Donald Trump’s attorney John Lauro said there is one positive in the latest indictment of his client. Trump can litigate the 2020 presidential election.
SUBPOENA POWER
“In 2020, Mr. Trump’s campaign had a few weeks to gear up and present evidence, and it was very difficult,” Lauro told Fox News host Bret Baier. That was Tuesday night after the announcement of the indictments.
“We now have the ability in this case to issue our own subpoenas. And we will re-litigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation,” Lauro added. “It gives President Trump an opportunity that he has never had before, which is to have subpoena power since January 6 in a way that can be exercised in federal court.”
SMITH’S CRIME
In his latest indictment, Smith charges Trump with four crimes: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
Smith claims Trump created “widespread mistrust” in his attempt to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election,.”
Additionally, the special counsel added that the former president knew that his allegations of election fraud were false.
In other words, Jack Smith is probing Trump’s head for a thought crime.
Lauro said Trump did not knowingly make false claims. Even if he did, it’s his right under the 1st Amendment.
“It’s not just issues of fraud. It’s also the fact that procedures were changed, undeniably so, that procedures at the state level were changed without the ability of the legislature to weigh in,” Lauro explained.
TRUMP WASN’T TRYING TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION
Trump wasn’t trying to overturn the election. His intention on January 6, 2021, was to pressure Congress not to certify the Electoral College vote so state legislatures had one last chance to examine how the elections in their states were conducted.
“The reality is that the state legislatures in every state have the ultimate responsibility for qualifying electors. So, what Mr. Trump did was exactly, constitutionally precise, and in order. There was nothing illegal about that,” Lauro stated.
Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution provides, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”
Trump “was required to take steps, as president of the United States, to ensure that that election was held in a valid way,” Lauro said. “All of that, now, is being criminalized.”
Baier came in and said the states already did that. Sure, Bret, in three days. Lauro gives a great answer for that.
Everyone is assuming Trump can enter into evidence all the ‘shenanigans’ of the election with subpoenas. What is overlooked is the judge ‘decides‘ what evidence is admissible in court. There has already been cases on this matter and for the most part it was denied. Only a very few allowed narrow specifics to be adjudicated. This could be what the current judge uses in any decision on the matter. Of course it would look ‘political’ but has any court actually tried to avoid politics. Looking at it from the entire government’s side there may be fear that a Trump win could mean revenge against the entire system so self-protection mode may be the order of the day.
Meanwhile, Biden told everyone in a speech— during the campaign— not to worry about the vote, because they set up the greatest election fraud in history. Everybody dismissed the statement, saying oh he didn’t mean that… he’s just a senile old man, but vote for him anyway. I took his words at face value.
Anyone remember the investigation documented in “2000 Mules?” The work has never been refuted in public — and no one seems willing to debate in public with the principal investigator.