Trending
Tables turn for Trump
To the Editor:
Well, how indictments came down on Trump this evening. One says that Trump broke the law by saying that he believed that there was fraud in the 2020 election and didn't really believe it to be true. And, that is a crime. Good luck with trying to make that one stick.
I'm sure he doesn't think that the 2020 election was full of fraud. He is not the only one who believes that. I believe it. If that is a crime, come arrest me. I dare you!
I know that in many of the battleground states there were more votes cast than there were voters registered. I know that there were many people that signed affidavits that they saw cheating going on. They may say that there was no proof, but there was! It just never got a fair hearing.
It may be very interesting when this goes to trial, and they have to prove in court that there was no fraud in front of a jury. I for one will be glad to see that can of worms be opened up, and let the worms crawl around.
I can't wait 'til Trump beats all of these charges and gets re-elected. And then turns his DOJ and his judges loose on all the ones who have done the things they have done to him. The tables are about to turn.
Stephen Sellers
Misrepresenting an
indictment
To the Editor:
In Betsy McCaughey's op-ed column on April 24, she made the assertion that Mr. Trump was indicted on August 1 (for his attempt to overturn the 2020 Presidential election) simply for what he said. She wrote "Smith (federal prosecutor Jack Smith) alleges that Trump broke the law by lobbying state officials to hunt for voter fraud, asking supporters in battleground states to choose an alternative slate of electors, and trying to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to count those alternate electors instead of the officially designated ones. Word crimes." She then went on to add that the jury would decide "whether Trump's words violated the law or are protected by the First Amendment," and compared Trump's election complaints with those of Al Gore after the 2000 election (and Gore was not indicted.)
Ms. McCaughey is clearly concerned about Mr. Trump's First Amendment free speech rights in relation to his indictment. And yet, she neglects to mention that this issue is actually addressed in the indictment itself. In paragraph two of the indictment, it is stated that the Defendant (Trump) "spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway."
Then, in paragraph three, Trump's free speech rights, and his right to challenge the election, were addressed: "The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful." It is clear from this passage that the issue is not with what Mr. Trump said (even when he was lying), or with his legal challenges to the election in the nation's courts.
Why then, was Mr. Trump indicted? As paragraph four states, "Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results." Mr. Trump, then, was indicted for his actions - not for his words. Specifically, he was indicted for pursuing "unlawful means" of overturning the election results after all his legal means had been exhausted. The distinction here between lawful words and unlawful actions explains why Al Gore was not indicted in 2000; after all his legal election challenges failed, Gore did not pursue unlawful means to change the outcome - he acknowledged that Mr. Bush won, and conceded.
In her column, Ms. McCaughey accused Mr. Smith of deliberately omitting material from the indictment in order to make his case stronger. And yet, in order to falsely portray this indictment as a First Amendment issue, Ms. McCaughey omitted the fact that the indictment acknowledged Mr. Trump's right to free speech. Is she not guilty of what she accuses Mr. Smith of doing?
According to the indictment, Mr. Trump was actually charged with three counts of conspiracy. First, a conspiracy to "defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government." Second, a conspiracy to "corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified." And third, a conspiracy "against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted."
To see what each of these charges entail, and what evidence was presented to the grand jury, I urge every reader of this letter to actually read the indictment itself. What Ms. McCaughey dismissed as "word crimes" take on a completely different meaning in the context of all of the evidence. But don't take my word for what the indictment says, or Betsy McCaughey's, either. And don't blindly accept what the media or your favorite political pundit or channel says. Go straight to the source, read the indictment, and get the facts for yourselves.
Philip Loewen