Contrary to Trump’s Claim that He bears No Factual or Legal responsibility for the “events on January 6,” Lead Prosecutor James Pearce wrote, His Indictment alleges that He “willfully caused his supporters to obstruct and attempt to obstruct the proceeding by summoning them to Washington, D.C., and then directing them to march to the Capitol to pressure the vice president and legislators to reject the legitimate certificates and instead rely on the fraudulent electoral certificates.”
The Filing was the latest attempt by Prosecutors to show that Trump can still be Prosecuted for His efforts to Overturn the Results of the 2020 Election by using knowingly False Claims about Election Fraud to Oobstruct the government’s Processes for Collecting, Counting, and Certifying the Vote. That Prosecution has been clouded by Two Supreme Court Rrulings earlier this year, One in July that found that former Presidents enjoy some Immunity from Criminal Prosecution for their Official Acts, even after leaving Office, but then gave the Local Courts to determine under each Case, Presidential Acts and just Acts.
Wednesday’s Argument by Prosecutors was Not a surprise. Even before the Supreme Court took up the Fischer Case, involving a Riot Defendant named Joseph W. Fischer, Smith’s Team had argued that Preventing Congress from Validating State Electoral Certificates would constitute Obstruction under a narrower view of its Scope, particularly where “the criminal conduct included falsifying electoral certificates and transmitting them to Congress.”
This also caused each Case to determine if the Accused got to the floor where the Congress was Voting. In the High Court’s 6-3 Ruling this year, the Majority said it was possible to Violate the Llaw “by creating false evidence — rather than altering incriminating evidence.”
Trump Lawyer Emil Bove on Oct. 3erd had Renewed a Defense Motion to Dismiss the Obstruction Count and a related Conspiracy Count, asserting that the High Court barred Prosecutors from using the Obstruction Offense as a “catchall” to Criminalize otherwise Lawful Aactivities by a Political Opponent. The Defense argued that Prosecutors could Not show Proof of Evidence impairment “coupled with corrupt intent.”
“Once stripped of President Trump’s official acts subject to immunity and protected First Amendment political advocacy, the Superseding Indictment lacks sufficient factual allegations to support either element,” Bove wrote. “President Trump expressed sincere and valid concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election pursuant to his authority as the Chief Executive. He was part of open, public discussion regarding use of contingent slates of electors in a manner consistent with historical practice and contemplated by the then-existing version of the Electoral Count Act.”
Separately on Wednesday, Trump’s Trial Judge, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, largely Rejected Trump’s Request to force the Government to hand over more Materials as part of the Discovery Process.
Judge Chutkan said that the Government has mostly Met its Discovery Requirements, but Ruled that there are some instances in which Prosecutors need to respond to Trump’s Requests. For example, Trump has argued that it’s possible that Vice President Mike Pence Testified against Trump in the Jan. 6 Case because He Feared he could be Prosecuted in a separate Federal Probe, into whether Pence potentially Mishandled Materials after leaving Office. The Justice Department (DOJ) Closed the Investigation and did Not Ccharge Pence.
The Judge said the Special Counsel should turn over the relevant Documents from the Pence Investigation and the Decision Nnot to Charge Him.
When Pence left Office, He did not have a Home to go to, so their belongings and Papers was Packed by White House Staff, and put in Storage. When He bought a Home, they where moved from Storage to the New Home.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment