PSA

Legal experts say that the latest Trump indictment looks to be strong and legally sound. But Twitter user @mypillow1488 isn't so sure.

— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) August 3, 2023

2. A successful prosecution does not hinge on what Trump BELIEVED about the 2020 election. If Trump is convicted, it will be based on his ACTIONS.https://t.co/OZIPv44Rib

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) August 3, 2023

I won’t do much of this, because…

4. The indictment details how Trump conspired to create fake sets of electors in seven states. Then it sent these slates of electors to the Senate and the U.S. archivist in an attempt to cling to power.

If proven, that's illegal. Regardless of what Trump believed.

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) August 3, 2023

6. I talked to @marceelias who explained it this way: "I walk into a bank, and I think they are wrongfully holding my money. I think my balance is $5,000, and they think my balance is zero... That doesn't excuse me from robbing the bank. I can't pull out a gun and take the money"

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) August 3, 2023

8. But the media coverage is confusing a trial tactic with a legal requirement. Proving Trump knew he was lying will be helpful to Smith, but it's not central to his legal case. The coverage suggesting otherwise is wrong. https://t.co/OZIPv44Rib

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) August 3, 2023

...extra-legal arguments made on TeeVee or Twitter are worth the paper they’re printed on. All I want to say is:

'What on God's green earth?' Trump's ex-lawyer flames out defending 'fake electors' scheme https://t.co/ACS8tREQIi

— Raw Story (@RawStory) August 3, 2023

Legal arguments made by persons not involved in the case, outside court, with no responsibility for being right (or wrong), are to be ignored.

“The purpose of having a slate of electors, as has been done in prior elections, is to have an alternate slate available in the event that the primary slate is invalidated," Parlatore said. "That's what they were very vocal about at the time. That's something that the [Michigan attorney general] Dana Nessel will have a difficult time getting over in her case. That's going to be a dismissal, too.” 

"You can't just look at the document and say, 'I don't like this document, it doesn't look true -- what is it being used for?'" Parlatore added. "If you can't connect that to a scheme to defraud, it's something that you can disagree with, it's something you can vilify publicly, but it's not something you can put people in jail for."

Yeah, that’s worthless bullshit. 

What on God's green earth would they be for if not to try to overturn the election?" Weissmann said. "He said nobody would plausibly think that. Well, the former vice president of the United States has now said, post this indictment being revealed, that he actually was exactly that, being pressed not just to delay the vote but to reject the vote, and that is exactly what the team is alleged to have done. 

"What he is saying is implausible is exactly what is charged, and what the vice president has actually now said that he was told. So the vice president of the United States, which is remarkable, will be under oath in this trial testifying about it, and he has no motive to lie."

That’s a sounder argument, but still, the rule of thumb applies: never mind the bollocks, wait for the trial. What did Trump know? What does DOJ have to prove? Irrelevant. You aren’t the lawyers for the prosecution, or the defense.

I leave it at this:

Trump knows his only hope is to win the election in 2024 and pardon himself/dismiss the federal charges. Otherwise, as his former lawyer Ty Cobb said, he’s toast.

Mmmmm…toast!

(BTW: almost no one on the street at Prettyman courthouse for the arraignment.)