Special Counsel, Jack Smith, had a panoply of options/mountain of improprieties to dig through in order to decide if, and with what, to charge Donald Trump.
Paring it down to the nub – choosing the charges that best fit the available evidence and offered him the best chance for a conviction – was, to be sure, no mean feat.
I’ve also opined that he and Fani Willis likely were joined at the proverbial hip to decide the best venue – Federal vs. State – to charge some of the possible crimes and some of the probable criminals.
And now we’re hearing that Jack Smith – as was considered fairly early on – might be looking into potential Wire Fraud charges against Trump, stemming from The Big Lie and the Even Bigger Grift.
Trump generated tens of millions of dollars in donations – largely to ‘his’ Save America Super PAC – immediately following, and based wholly on, the “rigged election” nonsense.
There’s likely a case to be made that this constituted Wire Fraud:
- 18 U.S.C. 1343—ELEMENTS OF WIRE FRAUD
The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication made in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); see also, e.g., United States v. Profit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.) (the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are: (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used) (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit 6.18.1341 (West 1994)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2289 (1995); United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1994) (two elements comprise the crime of wire fraud: (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) use of interstate wire communication to facilitate that scheme); United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 771 (5th Cir. 1994) (essential elements of wire fraud are: (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of, or causing the use of, interstate wire communications to execute the scheme), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 193 (1995); United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006 (1st Cir. 1993) (to prove wire fraud government must show (1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses, (2) defendant’s knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme); United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“Wire fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme.”).
[bolding mine]
I think the NYT and WaPo had good articles on this, but I don’t subscribe and presume they’re paywalled.
There’s talk that the Super PAC – likely a source for many of Trump’s unending legal bills – could have its assets frozen if charges were filed, potentially putting a world of hurt on the defenses of Trump and his compatriots.
And the list of potential conspirators is long and not terribly distinguished.
Any thoughts on the likelihood of Smith charging Wire Fraud? The move as part of an overall strategy? The facts that would pertain to the charges? The law involved?
