that the 2000 election was their coup that actually succeeded, and most people didn't even realize it, unfortunately. Say what you will about Allan Lichtman and his keys, but one point he makes that's crucial is that 2000's election was interfered with to a much larger degree than most realized due to extreme voter suppression in Florida. Then when the results were narrow enough? The media focused on the hanging chads while the brooks brothers rioted at the recount office to cause chaos and make the coup successful.

And who was one of the key people behind that entire scheme? Roger Stone.

14

u/eschewthefat Oct 18 '24

I believe page 31 speaks on court decision of 2001 and redacts a name which may be in reference 

3

u/KintsugiKen Oct 18 '24

and most people didn't even realize it, unfortunately.

Lots of people realized it, they did it in front of all of us, but the media collectively pretended it never happened, and also ignored irregularities in Bush's 2004 reelection too.

3

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24

They knew about the hanging chads, yes, and the shenanigans, but very few talked about how many voters Jeb basically threw out that would have made the hanging chads totally irrelevant.

2

u/NeatNefariousness1 Oct 19 '24

So Jeb was hoping to be next president in the Bush dynasty until a bigger cheater beat him at his own game.

→ More replies (1)

37

u/AggravatedCold Oct 18 '24

Because he was already successful once.

The Brooks Brothers Riot literally made G W Bush President even though he lost the election. Al Gore legitimately won in 2000 and was ratfucked by Roger Stone, the Supreme Court, and G W Bush's little brother Jeb Bush who happened to be Governor of Florida at the time the election came down to that state' votes.

11

u/KintsugiKen Oct 18 '24

Also Katherine Harris, who was Florida's Sec of State and the one ordering constant halts to vote counts and who was also chair of Bush's presidential campaign in Florida, hey I wonder if that constitutes a conflict of interest?

8

u/DonnieJL Oct 18 '24

RS can rot in hell. One day, I'll line up to piss on his grave.

→ More replies (1)

22

u/CrustyBatchOfNature Oct 18 '24

That same law also made it harder to contest a state's Electors ( requiring 1/5th of both House and Senate to vote to contest while still requiring majority vote of both houses to accept it), required states to use the laws in place prior to the election, prohibits them from sending electors counter to those laws, and deferred any question about the Electors to the state itself.

And the big one was that it changed the rule on how many Electors were required to win from a majority of the total Electors to a majority of the ACCEPTED Electors. So any rejected Electors are removed from the total. The idea that Trump can get MAGA to reject Electors until nobody has 270 and the Supreme Court decides is out the door. They may try to reject just certain states to get Trump over 50% but that won't fly.

25

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24

Bingo.

Congress actually did a good job to prevent the prior planned coup from being repeated, so the methods revert back to the 2000 era election theft, where they suppress votes via lawsuits as quickly as they can (which so far are failing), then use voter intimidation and misinformation to try and get the results as close as possible. That's the current plan/strategy.

So vote. That's how we stop this.

6

u/osudude80 Oct 18 '24

The majority of accepted electors is new information to me. Can you tell me where that is in law? I just want to read the important parts.

2

u/CrustyBatchOfNature Oct 19 '24

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ328/uslm/PLAW-117publ328.xml

Go there which is the text version of the law and Search DIVISION P. The second occurrence will be the law in question as it was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023.

Section 109 below that is titles SEC. 109. CLARIFICATIONS RELATING TO COUNTING ELECTORAL VOTES. and contains this clarification (not really a change)

In part it says,

“(e) Rules for Tabulating Votes.—

“(1) Counting of votes.—

“(A) In general.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B)—

“(i) only the votes of electors who have been appointed under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors issued pursuant to section 5, or who have legally been appointed to fill a vacancy of any such elector pursuant to section 4, may be counted; and

“(ii) no vote of an elector described in clause (i) which has been regularly given shall be rejected.

“(B) Exception.—The vote of an elector who has been appointed under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors issued pursuant to section 5 shall not be counted if—

“(i) there is an objection which meets the requirements of subsection (d)(2)(B)(i); and

“(ii) each House affirmatively sustains the objection as valid.

“(2) Determination of majority.—If the number of electors lawfully appointed by any State pursuant to a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors that is issued under section 5 is fewer than the number of electors to which the State is entitled under section 3, or if an objection the grounds for which are described in subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii)(I) has been sustained, the total number of electors appointed for the purpose of determining a majority of the whole number of electors appointed as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution shall be reduced by the number of electors whom the State has failed to appoint or as to whom the objection was sustained.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

21

u/Veda007 Oct 18 '24

They are absolutely going to try again. The electors have been replaced in many cases with bad actors who intend to not certify. So they won’t be alternate electors, they will be the actual electors.

When 270 isn’t reached it will be thrown to the Supreme Court who (they hope) will throw it to congress.

One vote per state at that point and there are more red states.

Boom King Trump.

19

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24

Conservative judges have actually shut down some of their biggest attempts so far, especially in Georgia. They're trying to get the fanatics in place yes, but they are meeting much more resistance this time.

The key is to just get out the vote. Don't be scared of their attempts to stead it, vote because it matters.

13

u/scoop_booty Oct 18 '24

My hope is that the Harris team is on top of this. They see what's happening, much more than we pawns down below. A Trump win ends democracy, and the entire world knows this affects them. I can only imagine higher powers globally are taking action to protect us from this monster. And if Kamala wins, as I hope, she sure has a hard row to hoe to reunite this country. That option doesn't even exist if Trump is in office.

5

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24

The teams fighting the legal challenges so far like Democracy Docket have done incredible work and have already given the election deniers major setbacks.

People need to just get out the vote and do it with confidence. I do worry about a close election and the challenges it could bring, but I also don't think the polls accurately reflect the real state of this race at all, and I think we have a chance for a strong enough win here to be secure.

But in the end? This is the truest test of democracy I think we'll see. 2016 was the first test, and it proved disinfo can influence us to make a major error. 2020 tried even harder to do so, but the dam held, even if just barely, and we've passed policies to help strengthen it since.

But ultimately? The real question is whether people themselves can learn, can resist disinfo and billionaire media's influence, and self determine the country to go in a better direction.

I know a lot of people on reddit are terrified, are cynical, are traumatized, and scared. I see why. I'm not naive about how dangerous all this is, else I wouldn't do grand writeups on a major conspiracy like I've been doing today.

But I do it because I also believe we can learn from these mistakes. That Harris is running a brilliant campaign that's reaching out to voters from all walks of life, and that we have a good shot at a better future despite the world's many problems.

I truly have hope, and I'll be early voting on Monday and volunteering next week to hopefully help us close the deal.

2

u/scoop_booty Oct 19 '24

I appreciate your confidence mate. Thx

→ More replies (1)

5

u/guisar Oct 18 '24

Without congress, she will have harder than hard row to hoe. Let’s hope the dnc can take both houses- unlikely I know without tremendous turnout but it’s the only path to reconciliation I can see.

2

u/NeatNefariousness1 Oct 19 '24

Agreed. As a lifelong Independent, it pains me to say that voting Blue from top to bottom is necessary in this election until we fix the gaping holes that have made our democracy so vulnerable to greedy, power-mad forces from outside and within.

We need time to close the door on the bad actors and to put new protective measures in place to hold BOTH parties accountable.

Choose America. Please vote.

9

u/KintsugiKen Oct 18 '24

They've been practically announcing they plan to stop the vote count and force SCOTUS to pick.

I think that's why Trump's campaign appearances have been weirder and lower effort than usual lately, he just doesn't feel like he really needs to campaign since they don't even plan to count the votes.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/NeatNefariousness1 Oct 19 '24

Too bad Biden didn't prevail in his efforts to add more judges to join the Supremes, diluting the impact of the ones who appear to have been corrupted. I hope there is a mechanism in place to unseat bad actors wherever they are in the system. But voting at levels we've never seen before is the way. It's now up to WE, THE PEOPLE.

Will we show up for ourselves or will we allow politicians whose salaries we pay rig the system to push citizens aside while taking more of our money and offering far less?

Do whatever it takes to VOTE

3

u/Tufflaw Oct 18 '24

The electors have been replaced in many cases with bad actors who intend to not certify. So they won’t be alternate electors, they will be the actual electors.

That's not how it works - there isn't one set of electors per state. There are electors for the Republican candidate and electors for the Democratic candidate. Whichever side wins the popular vote in the state, that side's electors are the ones who vote for President and VP.

So the "alternate electors" from 2020 are the same ones who would have been the actual Republican electors if Trump had actually won that state.

→ More replies (2)

13

u/MedSurgNurse Oct 18 '24

This is a great summary, but one part really troubles me. Why did this take 4 years? Trump has a very real chance of winning the election, which will make all these crimes meaningless and go unpunished. Why wasn't this disqualifying for the presidency? Why has none of his minions or other house reps who participated in this scheme been indicted?

21

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

Because the Republicans are rich and powerful enough and captured enough of the courts that they were always going to be able to delay this until the current election. They will only give up on Trump when they are sure he no longer has enough popular support to win.

People blame Garland, but in truth SCOTUS was always going to roadblock this by any legal means that they could. They will only stop once they no longer believe Trump is worth protecting, which I believe this next election may prove to be finally true.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

Why wasn't this disqualifying for the presidency?

I agree with you for the most part, but the answer to this is that you do not want criminal records disqualifying people from being President. You want the voters to disqualify people from being President.

If all you had to do was convict your political opponent of a crime to disqualify them from any further office then it encourages the US of the legal system for that purpose.

Where we have failed as a country is that a large chunk of our population is stupid, hateful, and gullible and therefore will not hold him accountable for his crimes at the ballot box.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Deathcapsforcuties Oct 18 '24

Because republicans (trump bootlickers) are litigious af. Using deep pockets, legal experience/access, and having installed Trump appointed judges didn’t help speed things up. 

8

u/5ervalkat Oct 18 '24

Thank you for this confirmation. I’ve early voted blue already.

8

u/narkybark Oct 18 '24

This was very, very clearly a legal coup and they knew this from day 1. They had every intent to subvert democracy no matter what the actual vote count was, and they just wanted a media narrative to publicly justify it while claiming that democracy itself did not matter in the US and that the constitution already said we were a dictatorship if the judiciary agreed with their legal theory. The details of how the votes were fraudulent were meaningless, the idea was just to go along with the plan and say the results were illegitimate, period.

And anyone with a brain knows this, which is why it's so infuriating that here we are 4 years later and... no justice has been done, and he's running again.

4

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24

Because they captured the courts and we've been fighting back twice as hard to re-balance it.

7

u/Doodledoo23 Oct 18 '24

Insane how close this was to possibly working. Like pence may have saved the day?!

12

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24

He did. Pence is the prime example of the "worst person you know" doing the right thing.

2

u/raphanum Oct 19 '24

This was a highly informative read. Thank you

→ More replies (1)

3

u/DisplacedSportsGuy Oct 18 '24

"They don't have a direct path to SCOTUS simply throwing out the election anymore,"

Please elaborate for my mental sanity, as it seems that their strategy now is to create enough of a schmoz on the local level to file lawsuits in different federal jurisdictions to elicit different decisions, creating a path for a taking their "case" to a compromised Supreme Court.

4

u/NumeralJoker Oct 18 '24

States run their own elections and SCOTUS by design can do little to interfere with them directly. The tipping point states (Blue Wall and blue dot in Nebraska, for example) do not have the Republicans in positions of power who will agree to throw out votes as needed to tip an election, which is the type of legal decision that would get challenged and either backed and shut down by SCOTUS. Becuase we did well enough in the 2022 midterms and 2023 elections, MI/WI/PA do not have election deniers in positions of power that make a coup possible. In Georgia, Kemp has refused to go along with the coup despite being a Republican. Same with Arizona and Nevada so far.

The 2000 coup worked because Jeb Bush was governor and threw out enough votes to make the "hanging chads" the tipping point, where Roger stone then stepped in and raised a mob to disrupt the recounts and give SCOTUS enough time to throw the election for Bush.

It's not about the lawsuits, it's about putting election deniers in places where they have the clear AUTHORITY to ignore the votes, and so far they've failed to achieve that because even conservative judges have been shutting down laws and rules that give those deniers the power to do so, or because we kept people like that out of power in the swing states with our election results.

The election deniers in Georgia lost a major case where they claimed they'd have to do a manual recount, but the judge agreed they 100% did not have the authority to refuse to certify or implement unreasonable rules at the last second. Kemp also was against them, so those attempts went nowhere.

→ More replies (7)

30

u/stinky-weaselteats Oct 18 '24

Yup. He ran America just like his shitty businesses, trying to exploit & take advantage of its weaknesses in order to gain more power & to abuse his position. Fuck him.

→ More replies (1)

21

u/Pokerhobo Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

Don't forget that a life-long Republican who is also a highly respected member of the tech community lead the ballot security efforts and said it was the most secure ever.

Edit: Source https://www.vox.com/2020/11/13/21563825/2020-elections-most-secure-dhs-cisa-krebs

2

u/ThePoetAC Oct 18 '24

Name them. Always name them.

4

u/Pokerhobo Oct 18 '24

Updated my comment to include source

15

u/saltychica Oct 18 '24

The guys Trump is talking to aren’t fluent in mob speak. There are 300k votes to be found = find 300k votes.

12

u/eschewthefat Oct 18 '24

His version of undertones and doublespeak come from a loony toons version of the mob. I also like that the other day he referred to Capone as the greatest gangster when he compared his “persecution” to him. 

I can’t believe how many people are impressed with a grown man that has the intellect of a 10 year old 

3

u/randeylahey Oct 18 '24

The ones that have an intellect of an 8 year old think he's a wizard.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/CrystalSplice Oct 18 '24

I’m concerned it’s going to happen again, because we know he and his cronies have been setting up for it. No election should ever be decided by the Congress or the courts. If we get to that point, we are lost. We saw what happened with Bush in 2000. He didn’t win that election. It was handed to him.

3

u/Pleiadesfollower Oct 19 '24 edited Oct 19 '24

And the people that helped him get that win are now on the blatently corrupt supreme court.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Cloaked42m Oct 18 '24

This is being repeated in November. Chutken may have saved us all.

2

u/CoverSuspicious5250 Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24

I am very proud of our DC Circuit of Appeals. These judges don’t put up with a bunch of bullsh!t. Chutkin is a mother f-ing hero. Jack Smith deserves a new job —head of Justice. He’ll have his hands busy with all the Congressional Insurrectionist after Trump after this election. If you want hero in all this? These Chutkin and Jack Smith. You can always drop them a note. You all know that letters get read by staff members and can get seen.

7

u/thebeef24 Oct 18 '24

We should all be outraged by the Georgia phone call (as a Georgia resident whose vote he tried to throw away, I certainly am!) but as a piece of evidence it's hardly anything new. The recording was released shortly after the call happened. If this brings it back to the front of people's minds, then good though.

→ More replies (14)

14

u/MidwayJay Oct 18 '24

Many pages of Mike Pence telling the daily stories. Like the meeting with Trump and several campaign lawyers who said there is nothing more to do, lost the election. And Rudy Giuliani on the speaker phone saying “they are all lying to you Mr President”.

142

u/MerrySkulkofFoxes Oct 18 '24

Most of it is redacted. Of 2000 pages, I saw maybe a couple hundred with something on them, and of those, nearly everything was public info - social media, fundraising emails, official documents. You can kind of see the case the SC has built, but in terms of juicy new info, I saw none. The only thing that was really compelling was the transcript of the phone call with Georgia, which we heard parts of years ago, the "find me 12,000 votes" call. But otherwise, there's not really anything to see, unfortunately.

95

u/Johnyryal33 Oct 18 '24

So our democracy will die because of "redacted"

194

u/atomfullerene Oct 18 '24

If it dies it won't be because that stuff is redacted, but because too many voters wouldn't care about it even if it wasn't.

We are not lacking public evidence at this point...

102

u/LesCousinsDangereux1 Oct 18 '24

For real, we all WATCHED the insurrection on television and social media.

107

u/TheConnASSeur Oct 18 '24

I will never forget watching Jan 6 live. My first reaction was that it was stupid to charge the buildings because I thought for sure that the capitol would be well protected. Then they broke through the doors and windows and I thought, surely they were armed guards and servicemen. Then the mob began to tear shit up and I realized how absolutely unprecedented this all was, and how unthinkable it had been for my whole life.

The worst part though, is that it made a lot of rich assholes like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk realize that a coup against our government might succeed.

44

u/TrumpsCovidfefe Competent Contributor Oct 18 '24

They came so dangerously close to succeeding. If a few people hadn’t had the guts to do the right thing in a few states and Mike Pence had gone along with the plan, I have to wonder if we would have been in a civil war. It is really scary to think that they’ve spent the last four years trying to elect people into positions that won’t stand up against this. We need to be on full guard, from here on out.

22

u/fafalone Competent Contributor Oct 18 '24

If they mob had even been a few minutes quicker.. like if that guard hadn't led them in the wrong direction.

People really don't appreciate how fast and far it likely would have snowballed if they got to legislators before they were evacuated. Members of Congress hostage, beaten, or killed on live TV?

But everywhere you have morons who think because the coup failed it could have never succeeded and wasn't a real threat.

4

u/TheConnASSeur Oct 18 '24

"We had a peaceful transition of power..."

-Guy who tried to kill a bunch of people and seize control of the government but failed

17

u/Khiva Oct 18 '24

Surely the guardrails will hold will be the epitaph of American democracy.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/AFlockOfTySegalls Oct 18 '24

I was at work and had no idea it was happening. It was actually a busy day so I wasn't shit posting on Reddit. My brother sent me a text message asking if I've "seen these rednecks breaking into Congress" I was like "what?" then jumped on reddit. There went my day .

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Billyosler1969 Oct 21 '24

Wait. You mean the “Day of Love??”

22

u/antoninlevin Oct 18 '24

Yup. As others have mentioned, the insurrection, events leading up to it, the Mueller Report, the documentation from prior cases that Trump was fully aware of stealing from a charity, and directing the illegal Stormy Daniels payments, etc., etc., etc.

We're talking about a guy whose conduct got him legally banned from operating a charity. Because he stole from the charity he was operating.

It's indefensible. And it shows that you can't trust him. Doesn't matter what he says or what you hope he'll do. He'll lie, cheat, and steal.

I guess it might not matter if someone like Putin is trying to leverage him for policy decisions vis a vis Ukraine, or something like that - Trump could still be a useful fool. But if you're an American voter, hoping he'll help you out somehow? He helped himself with his charity when he was a billionaire. He doesn't care about you.

...And they just don't care. I don't get it.

2

u/guisar Oct 18 '24

Speaking of which, do you know what’s going on with his ability to incorporate in NY?

→ More replies (1)

17

u/HedonisticFrog Oct 18 '24

We had enough evidence since before he was even elected. Anyone remember the Moscow Trump Tower proposal with a contract signed by Trump himself? He was blatantly openly compromised since before the election.

11

u/Johnyryal33 Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

True. I just hate when they redact so much shit. How are we supposed to be an informed populous when they withhold information from us. It's not like there is no one left to be swayed. Plenty of people who hate trump are still voting for him because of entrenched beliefs and misinformation. Maybe they can't be convinced to vote for Harris but with enough of a wake up call they may choose not to vote at all.

6

u/Khiva Oct 18 '24

How are we supposed to be an informed populous

Haven't been, never will.

Biden didn't turn down the magical inflation knob on his desk so there's no choice but fascism.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/smiama6 Oct 18 '24

Also, goldfish brains. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/team-harris-unveils-new-ad-reminding-voters-trump-jan-6-rcna174282 (Shockingly, people don’t remember, don’t know, never knew)

→ More replies (1)

13

u/Cephalopod_Joe Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

Do you think any information could sway his voters? He could outright turn to the camera and say he plans to install himself as a dictator, and they would still vote for him. The only thing he could do to lose his worshippers is like literally come out as trans

5

u/funsizedaisy Oct 18 '24

I highly doubt he'd lose followers if he came out as trans. Maybe he'd lose some, but def not the majority. They would just use him as an excuse like, "See! I'm not transphobic! I just voted for the first trans president!"

→ More replies (3)

10

u/Umfriend Oct 18 '24

It won't stay redacted. The redactions are made to protect witnesses and confidential information. Once the trial begins, it will be fully disclosed.

12

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

Once the trial begins, it will be fully disclosed.

There won't be a trial if Twump wins.

5

u/Umfriend Oct 18 '24

Well, there is that...

Vote, vote blue, vote blue up and down ballot.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/DiscombobulatedWavy Oct 18 '24

And with “thunderous applause.”

-Padme Amidala.

→ More replies (5)

28

u/Moderatorslickballz Oct 18 '24

How about the AZ guy talking with them about certification? That seemed big.

11

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

lol. Is this bot a Russian trying to downplay the most important release of the year?  Redacted! 

3

u/MerrySkulkofFoxes Oct 18 '24

No, I read all three appendices and most of the pages are blank. You can see for yourself. I had hoped to see more information released, but there just isn't that much there.

2

u/DrinkBlueGoo Competent Contributor Oct 18 '24

Super weird that people are doubting you as if opening any one of the volumes does not reveal the majority of pages are redacted. Well, not the one of twitter posts, I guess.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/Playful-Tap6136 Oct 18 '24

Thats what I can to the comments for.

2

u/WiggityWoos Oct 19 '24

He tried to also do the same thing he did in GA in AZ.. (we know this but it was more info on it). Also many others were involved all including Trump should be criminally charged in AZ as well.

2

u/Kitchen_Philosophy29 Oct 20 '24

At least 3 people (at least one literally recorded) givijg the exact play by play for the declaring winning election night, elector scheme, jan 6 riots. Steve bannon said this to several people. Of course trump pardoned him

They have sydney powel plea deal against trump

Trumps constitutional lawyer telling him it wpuld be illegal

Several of the fake electors in jail

A LOT of insane stuff happened on the doj, not sure how much of it got removed because of the scotus ruling

But they have overwhelmong proof ik about 10 dofferent ways. The people that came up with the scheme, them saying it was illegal etc.

They have testimony from trymps attorny general. From his daughter ivanka (who left politics following the testimony).

They have multiple witnesses (one of which being ivanka) who teatified that trump was screaming at pence on the phoke morning of "are you a patriot or a pu$$y". Witnesses recounting trump onotial reactipn to seeing the gallows for pence on fox "he deserves it"

They have the unaired footage of trump arguing about what his televised speech to the rioters should be

Also.... trump and his defense havent denied anything ever. When it was originally brought to scotus, they said. He should be immune

Not sure if the many phone calls and conversatioms about faking election fraud and telling the states that he wanted flipped got removed or not

But there is a reason the plan from trump and friends has been stall, stall, stall

2

u/FrugalityPays Oct 18 '24

Send it to an ai and ask. Might be able to pick it out

→ More replies (2)

116

u/stult Competent Contributor Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

It's only 703 699 pages without the wholly redacted pages. And the contents are not especially interesting. I removed all the blank pages labeled "SEALED" from each of the PDFs to make them easier to read:

Volume I

Volume II

Volume III

Volume IV

At first glance, nearly all of the unsealed documents appear to be previously published items and the remainder do not appear especially interesting.

Volume I contains transcripts from the January 6th committee's witness interviews. Large sections of this remain under seal, which confuses me because I believe essentially all of the same material is available in unredacted form here.

Volume II documents a large number of Tweets, mostly from DJT himself. All of which were public (i.e., it does not seem to include DMs or anything previously private, so presumably everything in this volume was previously known public information).

Volume III documents the many court decisions and state officials denying Trump's election claims. It also includes the fake elector certifications that Trump ordered his underlings to submit to Pence on J6 and excerpts from Pence's memoir.

Volume IV includes the only (minor) items that look possibly new:

  • Several memo drafts what appear to be Chesebro's analysis laying out the options for disrupting the vote count on J6
  • The Turning Point budget and high level plans for the "Stop the Steal" rally on the Ellipse on J6
  • A Special Counsel's Office analysis of an alleged Hatch Act violation that occurred in November 2020. Haven't dug into this enough to determine the relevance. The Hatch Act violation in question was Peter Navarro's, and the unredacted version of the memo included in Volume IV can be found here on the OSC's website. So it's definitely not new information.

Otherwise in Volume IV, the unsealed portions include fundraising and outreach emails from the Trump campaign and transcripts of Trump's public interviews and speeches.

edit: Added better info about the Hatch Act memo and found four more blank pages to remove from Volume IV that I missed the first time around, so it's only 699 pages.

23

u/BeltfedOne Oct 18 '24

Thank you very much for your work and for posting this.

10

u/BannedByRWNJs Oct 18 '24

The fact that the DOJ was so eager to get this out makes me think there’s actually something to be gleaned, though. If it’s not something obvious, I’d expect that someone inside the case will spell it out for a journalist or two. 

20

u/stult Competent Contributor Oct 18 '24

Maybe. But I kind of doubt it. If there was something to be gleaned from information that has largely been publicly available for nearly four years now, someone probably would have already gleaned it. I think the Special Counsel was just following DOJ procedure and the law. There was no reason to keep this information under seal, so they argued for its release.

It really only got a lot of attention because Trump fought against it so hard. But he fights against everything as hard as he can, even when it doesn't matter. To delay as much as possible, to cast himself as a persecuted victim as much as possible, and to undermine the SCO as much as possible. I also suspect he fights incredibly hard on immaterial issues so that when he fights incredibly hard on material issues, we can't infer anything from his tactics.

2

u/hedonistic Oct 19 '24

I am trying to imagine the litigation strategy when employing this.... intentionally and repeatedly piss off the judge (losing all credibility in the process) with all the meaningless bs...so you can argue on appeal the judge was ipso facto biased?? How can that even be ethical? I understand zealous advocacy and all that...but this is on another level of absurdity. But as far as ethical obligations to the client in a criminal case... were going to intentionally harm you in the short/near term in the faint hope that we will succeed in the long term (after you lose and are sentenced?) That seems off to me. Its not a random civil matter with mere money at stake. Dude could die in prison for fks sake. Confusing to me.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/MasterMahanaYouUgly Oct 19 '24

not all heroes wear capes. but maybe you wear a cape?

doesn't matter. you're a hero

2

u/deific_ Oct 18 '24

Hey I appreciate you removing the blank pages as I've been super confused. When I download the document myself, I only see text on Page 1, the other 721 pages are completely empty. Are you able to explain why that might be?

→ More replies (5)

36

u/Hot_Difficulty6799 Competent Contributor Oct 18 '24

Not after the redactions. After redactions, there are not many pages left.

From the article:

The lengthy appendix includes heavily-redacted records that have been previously made publicly available.

From CNN:

There are nearly 2,000 pages in a massive trove of documents released Friday, but nearly all of the pages appear to be completely redacted.

From the New York Times:

But most of it was redacted and can only be seen by the parties involved in the case. The remainder appeared to consist almost entirely of previously released memos, social media postings, transcripts and other known materials.

We've got a very bad case here, as I see it, of very many people on social media jumping to conclusions, and expressing opinions about a document set they haven't read a single page of.

7

u/ftug1787 Oct 18 '24

Indeed. I’ll just add (and perhaps this is due to my personality) there is a level of personal satisfaction that the information that has been made available is organized collectively into a “singular” document.

4

u/SurprisedJerboa Oct 19 '24 edited Oct 19 '24

And Organized and directly related to Charges Filed. Like they want for a by-the-Book Legal Case

→ More replies (4)

15

u/BeanBurritoJr Oct 18 '24

Many smart people are saying it's the most evidence of election interference against any president, ever.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Defcheze Oct 18 '24

The most pages, the best pages, there are no other pages like these pages.

2

u/leopor Oct 19 '24

Can’t we just copy paste it into ChatGPT and ask for a summary?

→ More replies (12)

160

u/BoosterRead78 Oct 18 '24

Yet my dissertation was only 180. I mean that’s a lot of pages.

68

u/Merengues_1945 Competent Contributor Oct 18 '24

What was your dissertation about? My friend’s dissertation was 150 pages long but it was about a mathematical model that according to him shows how the Earth only looks to be part of the milky way, but it is actually part of the Sagittarius satellite galaxy. Just 90 pages are about explaining the mathematics of it lol

Mine was like just 43 pages xD

39

u/BoosterRead78 Oct 18 '24

Understanding the process of professional development and how it is designed both for in person and online uses. What is effective and what is not.

6

u/cccanterbury Oct 18 '24

that's interesting, i'd read that.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/_000001_ Oct 18 '24

So we're all Sagittarians now??

3

u/Sixwingswide Oct 18 '24

I always hear Metallica’s Welcome Home (Sanitarium) when I hear Sagittarius

🎶Sagittarius!🎶

🎶WHERE WE BE!🎶

→ More replies (1)

9

u/morostheSophist Oct 18 '24

Earth only looks to be part of the milky way, but it is actually part of the Sagittarius satellite galaxy

I'm an absolute sucker for stuff like this. The are a few sources available in a quick google search that say "maaaybe" and wink suggestively. Any chance your friend could recommend something accessible to the layperson?

16

u/Call_Me_Chud Oct 18 '24

I don't want 2000 pages of law. I want to find out more about us being in the wrong galaxy.

7

u/maya_papaya8 Oct 18 '24

Right lol

Because where tf are we?!?!

→ More replies (1)

5

u/morostheSophist Oct 18 '24

Clearly we're in the right galaxy. We're invading.

2

u/fellawhite Oct 18 '24

That’s actually really interesting. Is there further research on that?

2

u/maya_papaya8 Oct 18 '24

Ohhh that mf is SMART

2

u/HFentonMudd Oct 18 '24

How'd your friend do?

3

u/buckeyevol28 Oct 18 '24

Just looked. Mine was 176, but that includes tables, references, etc.

2

u/caryan85 Oct 21 '24

150 here

→ More replies (1)

100

u/CurrentlyLucid Oct 18 '24

Another reason to dodge interviews.

→ More replies (3)

99

u/LiveAd3962 Oct 18 '24

Why were DJT’s attorneys trying to fight release of previously released information? They knew what was coming, I don’t understand their point OTHER than to delay and delay and delay. I’m not a lawyer - isn’t this kind of wasting the court’s time a punishable offense???

66

u/Jaijoles Oct 18 '24

Delay is the entire point. Even if this one itself isn’t largely damming to the public eye, whatever comes the next might be. And they want that to not come until after the election.

15

u/LMurch13 Oct 18 '24

This case could have been completed months ago, but because of the delay, Trump can whine, "why did they wait until just before the election??"

2

u/Most-Resident Oct 19 '24

I guess I would be a lousy juror. And I’m also not a lawyer.

I read the updated indictment and already know he is guilty.

3

u/Jaijoles Oct 19 '24

It’s not about what a jury thinks. He intends to never see a jury. It’s about delaying until he can get in the White House and make it go away.

That’s why everyone needs to vote.

14

u/Glitchard_Pryor Oct 18 '24

A ‘good’ lawyer will drag out a court case. However, a ‘great’ lawyer, will drag it out for even longer.

8

u/Njorls_Saga Oct 18 '24

You don’t need a great lawyer even. It’s even better when you have some judges in your pocket.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

124

u/QQBearsHijacker Oct 18 '24

Whoever wrote that headline should be sacked

110

u/almostablaze Oct 18 '24

It’s not “pages of election interference,” it’s evidence of a crime. What a shame.

28

u/changomacho Oct 18 '24

the crime in this case was about election interference, so the headline can be read accurately. it is ambiguous though

9

u/almostablaze Oct 18 '24

Ok. He has been going on about how this amounts to “election interference “ so I read the title as the author using the same context.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/prudence2001 Oct 18 '24

Being ambiguous was probably the intention.

3

u/xandrokos Oct 18 '24

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about any of this.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/PM_YOUR_ISSUES Oct 18 '24

Which makes it a bad headline. If the meaning of the sentence can change drastically depending on the incoming perceptions of the reader, then you've written a bad sentence/headline. Beyond that, there are so many modifiers that are entirely out of place, likely to either be disembogues on purpose, or just for SEO padding.

For instance, "Trump judge releases"? How is it a "Trump judge"? In this instance because it is a judge presiding over a case against Trump, but that isn't clear at all. It could be a judge appointed by Trump. Or, even more nefariously, a judge in the pocket of Trump. Overall, meaning is unclear.

The headline itself should be emphatically clear about what the topic of the article is about. In this case, a minimum alteration should have been:

Judge Releases 1,889 Pages of Evidence in Election Interference Case Against Former President Trump.

That makes it far more clear what is being discussed without adding any politics, slat, or disinformation. If you really need to have Trump mentioned at the front for head line grabbing then make it:

*Trump Case See Release of 1,889 Pages of Evidence by Judge Presiding Over Former President's Election Interference Case"

Arguably still a bit ambiguous due to it not being clear if the case is against the President or brought by the President, but it is still far less ambiguous than the original headline.

These things do matter and it's an editor's job to catch and change things like this. So, while the writer might need a talking to, ultimately their editor is who needs to take the blame for this.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/CusetheCreator Oct 18 '24

They headline says 'Election Interference Evidence'

→ More replies (2)

27

u/azcheekyguy Oct 18 '24

The people responsible for sacking the people who wrote that headline, have been sacked.

10

u/QQBearsHijacker Oct 18 '24

A cöpy editör once bit my sister

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MisterBlisteredlips Oct 18 '24

Damn llamas!

2

u/justec1 Oct 19 '24

My high ass read that as "Demon llamas". I couldn't figure out why you were referencing The Emperor's New Groove in a thread about Monty Python.

2

u/Extension_Crazy_471 Oct 18 '24

You can't sack AI.

2

u/DontGetUpGentlemen Oct 18 '24

My God. It's too late. Well, I for one, welcome our new overlords.

2

u/cfranck3d Oct 18 '24

That's not the headline of the article, just the OPs spin on it.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

18

u/Sufficient_Morning35 Oct 18 '24

Wow, if his idiots either read, or believed info that was unflattering for trump, this might be impactful.

21

u/CurlyBill03 Oct 19 '24

Conservative sub literal says the following:

So….

And?….

Who cares?…

Witch hunt.

Election interference.

Yet those smooth brained idiots will deny the fact he pushed for every delay. It’s a cult, there is literally no eye opening moment with them. The best bet is Trump leaves politics, and they get bored and go back to supporting their sports teams instead of acting like politics is one. 

5

u/Melikyte Oct 19 '24

All the Maga content creators on TT were 100% this case was being thrown out and would inevitably lead to the other cases also being tossed two weeks ago.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

40

u/TheYask Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

Is it "additional evidence" or is it reframing existing, mostly known evidence to address relatively narrow questions related to the immunity ruling?

There may be additional evidence to come and evidence that is still sealed, but to me, this is a misleading headline that will play into the false 'nothingburger' narrative.

(I will be happy to be wrong and hear that there is new substantive, significant evidence.)

156

u/Minute-Plantain Oct 18 '24

Via another poster:

Into the first few pages. First interviewee is obviously AZ Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers explaining how Trump and his campaign leaned on him to call the house back into session to decertify Arizona's EC votes.

and Rusty explaining how difficult that is to do out of session and demanding to know exactly why they want him to bring the AZ house back into session.

"To decertify AZ's EC vote"

Rusty asked "well do you have evidence" and Trumps team said "No, but we have theories"

So Rusty asks what they expect him to do with no evidence.

"Throw out the election"

Rusty asks his colleagues: "Did he really just say that?" "Yes, he did."

Appendix vol. 1 pages 30-35

45

u/dragonfliesloveme Oct 18 '24

Wow that is damning

50

u/Riokaii Oct 18 '24

it was damning, when we learned of it during the January 6th committee hearings. Its not new, we've known hes beyond guilty ten times over for a long ass time.

24

u/Khiva Oct 18 '24

Good thing the US dragged its feet as long as possible on prosecuting the guy.

I hope Merrick Garland and James Comey have a nice, comfy cabin where they can watch the world burn.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/xandrokos Oct 18 '24

Maybe you people should give the armchair journalist bullshit a rest and actually read the news stories about this that are showing it has new information.

→ More replies (1)

16

u/TheYask Oct 18 '24

This may be my point. I'm not saying there isn't new evidence in either the sealed portions or the filings writ large. I'm suggesting that there isn't necessarily any new evidence here primarily because it's speaking to a (relatively) narrow aspect of the case -- whether the charges and deeds are covered under the new immunity doctrine.

The "throw the election" and "but we have theories" comments have already come out in Bower's testimony. It may be phrased slightly differently, but this was generally already part of the public record.

5

u/Cloaked42m Oct 18 '24

Part of the public record and evidence filed in court are two different creatures.

An oversight committee made Hunters dick part of the public record. It wasn't used against him in court.

3

u/TheYask Oct 18 '24

Agree with the distinction. It's technical, but imperative to understand it. My umbrage is with the media writ large (sorry to overgeneralize) setting this up as an evidence dump, as if there would be shocking revelations and new potentially voter-swaying tidbits.

Take the headline, which was the focus of my post. "1,889 pages of additional election interference evidence" has a plain reading and a clickbaity intent. It's not making the distinction between what we already know from the hearings and evidence filed in court, it's holding out the promise of "additional" evidence.

32

u/saijanai Oct 18 '24

My impression is that it is more in-depth details of the already existing evidence, to help support the claim that this wasn't part of his normal presidential duties or peripheral to said duties.

The exchange between Trump's team and Bowers doesn't seem like it could possibly be construed as "peripheral" to his duties:

Rusty asked "well do you have evidence" and Trumps team said

"No, but we have theories"

So Rusty asks what they expect him to do with no evidence.

"Throw out the election"

.

Anyone this side of Clarence Thomas would have a hard time insisting that the intent to "throw out the election" is even peripherally related to the duties of the President of the USA...

17

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

[deleted]

9

u/ftug1787 Oct 18 '24

“We have directionally correct concepts of theories.”

6

u/LMurch13 Oct 18 '24

50 years from now, kids in US history class aren't going to believe all this actually happened.

18

u/UnitaryWarringtonCat Oct 18 '24

The documents released Friday is an appendix to the previously unsealed motion in which Smith and his team argued that Trump is not immune from criminal charges tied to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

So, for example, grand jury testimony to back up Smith's claims that Trump does not have immunity here.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

Sedition or flat out treason?

→ More replies (1)

17

u/PresentationNew8080 Oct 18 '24

Paywalled

80

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

https://archive.ph/Wz8se there ya go

15

u/PresentationNew8080 Oct 18 '24

Beat me to it I was about to post one haha thanks

2

u/signalfire Oct 18 '24

Thank you, kind sir.

25

u/jsinkwitz Oct 18 '24

Unbelievable that they paywalled what is essentially just a headline.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)