Did Trump engage in a 'Conspiracy to defraud the United States'?

Conspiracy to defraud the united states, is a federal offense in the United States of America under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The crime is that of two or more persons who conspire to commit an offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States.

In Tanner v United States: it states:
"Any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful
function of any department of Government".

And thus conspiring to engage in deceptive acts which prevent or delay significantly the Joint Session of Congress's duty to certify the election certainly qualifies as a violation of this criminal act, 'in my opinion'.

The committee alleges, based on numerous testimonies, texts, and documents corroborating the allegation, that Trump and the conspirators followed a 7 point plan:

Note that I've been constantly reading where Repubs on this forum attempt to compare Trump to democrats in the past 'objecting to votes during the Joint Session' as if that act alone compares to what Trump has done, in it's totality, well, it's a total false equivalency and it just doesn't wash. Nothing any democrat did during any Joint Session in the past comes close to the full scheme and scope of what Trump and his co-conspirators have done, which goes way beyond the Joint Session, itself, which is........Trump,,,,

1. Engaged in a concerted effort to spread false information to the American public that
the 2020 election was stolen.

2. Orchestrated a corrupt scheme between Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Representative Scott Perry to replace the acting Attorney General, to use the Department of Justice to overturn the election.

Here Trump wanted to replace the Acting AG, who refused to go along with a scheme to send a letter to various state's election officials that the 'election was suspicious' and 'two sets of elector slates have been transmitted to Congress' (in which Trump's 'slate of electors' were illegal, as only Joe Biden's certificate of ascertainment was signed by the Governor) and the AG was unwilling to go along with the scheme, as the letter would, as WH Counsel Pat Cipillone exclaimed, 'would be a suicide pact' and so Trump wanted to replace the acting AG with Jeffrey Clark, an environmental lawyer with no experience in criminal law because he was willing to send the letters out, and thus use the DOJ as a weapon to further Trump's overall scheme to overturn the election.

The reason Trump didn't to this was because scores of DOJ officials swore they would resign, en masse, if Trump did this, cause chaos in the DOJ and so he backed off at Cipollone's advice to not do it.

3. Conspired to implement Eastman's plan to pressure Vice President Pence to refuse to count or to delay the certification of the electoral count (and if enough electors could be denied to Biden, below the 270 threshold, thus no side having the required number of electors. the vote would go to the house where Republican's state delegations have a two state majority, thus reelecting Trump.

4. To pressure state election officials and state legislators to change their state's election results.

5. To instruct Republicans to create false electoral slates in seven battleground states and transmit those fake slates to Federal Magistrates, Congress and the National Archives.

6. To summon up a mob to the US Capitol.

7. During the attack on the Capitol to ignore pleas for help and tacitly endorse violence, including threats to hang Mike Pence.


So, do the above acts meet the elements of the violation?

I think it does, based on a layman's understanding of the law.

We shall see what the DOJ decides.

If there are any real lawyers in the peanut gallery, feel free to chime in.

 

Did Gore???

 

Devoted Trump Republicans, largely educationally challenged rural voters, farmers, farm hands, rural shopkeepers, do not have the knowledge to deal with the issues pertaining to the Trump-led Jan. 6 insurrection. The proof of that is their persistent silence on the issues.

Moreover, they don't want to know.

What is really sad is that they chose our President in 2016 completely unaware Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to be our President. Noting all the turmoil created by Trump, Putin has been richly rewarded.

NBC reports, "The House Jan. 6 committee on Thursday unveiled its formal report, the final product of its historic 18-month investigation into the deadly attack on the Capitol and former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election."

“[A]fter nearly a year and a half of investigation, I am frightened about the peril our democracy faced. Specifically, I think about what that mob was there to do: to block the peaceful transfer of power from one president to another based on a lie that the election was rigged and tainted with widespread fraud,” Jan. 6 committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wrote in the foreword of the report.


“The rioters were inside the halls of Congress because the head of the executive branch of our government, the then-President of the United States, told them to attack. Donald Trump summoned that mob to Washington, DC. Afterward, he sent them to the Capitol to try to prevent my colleagues and me from doing our Constitutional duty to certify the election."

"They put our very democracy to the test,” he added.

Republicans chosen by rural voters blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the coup attempt. "Reps. Jim Banks, R-Ind., Rodney Davis, R-Ill., Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., and Troy Nehls, R-Texas, largely blamed bureaucratic mismanagement and "political pressures" [on] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ho...ounter-report-jan-6-security-failures-capitol.

Devoted Trump Republicans, largely educationally challenged rural voters, farmers, farm hands, rural shopkeepers, do not have the knowledge to deal with the issues pertaining to the Trump-led Jan. 6 insurrection.

 

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
“When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules."
“We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
"Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you. We are going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”
**********************************************************************************************************************Donald J. Trump, Jan. 6, 2021

 

Filing lawsuits isn't a crime. It's literally a right, protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

Filing frivolous, baseless suits is not without consequences.

Kraken Antics Earn Sidney Powell Attorney Discipline Action
https://abovethelaw.com/2022/03/kraken-antics-earn-sidney-powell-attorney-discipline-action/

Sidney Powell, Kraken legal team face sanctions, court costs and potential disbarment over election lawsuit
https://www.freep.com/story/news/po...ll-kraken-team-over-election-case/5484021001/

 

But when you claim massive voter fraud is why you lost.
Then sue and go to court, but your lawyers say there was no actual fraud.
Something doesn't quite add up.

 

The whole reason for Trump's being is to defraud as many people as he can, in as many different was as possible.

 

OT.

Please stick to the topic. Thank you.

 

Doesn't make it illegal. I doubt his lawyers actually said that, though

 

There you go. This gets my arrogant statement of the week award.

 

You stated 'there is no reason to take me seriously', but you did not say why, so your statement is without substance and is therefore vacuous.

Please don't draw incorrect inferences (you've never drawn a correct one, to date) ---- your other questions are off topic and do not merit a response.

 

the evidence of election fraud is locked up behind lock and key...... and it is locked up by the accused.
How is this evidence brought to court?

 

But I did. You have repeated the same thread repeatedly. Changed only by calling the crime by a new name. Additionally, you refuse to recognize the criminality of Biden who I consider a bigger threat to this nation than Trump.

 

Trump didn't, but Hillary did.

 

The information is only information. What you believe about it determines if you participated in a concerted effort to spread false information.

 

Did Trump engage in a 'Conspiracy to defraud the United States'?

Does a bear drop a load in the woods? That's only the tip of the iceberg, that unhinged psychopath is a one man crime wave and incriminates himself on a regular basis every time he opens his face hole. But it is hilarious watching the devoted cult engage in silly whataboutisms and spewing blind denial garbage like "Trump did nothing wrong" and "ya got no proof".

 

the OT subthread has gone far enough, I'm ending it.

So, please stick to the topic of the OP.

 

If you are not interested in a serious debate, just say so and I'll put you on ignore.

Let me know.

 

You haven't actually stated why, all you've stated were insults, that you've repeated a number of times.

I post substantively. I state a premise, give a path of reasoning, direct attention to events and quotes which support the premise and/or link to testimonies, documents, articles authoritative opinions, etc., which support the premise. Now understand that being correct or compelling is not a requirement to post substantively (though I do believe my posts are correct, but I am interested in serious debate responses). Now, IF i do not do this and merely state an opinion, often I'll preface it with 'in my opinion' but more often than not, if I haven't corroborated a claim I'm perfectly willing to do it on request, or I'll just state it was an opinion.

You however, just post vacuous claims without substance, and you repeat it, often. Your typical response to that claim is to claim that my post lacked substance, but not only is that false, it's a cop out. I suspect that you have a confusion; you think a post that you disagree with equals 'lacking substance'. That's simply false, a substantive post states a premise, gives a path of logic made with a modicum of effort and thought, and supplements/corroborates the point with links, evidence, etc., but that doesn't mean one has to agree with the post, but to qualify as 'substantive' that's all that is required, or a well stated path of reasoning, at the minimum, something the reflects being thought out, where a modicum of effort is made---being correct is not a requirement to be substantive, though I do believe my posts are fairly accurate. I'm willing to consider opposing data if you can present it. but, you rarely do, you just blurt out insults or make values claims without substantiating your claims. You do this all the time.

Either you are lazy or intellectually incapable. You rarely post more than one two, or three lines and often just one line, Your typical response to that allegation is to claim my post wasn't worth more. No, that's a cop out. You cop out often when I ask you for substance.

I can only surmise you do this because you are lazy. That doesn't mean you lazy in other areas, it means you are a lazy poster. You do not think about what you write much, or, either that, or you lack the intellectual capacity to do it. So, if you aren't lazy, then the likelihood is that the latter is probably true. I don't really know. I'm no psychologist but these are my suspicions. You appear to be only interested in quick, clever retorts, and you are not a serious debater. And please, to claim I'm not a serious debater is a cop out, and I'm quite certain that would be or probably will be your response. Right?

Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can but I don't think you can.

I'll recognize any criminality by Joe Biden as soon as you, or anyone, post evidence. No evidence has been posted to date.

If you believe what has been posted is evidence, then you do not understand what constitutes evidence.

If that is the case, then educate yourself on what constitutes evidence, or if you do understand what evidence is, then post it.

But, if you do have evidence, you'd be the first one to post it and you might have something of considerable value to sell to the newspapers, who would pay you for that evidence. However, if you are a responsible individual, you'll give it to US Attorney Delaware David Weiss, who has been investigating Hunter for three years, and apparently has found no evidence of criminal activity by Joe Biden.

If my post seems to be patronizing, you leave me little choice.

 

This is why it's so difficult to take them seriously.

He said "peacefully and patriotically" ONE time.



https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-use-rally-footage-to-argue-incitement

 

What's the matter? I took your first point and addressed it. Are you upset because I didn't waste time on all your other ones in a single post? I prefer to take things one at a time. If you can't offer a counter argument to the argument I gave then perhaps you're better off putting me on ignore instead of offering up this pablum.

 

That's a lot of legalese to frame trump's crimes within the boundaries of our legal system.
But the essence of trump's crimes is more sedition and treason to his sworn duties.
We finally got Al Capone for tax fraud, but everyone knew he was essentially a murdering thug.

 

"Big Guy". "10%" to the "Big Guy". Hunter riding on Air Force One for business purposes. Meetings with his Hunter's business associates even though he claims he knows nothing of his son's business. Those are called evidence.

Then there is the matter of incompetence, of which his disastrous withdraw from Afghanistan was a prime example. He withdrew the military before withdrawing the civilians. He gave up an air base which would have provided better protection for those withdrawing and left behind billions of dollars of military arms which are being used to arm our enemies. He changed the border policies for no other reason than he did not want Trump to be right with a disastrous influx of illegals.

 

OP headline answers itself, of course he did. Now proving it beyond our lying eyes to the level of criminality, that's up to the DOJ.