… No reason to quote all of that.
Ann_Hedonia, love your posts but I think you forgot a few counts of Obstruction of Justice and Extortion. Oh, and he was still President when he asked the Secretary of State of Georgia to ‘find’ him 11,000 votes… Election tampering or interference.
I can’t read the cite (some kind of XML error? and the Internet Archive’s wayback machine is offline), do you know which law they were pointing to?
~Max
18 U.S. Code § 599, presumably.
Oh, I had presumed some other law was involved. I’ve already shared my opinion that § 599 is unconstitutional.
~Max
Why? The Brown v. Hartlage decision that you pointed to specifically says the campaign promise was OK because it didn’t represent a quid pro quo.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/123/brown-v-hartlage
In this case, Brown had made his promise “openly, subject to the comment and criticism of his political opponent and to the scrutiny of the voters.” His offer scarcely amounted to “a particularized acceptance or a quid pro quo arrangement.” Although the state might fear only those of independent wealth being in a position to seek political office, it must choose acceptable means to avoid such an end.
Now admittedly quid pro quo is notoriously hard to prove, so unless there is a secret email or recording of Trump telling Carson he would appoint him as HUD secretary if Carson endorsed him, its unlikely that Trump could be prosecuted, but it doesn’t seem to me that the law is unconstitutional.
Because there’s only the one statute which doesn’t specify quid pro quo, thus it is unconstitutionally overbroad. It would be challenged as unconstitutional before considering the facts of the case (before considering the quid pro quo).
~Max
The more likely approach would be to simply invalidate the improperly submitted electoral votes, rather than to substitute others. The votes provided by the wayward state would simply not be included in the overall tally. By such reckoning, the majority needed to win would drop from 270 to 260, as the Georgia would no longer be participating in the election (cf the presidential election of 1864).
I just reread the statute more carefully. The fact that it includes penalties for indirect promises, and penalties even if the perpetrator is unwillful, supports your view that its too broad, and makes we wonder what the writers really had in mind.
" As of Mar. 28, there are reportedly two grand juries considering subpoenas for documents relevant to the investigation."
Really, almost six months ago? Is this acceptable?
We’ll definitely be waiting awhile longer, at least for Cy Vance’s case.
Relevant portion:
Judge Juan Manuel Merchan gave both sides until next spring to file motions and responses. He said he’d decide on motions at a July 12, 2022, hearing, the next time Weisselberg is due in court.
Merchan said he expected to set a trial date at that time and would likely schedule it for the end of August or beginning of September next year.
“The reason I mention it now is that it’s on everybody’s radar,” Merchan said. “I don’t have an exact date yet.”
Glad the judge made sure to mention it, so as to foreclose any objections about having the trial around the mid-term elections. I don’t think it would apply in any case, since Weisselberg is not a political figure – but that probably wouldn’t stop his attorneys from trying.
It also means the judge is unlikely to grant any further continuances except for a really good reason, such as a witness being unavailable due to unforeseeable circumstances (illness, e.g.).
Of course, Weisselberg could flip between now and then, especially if any of the contemplated indictments mentioned are against Jack or Barry Weisselberg. Naturally that would be Vance’s preference.
That sounds too much like point 3 of the John Eastman plan:
If a plurality of Pennsylvanians vote for a slate of electors, Harris should resolve any constitutional crisis by accepting said slate. It shouldn’t be thrown out because of an ex post facto law passed by our legislature.
There are a lot of potential complexities here. But disenfranchising a state’s voters can’t be the right choice.
Now, allowing Trump to run – I think that is reasonable. I am not comfortable with locking up the 2024 GOP frontrunner. Not there is much risk of his losing a jury trial.
Well, if they can’t get trump himself:
The grand jury indictment alleges that Benton and Wead worked together to accept $100,000 from an unidentified Russian national in order to get the foreigner a meeting with then-candidate Trump at a fundraiser in Philadelphia on Sept. 22, 2016.
Neither Trump nor his campaign are mentioned by name in the indictment, but details in the 19-page document make clear that the scheme involved seeking the donation in connection with the Trump event and an opportunity to get face to face with him.
My biggest question about the Eastman memo is
What’s the seventh state?
The plot required challenging the electoral slate in seven states. I’m only aware of 6 that were the subject of bullshit disputes.
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Georgia
Nevada
Arizona
It’s still early for me, what am I missing?
I think it’s D.C.
Not a state, but had 3 EC votes that were disputed.
On further research, it turns out that New Mexico is the seventh state.
list here
On reflection, I’m not sure if there were any legal challenges to D.C.'s vote.
Yeah, it is confusing to see the intent, especially…
for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy
Surely that doesn’t mean that a promise of appointing someone in order to get more votes is illegal. After all, every presidential candidate when he or she nominates a vice presidential candidate runs afoul of this law because he is promising to use his or her influence to persuade the national committee to nominate that person.
I think the only way to read this to make any sense is that the candidate offers a position to someone for the purpose of procuring that person’s support.
IOW, it is fine for Biden to promise he will use his influence to have the DNC nominate Kamala Harris for the purpose of getting more people to vote for him. It is not proper to offer Harris the nomination for the purpose of getting her vote.
If the law is interpreted this way, then it only covers quid pro quo scenarios and it saves the constitutionality of the law plus any reason for having it.
Gee, I wonder when there will be one of these trackers for Hillary’s crimes, or Bill’s, or Obama’s, or Biden’s? What about other characters who have committed obvious crimes and treason? George Soros? Chuck Todd? Rupert Murdoch? Ted Turner? Brad Raffensperger? Nancy Pelosi? Chuckie Schumer? Kevin McCarthy? Steve Chucri? Bill Gates? (Both of them) Jack Dorsey? Mark Zuckerberg? Sundar Pichai? Eric Swalwell?
What would you bet that such pages would not be maintained by and would likely be fought by the same people who maintain this Trump page?
Oh boy, ok, I’ll bite. See, that site I linked to is tracking actual pending litigation of real civil and criminal cases being prosecuted in a court of law. These cases are a matter of public record and as such, information about them in regard to anybody being prosecuted for such crimes is freely available publicly on this, or a number of other online sources.
Finding information online about imaginary crimes committed by public figures can certainly also be found online, just not on websites such as the one to which I linked.
What’s he guilty of…being a bad host of Meet the Press? 
There’s nothing stopping anyone from compiling trackers on other people. And how would the Trump tracker compilers “fight” similar compilations?
Go on and do it.
Hide and watch