Special Counsel Proposes January Date for Trump’s Election Interference Trial

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/politics/trump-jan-6-trial-date.html The prosecutors overseeing the indictment of former President Donald J. Trump on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election asked a judge on Thursday to set a trial date in the case for early January, laying out an aggressive schedule for the proceeding. In a motion filed to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is presiding over the case in Federal District Court in Washington, the prosecutors said they were ready not only to go to trial on Jan. 2, but were also poised to give Mr. Trump’s lawyers the bulk of their discovery evidence in the next two weeks or so. The prosecutors further proposed that Mr. Trump’s lawyers submit their first pretrial motions in not much more than a month. Mr. Trump’s legal team will get to suggest its own timetable for the case next week and will surely object to the government’s proposal. If accepted, the accelerated schedule would make the election interference case the first of the three criminal cases that Mr. Trump now faces to be put in front of a jury. In their filing to Judge Chutkan, the prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, said the rapid pace was needed given the gravity and historic nature of the charges. Speedy trials, they said, are not just enshrined in law to protect the rights of defendants, but also to safeguard the public’s interest in the swift administration of justice. ADVERTISEMENT SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “It is difficult to imagine a public interest stronger than the one in this case, in which the defendant — the former president of the United States — is charged with three criminal conspiracies intended to undermine the federal government, obstruct the certification of the 2020 presidential election and disenfranchise voters,” Molly Gaston, one of the prosecutors, wrote. “Trial in this case is clearly a matter of public importance, which merits in favor of a prompt resolution.” In most criminal matters, the timetable for bringing a case to trial is an important but mundane process that revolves around questions including the complexity of the evidence, the number of defendants and the schedules of the judge, prosecutors and defense lawyers. Takeaways From Trump’s Indictment in the 2020 Election Inquiry Card 1 of 5 Four charges for the former president. Former President Donald Trump was charged with four counts in connection with his widespread efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The indictment was filed by the special counsel Jack Smith in Federal District Court in Washington. Here are some key takeaways: The indictment portrayed an attack on American democracy. Smith framed his case against Trump as one that cuts to a key function of democracy: the peaceful transfer of power. By underscoring this theme, Smith cast his effort as an effort not just to hold Trump accountable but also to defend the very core of democracy. Trump was placed at the center of the conspiracy charges. Smith put Trump at the heart of three conspiracies that culminated on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to obstruct Congress’s role in ratifying the Electoral College outcome. The special counsel argued that Trump knew that his claims about a stolen election were false, a point that, if proved, could be important to convincing a jury to convict him. Trump didn’t do it alone. The indictment lists six co-conspirators without naming or indicting them. Based on the descriptions provided, they match the profiles of Trump lawyers and advisers who were willing to argue increasingly outlandish conspiracy and legal theories to keep him in power. It’s unclear whether these co-conspirators will be indicted. Trump’s political power remains strong. Trump may be on trial in 2024 in three or four separate criminal cases, but so far the indictments appear not to have affected his standing with Republican voters. By a large margin, he remains his party’s front-runner in the presidential primaries. But United States v. Donald J. Trump is not most criminal matters. It is not even the only criminal matter bearing that name. Mr. Trump has now been charged in Washington in the federal election interference case; in Florida in another federal case accusing of him of illegally holding on to classified materials after he left office; and in New York where he has been charged with 34 felonies related to a hush money payment to a porn actress. Next week, he could face indictment in a fourth case in Fulton County, Ga., in connection with his efforts to interfere with the election results in the state. Editors’ Picks These Clever Fish Have Mastered the Fakeout What if Your Town Doubled as a Private Power Grid? Aspen for Cheapskates SKIP ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT SKIP ADVERTISEMENT His courtroom calendar is quickly filling up. The New York case, filed by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, is set to go to trial in March. The classified documents case, which is also being handled by Mr. Smith’s office, is slated for May. If the prosecutors in the election interference case get their way and it goes to trial just after New Year’s Day, Mr. Trump could be obliged to be present in different courthouses in different cities throughout much of the winter and spring. That would be on top of his busy agenda of debates, donor dinners and campaign rallies related to the other matter occupying his time these days — running for country’s highest office. How Times reporters cover politics. Times journalists may vote, but they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. That includes participating in rallies and donating money to a candidate or cause. Did you find this information helpful? Yes No Some of the former president’s advisers have been blunt in private conversations that he is looking to winning the election as a way to solve his legal problems. And to that end, his lawyers have sought various ways to slow prosecutors in their race to get to trial and have tried to delay the various proceedings where they can. Last month, for example, they asked the judge in documents case, Aileen M. Cannon, to postpone that trial indefinitely, arguing that the proceeding should not begin until all “substantive motions” in the case had been presented and decided. At a subsequent hearing, the lawyers told Judge Cannon that she should push back the trial until after the 2024 election because, among other reasons, Mr. Trump could never get a fair jury in the maelstrom of news media attention surrounding the race. If either of the federal trials were pushed back until after the election and Mr. Trump were to win, it would open up the possibility for complications of a sort never seen before. He could try to pardon himself after taking office — a move that has never faced legal scrutiny — or he could have his attorney general simply dismiss the matter altogether. ADVERTISEMENT SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Speaking to reporters at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., on Thursday, Mr. Trump asserted that holding any of his pending trials before the general election in November 2024 would amount to interference. A Guide to the Various Trump Investigations Confused about the inquiries and legal cases involving former President Donald Trump? We’re here to help. Key Cases and Inquiries: The former president faces several investigations at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers. Here is a close look at each. Case Tracker: Trump is at the center of four criminal investigations. Keep track of the developments in each here. What if Trump Is Convicted?: Will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign? Can a convicted felon even run for office? Here is what we know, and what we don’t know. “The trial should be after the election because this is just election interference,” Mr. Trump said. “So if it’s before, you’re just playing into their hands.” In the few court filings they have written so far, Ms. Gaston and her colleague, Thomas P. Windom, have evinced a slashing style. In her scheduling motion, Ms. Gaston noted that John. F. Lauro, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, had claimed both on TV and in the courtroom that the government has been investigating the election interference case for “three and a half years” while the defense was “starting with a blank slate.” “Not only is this claim impossible, as Jan. 6, 2021, was two and a half years ago,” Ms. Gaston wrote, “but it is disingenuous.” ADVERTISEMENT SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Ms. Gaston also said in the motion that when Mr. Lauro made an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” this week — one of five Sunday shows he visited that day — he was “already planning which motions” he intended to file. She seemed to raise the issue anticipating that Mr. Trump’s legal team would object to the government’s proposed timetable as being too short to permit time for determining what kind of motions to submit. Ms. Gaston said the government expects presenting its evidence at trial to take no longer than four to six weeks. She also noted that prosecutors stood ready to start turning over discovery evidence as soon as a protective order governing its handling is put in place. Judge Chutkan has scheduled a hearing about the protective order for Friday. Ms. Gaston’s assertion that prosecutors could produce the bulk of the discovery in the case to Mr. Trump’s lawyers by Aug. 28 was a remarkable display of the government’s desire to move quickly toward a trial. The discovery evidence, she said, will include grand jury transcripts, recordings of interviews with witnesses, documents connected to search warrants and subpoenas, and unredacted materials from the Secret Service and the House select committee that investigated the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In a separate motion, Mr. Windom informed Judge Chutkan that the discovery disclosure would likely contain “a small amount of classified information.” He asked that the two sides discuss how to handle this material in a hearing governed by what is known as the Classified Information Procedures Act. Maggie Haberman and Alan Blinder contributed reporting.

ひとは不倫を非難するが・・・

ひとは福原愛の不倫を非難するが、人生の大きな苦しみの一つは愛のない人と一緒にいなければならないことであり、人生の大きな喜びの一つは愛する人と一緒にいること。そういう言葉をどこかの仏典で読んだことがある。愛のために生きることは簡単ではない。多くのひとは、社会の目を気にし、自分の心を否定し、うわべで社会の人をごまかして生きる。福原愛は自らの心に素直だからできたことだ。それは、幼いころ、彼女が卓球に向かっていった時のような純粋さを思い起こさせる。彼女の愛の決断が実を結ぶことを祈る。たとえ成功に終わらなくても、彼女の勇気にぼくは乾杯する。

Trump appears to stumble over his name and age at arraignment

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-arraignment-indictment-name-age-b2387456.html Donald Trump appeared to stumble over his words when he was asked to state his full name and age at his arraignment on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election. Mr Trump arrived at the E Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse in Washington DC on Thursday where he pleaded not guilty to four criminal counts of an alleged election hoax conspiracy that led to the January 6 riots at the US Capitol. Mr Trump, dressed in his trademark navy blue suit and red tie, entered the courtroom at 3.51pm accompanied by John Lauro, a veteran Washington-based criminal defence attorney, and Todd Blanche, the New York-based lawyer who is leading his defence in the other criminal cases against him. He was made to wait about 25 minutes before the magistrate judge entered the room at 4.15pm, and appeared nervous and fidgety. After attorneys for the government and defence introduced themselves, Mr Trump stood to take his oath from a courtroom deputy. US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya then asked the former president to state his full name. “Donald J Trump — John — Donald John Trump,” Mr Trump replied hesitantly. He was then asked for his date of birth, and tripped over his words again. At first, he said “seven seven,” before correcting himself and saying “77”. After explaining his rights to remain silent and to legal representation, and reminding him of the lengthy prison sentence he faces if convicted, Judge Upadhyaya asked Mr Trump if he understood. He replied in the affirmative. Mr Lauro then entered a plea of not guilty on all counts on his behalf. Prosecutors did not seek to detain Mr Trump, and set a date of 28 August for a first hearing before Judge Tanya Chutkan. Mr Trump is not required to attend. In comments to reporters afterwards, Mr Trump described it as a “very sad day” before claiming Washington DC had deteriorated in the two and a half years since he left office. “This was never supposed to happen in America.... if you can’t beat ‘em, you persecute them,” he said. As his motorcade returned to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, it was met with a chorus of insults from a small group of protesters. “F** you, terrorist,” one man yelled, according to Wall Street Journal reporter Andrew Restuccia. Earlier this week, Mr Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding in relation to his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

18 U.S.C. § 371—CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us#:~:text=The%20general%20conspiracy%20statute%2C%2018,manner%20or%20for%20any%20purpose. The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371). The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act. Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of "defraud" provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated: The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation. Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows: To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention. Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188. The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989). The word "defraud" in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff'd, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973). Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371. The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest"), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993). In United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 (1991), the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and other offenses in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain loan commitments from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). The court held that the district court had properly instructed the jury that: the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud, with the objective either of defrauding the FHA or the VA of their lawful right to conduct their business and affairs free from deceit, fraud or misrepresentation, or of obtaining money and property from the FHA by means of false and fraudulent representations and promises which the defendant knew to be false. Madeoy, 912 F.2d at 1492. Prosecutors considering charges under the defraud prong of Section 371, and the offense prong of Section 371 should be aware of United States v. Minarik, 875 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1989) holding limited, 985 F.2d 962 (1993), and related cases. See United States v. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1993). In Minarik, the prosecution was found to have "used the defraud clause in a way that created great confusion about the conduct claimed to be illegal," and the conviction was reversed. 875 F.2d at 1196. After Minarik, defendants have frequently challenged indictments charging violations of both clauses, although many United States Courts of Appeals have found it permissible to invoke both clauses of Section 371. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d at 1092 (collecting cases); see also United States v. Licciardi, 30 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1994)(even though the defendant may have impaired a government agency's functions, as part of a scheme to defraud another party, the government offered no evidence that the defendant intended to defraud the United States and a conspiracy to violate an agency regulatory scheme could not lie on such facts). In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways: [cited in JM 9-42.001] They cheat the government out of money or property; They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.

Takeaways: Inside the indictment on Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 election

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2023/8/1/23816480/takeaways-inside-the-indictment-on-trumps-bid-to-overturn-the-2020-election WASHINGTON — Ex-President Donald Trump’s unprecedented federal criminal indictment on Tuesday is a compelling, readable narrative of how Trump allegedly wielded “dishonesty, fraud and deceit” on multiple fronts to try to overturn the 2020 election. Trump’s latest criminal indictment comes as he faces other federal charges over mishandling classified documents in Florida and, in a state case in Manhattan, paying hush money to cover up an affair with a porn performer. Another indictment is looming, in a state election interference case in Georgia. Takeaways: · Some of the ground covered in the indictment about Trump’s various alleged schemes to stay in office is familiar, but what’s new is the revelation that former Vice President Mike Pence took, as the indictment says, “contemporaneous notes.” · This case will be tried in a Washington federal courtroom, with a jury pulled from this Democratic city before a judge tapped by former President Barack Obama. RELATED Donald Trump is charged over efforts to overturn results of 2020 election The classified documents criminal case in Florida is being handled by a judge Trump nominated with a jury from a county that heavily voted for Trump. · The indictment covers Trump’s desperate moves to stay in power. When state officials wouldn’t play ball, Trump and co-conspirators drummed up false electors in seven key states, all part of a “corrupt” plan that in the end, depended on Pence to go along and not certify the election results on Jan. 6, 2021 — which Pence refused to do, even as Trump backers attacked the Capitol. · The indictment looks at the wreckage Trump — with his enormous power to persuade people to believe things that are not true — has left in his wake. Trump spreading lies about election fraud that did not happen — and the repeated fake claims that he won the election — that he was able to make to “appear legitimate” — created, the indictment said, an “intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger” that eroded “public faith in the administration of the election.” RELATED Leaked Trump audio proves he cares nothing for the rule of law · Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, is still spreading the lie that he won the 2020 election — and his mounting legal jeopardy has not appeared to have made a dent in his popularity among potential GOP primary and caucus voters. I’ve interviewed people over the years who tell me — with no uncertainty — that Trump won the election. Why? Because he said so. I beg you if you believe this to read the indictment because it says the people “best positioned to know the facts” — many Republicans — told Trump he had lost his bid for a second term. And they are, according to the indictment: Pence; senior leaders in Trump’s Justice Department; the director of national intelligence; the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; senior Trump White House lawyers; senior Trump 2020 campaign staff; state lawmakers; state officials; and state and federal courts. · Will Trump and his allies to try to discredit U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan because she said in her Senate questionnaire — prepared for her confirmation — that in 2012, she volunteered for Lawyers for Obama? · Trump had every right, the indictment said, to make the 2020 election outcome all about him — to challenge the election — even to make false claims. But there is a line he crossed that makes this about you — not Trump. Trump had no right, the indictment said, to pursue “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”

Trump indictment references Pence or vice presidency more than 100 times

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/02/donald-trump-indictment-mike-pence/ The 45-page indictment accusing former president Donald Trump of criminal schemes in his effort to overturn the 2020 election results references Mike Pence or the office of the vice presidency more than 100 times, reflecting Pence’s role as a central figure in the charging document. Sign up to get email alerts for political commentary, insights and stories from Jennifer Rubin right as she publishes. Pence took “contemporaneous notes” about Trump and his allies’ efforts to overturn the 45th president’s electoral defeat in the lead-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob, according to the indictment, which includes some new specific allegations about a defining chapter of Pence’s career and a key point of contention in his long-shot 2024 presidential campaign against his former boss. Pence rejected Trump’s pressure to try to reverse the election results in his role certifying the outcome, leading to a fracture that has persisted to this day. The notes are explicitly cited twice in the document. The first reference highlights that Trump, on Dec. 29, 2020, allegedly told Pence that the Justice Department was “finding major infractions,” according to the notes. The second details a Jan. 4, 2021, meeting, where Trump allegedly repeated his false claims of widespread election fraud. During that meeting, according to the document, Pence questioned Trump lawyer John Eastman’s proposal to send the election results back to the states, asking if it was “defensible.” ADVERTISING After Eastman — identified from descriptions as “Co-Conspirator 2” — suggested that “nobody’s tested it before,” Pence allegedly told Trump, “Even your own counsel is not saying I have that authority.” Pence served Trump loyally for four years, and the former president’s pressure to overturn the 2020 election results marked their only public break during the Trump-Pence administration. The indictment offers a timeline of private phone calls that allegedly occurred between Trump and Pence in the lead-up to Jan. 6, in which Trump pressured Pence to interfere with the election results. The document references an alleged Christmas Day exchange between Trump and Pence. “On December 25, when the Vice President called the Defendant to wish him a Merry Christmas, the Defendant quickly turned the conversation to January 6 and his request that the Vice President reject electoral votes that day,” the document says. “The Vice President pushed back, telling the Defendant, as the Vice President already had in previous conversations, ‘You know I don’t think I have the authority to change the outcome.’” On Jan. 1, Trump eviscerated Pence for opposing a lawsuit that suggested he had the authority to reject the state election results, the indictment alleges. When Pence told him he did not have the constitutional authority to do so, Trump told him, “You’re too honest,” according to the document. It is historically rare for a former vice president to take on a president he served under, and the indictment document offered the latest example of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Pence’s White House run, which has met head winds so far including resistance among some Republican voters to his stance on Jan. 6. Trump is the clear polling leader in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, while Pence has struggled to build momentum, with surveys showing him well behind. Trump has faced other criminal indictments this year before the one released Tuesday. Those previous charges appeared to trigger a political rallying effect behind him in the GOP primary. Pence, meanwhile, has faced political backlash for the false claims Trump has long made about the 2020 election and Jan. 6, some allies recently acknowledged. “The reality is Mike had very high favorables until the president started misrepresenting the events of Jan. 6,” Pence adviser Marc Short recently told The Washington Post. “I think you see a direct correlation.” Pence criticizes Trump in launch of 2024 presidential bid 1:45 Former vice president Mike Pence said on June 7 that anyone who puts themselves above the U.S. Constitution should not be president. (Video: Reuters) Pence made Jan. 6 a key focus of his June campaign launch in Iowa, suggesting that Trump’s actions that day disqualified him from being president again. While he doesn’t typically mention Jan. 6 in his stump speeches on the campaign trail, he reiterated Tuesday that the latest indictment “serves as an important reminder: Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.” “The former president is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but with this indictment, his candidacy means more talk about January 6th and more distractions,” Pence said in a statement. “On January 6th, former President Trump demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution. I chose the Constitution and I always will.” Trump’s pressure campaign against Pence in the events leading up to Jan. 6 is prominently featured in the first of four criminal counts lodged against Trump in the indictment, “Conspiracy to defraud the United States.” The indictment document details at length the ways in which Trump attempted to pressure Pence to overturn the election results, pointing to specific tweets. In the lead-up to Jan. 6, Trump claimed on Twitter that “the Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.” The charging document alleges that when Trump and Pence met privately on Jan. 5, Pence continued to refuse to interfere with the certification of the 2020 election results. Trump later said in a statement, “The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act,” despite Pence’s refusal. The charging document alleges that Trump “turned to knowingly false statements aimed at pressuring the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election outcome and raised publicly the false expectation that the Vice President might do so,” including on the morning of Jan. 6. Many of the allegations in the document involving Pence also surfaced in a congressional panel’s investigation into the Jan. 6 riot. While several of Pence’s top aides testified to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack, Pence did not meet with the committee, citing the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch. He initially also resisted a subpoena from the team of special counsel Jack Smith, but in March, a judge ruled that Pence could shield from prosecutors only material that related directly to his actions as president of the Senate on Jan. 6. He subsequently turned over documents, presumably including the notes cited in the indictment, and he testified before the grand jury in April. Trump's third indictment, in 70 seconds 1:14 Former president Donald Trump was indicted on Aug. 1 on charges related to the lead-up the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. (Video: HyoJung Kim/The Washington Post, Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) Tuesday’s document also highlights excerpts from a speech Trump gave on Jan. 6, in which he singled out Pence and told the crowd that he hoped Pence was “going to do the right thing.” Pence had issued a statement early that afternoon saying he did not have “unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.” After rioters broke into the Capitol, Trump tweeted: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify.” The document details that one minute after the tweet, the Secret Service evacuated Pence to a secure location. It also depicts scenes from the Capitol that day, including members of the crowd chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.” Even after Congress went back into session after the attack, Eastman sought to pressure Pence’s legal counsel over the Electoral Count Act until the very end, the document says. At 11:44 p.m., according to the document, Eastman emailed the vice president’s legal counsel, stating: “I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation [of the ECA] and adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full forensic audit of the massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here.”

国民の意志（選挙結果）を否定して、権力の座に居座り続けるために、さまざまな違法的行為を行ったからです。

国民の意志（選挙結果）を否定して、権力の座に居座り続けるために、さまざまな違法的行為を行ったからです。 今回の起訴では次の４つの罪に問われています。 （１）大統領選挙の結果を収集し集計し認定する国家のプロセスを妨害するために、不正、詐欺、欺瞞を用いて国家を欺こうとした。(18 U.S.C Sec. 371) （２）２０２１年１月６日における連邦議会議事の進行を妨害した。 (18 U.S.C Sec. 1512(k)) （３）国民の投票の権利とその票が数えられる権利の否定を企てた。(18 U.S.C Sec. 1512(c)(2)) （４）選挙人投票の認証を妨害したり妨害を企てた。(18 U.S.C Sec. 241) The indictment includes four federal counts against Trump: Count one: conspiracy to defraud the United States, a violation of 18 U.S.C 371 Count two: conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512 (k) Count three: obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512 (c)(2),2 Count four: conspiracy against rights, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 If found guilty of the first count, Trump could be fined, imprisoned up to five years, or both. “If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor,” the federal statute states. A conviction on the second and third counts, which are related and fall under the same statute, are punishable by a fine and/or not more than 20 years in prison. And for the fourth count, the former president could be fined and/or imprisoned for a maximum of 10 years. five years, or both. “If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor,” the federal statute states. A conviction on the second and third counts, which are related and fall under the same statute, are punishable by a fine and/or not more than 20 years in prison. And for the fourth count, the former president could be fined and/or imprisoned for a maximum of 10 years. 最初の罪で有罪となれば、トランプ氏には罰金か最長５年の懲役、あるいはその両方が科せられる可能性がある。 「ただし、共謀の目的となっている犯罪が軽犯罪のみである場合、その共謀に対する刑罰は、当該軽犯罪に定められた最高刑を超えてはならない」と連邦法は規定している。 第 2 罪と第 3 罪は関連しており、同じ法律に該当するが、有罪判決を受けた場合には罰金または 20 年以下の懲役が科せられる。 そして4番目の罪では、元大統領は罰金または最長10年の懲役、あるいはその両方を科される可能性がある。