34 Comments

Alan you are 100% correct!

Expand full comment

The fake electors were fake, and therefore fraud, and therefore Trump is guilty.

Expand full comment

The proper name is alternate Electors, and the action of certifying their votes for Congress on Jan 6 is necessary when an election is still in question on December 14. Ask Al Gore, who assembled them. Ask JFK who did the same. Ask many democrats on Jan 6 who called for them over the decades. Ask Hayes(?) from 1876. It is legal for the purpose of a smooth transition.

The fact that Trump and others were assembling them in December shows that they believed her had won the votes, and their hearings with the state legislatures that Marc Elias had failed to visit would change the outcome.

Expand full comment

"I am particularly concerned about the impact this indictment could have on the willingness of lawyers to represent him or other controversial politicians"

Mr. Derschowitz, you are too smart to not realize... that is precisely the point. That's what the ABA proceedings against Trump lawyers are about. That's what the 65 Project is about. The express goal is to render certain political opinions too toxic for any skilled lawyer to defend, and therefore make those opinions suppressible since those articulating them will be unable to secure counsel.

Expand full comment

I am concerned too. The right to counsel is the right of all citizens, and precious. Billionaires don’t use Public Defenders, either.

Expand full comment

Numerous members of the Democratic Party have contested elections. What is wrong with having your own slate of electors? Thanks to that great patriot, Elon Musk, we know that the Presidential election was stolen by the Deep State. Maybe someone can explain why 9) FBI members were assigned as a clearing house for all federal employees who hated President Trump had their opinions placed on Twitter and all conservation voices supported President Trump was su[[ressed. I would like to think these FBI agents would have been off doing their real jobs, like doing something about child pornography, which was rampant on the Internet. The same story applies to Facebook.

Expand full comment

This is ridiculous. They're making up charges. They're spending millions of dollars. They're making Trump spend millions of dollars on bogus charges and you don't even seem that upset. What if they come after you? You might be even able to take care of it. But what if they come after me? This is the most tragic violation of everything that's right. And you call yourself civil liberties. Why aren't you going berserk? Where is the ACLU? You just act normal like this is normal. I just feel you're a bunch of commie libs who don't care that our country's going to hell.

Expand full comment

So you hate on American Law too. Do you even understand how American Law works and why we turn to it when we need to find the truth?

Expand full comment

Hate law????? WTF are you talking about???? This is SOVIET justice. They took Trump, wiretapped him, searched everything he ever did, searched every single law from hundreds of years ago, then just made up shit, all to take down a political opponent. You can't be serious. Biden has taken MILLIONS of foreign bribes. His son works for FOREIGN countries and hasn't registered. These are CLEAR crimes that doesn't even require research. As for the truth, are you saying that all election deniers are lying, or just Trump??? Let me see, Jimmy Carter said Donald Trump was an illegitimate Presidency, so did Hillary, house Democrats tried to overthrow the DJT election, even tried to get the Senate to overturn. Crowds fought police and burned federal buildings back then. Then let's see Al Gore claimed his election was illegitimate and tried really hard to overturn it. John Kerry toured the country trying to get his election overturned. Stacy Abrams still tours Georgia saying she won her election. But ONLY Trump is indicted? When the government spokesmen say the jab is safe and effective when THEY KNEW beyond a doubt that it wasn't, were they indicted? If you think it's okay to take a person and try and try and try and try to find a crime to throw him in jail, try several cases in different venues just hoping the something will stick someplace. If you think that's okay, then I hope one day they go after you so you get a taste of your own medication. You are also a commie lib who doesn't care about the constitution. The USSR had a wonderful constitution. The leaders just ignored it, just like the Biden regime and the Deep State ignores it. The ACLU should just be disbanded. And I pray that one day in the future that another side takes power and puts all of you in jail just like you are trying to do to others.

Expand full comment

Well said Mike. Selective prosecution in Trump’s case is so obvious yet too many people don’t see it. Also, every time Congress or others reveal a substantial allegation against Joe Biden (with evidence), Joe Biden, DOJ and Jack Smith come up with a new indictment against Trump just days later. With charges that do appear to be made up but probably are just extended and interpreted wrongly to apply to President Trump. It’s so obviously ridiculous that it’s scary.

Expand full comment

Soviet Justice. Soviets died in 1990. Read the indictments. Its not about what he said its about what he did. It's the KISS method of law. ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS. No wiretaps, no made up shit just what he did THAT BROKE THE LAW. Biden was Vice President and his son Hunter is not and was not part of the USA Government. Being Butt Hurt about Trump does not make Biden guilty of anything. Ya need some evidence kemosabe. Gore and Nixon in 1960 had grounds to contest the election. We are talking a close election. Trump lost BIGLY! But both for the good of the Country CONCEDED. Something that your numbskull could not grasp and that would have kept him out of the court system. Instead he will be going down really hard as he has to answer for Nixon's sins as well as his own. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Expand full comment

Very excellent article.

Expand full comment

Wasn't it illegal to submit the fake slates of electors even if there actually had been fraud in the election? As of Dec. 14, when the state slates were certified, the election, and all possible legal challenges were over, no?

Expand full comment

This article has a lot of background on precisely this point:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-fake-electors-scheme-corrupt-plan-indictment-101936714

ABC News is at least mildly unfriendly to Trump, but that article makes it clear that it's not nearly as cut and dried as you claim. Who made the decision to send the fake elector certificates is, at best, nebulous. (Much like who buys Hunter Biden's artwork is, at best, nebulous.) It stinks in both cases, but that doesn't make either criminal, and as we've seen from recent investigations into the Biden financial payments, proving that "the big guy" (in either case) orchestrated the whole thing is pretty tough.

Expand full comment

Wait, in Right-Wing Speak, "fake" doesn't really mean like, fake? Read the indictment. It may be a little tricky to prove, but the legal issues could not be more clear. Fake. fraud, deceit. Pick your word. The elector conspiracy was criminal through and through.

Expand full comment

"it may be tricky to prove"

But that's what matters. If you can't prove it, it means nothing. Now Trump appears to be so foolish enough he may well have left a paper trail and voicemail messages that will help get inside his head. But Alan's right, absent that, proving this will be near impossible.

The only thing worse than putting the leading opposition candidate on trial during an election... is putting the leading opposition candidate on trial through an election and then losing. The Right will justifiably want scalps if that happens.

Expand full comment

Let me slow this down for you: Read...the...indictment. Assume that the Special Counsel has unassailable proof of every allegation in the document, since there isn't the slightest chance it would be there without that proof. By tricky, I meant slightly complicated, not as simple as "the defendant fired the gun, and the victim suffered a sucking chest wound." But they'll prove it. Make no mistake.

Expand full comment

I have, Michael. And it sounds pretty nebulous to me and lots of other people much smarter than me, including Alan. I don't know why you're pretending this is simple.

"Assume that the Special Counsel has unassailable proof of every allegation in the document, since there isn't the slightest chance it would be there without that proof. "

The number of people indicted but found not guilty annually would seem to belie this claim.

Jack Smith already had a previous high-profile, political prosecution overturned (9-0!) by SCOTUS. Perhaps he learned his lesson about over-reaching, perhaps not. We shall see.

Expand full comment

You're comparing apples and ocean liners.

Expand full comment

January 6 was the day the Congress certifies.

Expand full comment

He is being tried for what he did. Not what he said. I wonder what Trump has on you to keep you supporting him. Anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein?

Expand full comment

Did?

Expand full comment

Danielt3, I won't insult your intelligence by accepting that you believe what you just wrote.

Expand full comment

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Of course it sounds like a partisan indictment but the key will be the trial and what kind of testimony will be given by Trumps closest advisors to determine if he indeed believed the election to be fair and valid. The Classified documents passes the Nixon test but how can you create a Nixon test when he was never indicted? Unfortunately for Trump he will be the test. And the reason is not a Partisan one. How do we defend ourselves when a leader is rotten to the core. The Constitution does not have safeguards against that. We need the rule of law to protect our Nation and POTUS

Expand full comment

Best comment here.

Expand full comment

We hope to get the candidate we vote for. That’s our system unless the President commits a high crime or misdemeanor that the Senate convicts him of.

All the power of the Executive branch is vested in him/ her so there is nothing else to rely on.

Expand full comment

President Biden should walk up to the podium and pardon Trump on all charges...tell the world that he’s confident that he can beat Trump at the polls...but....you guys fill in the rest.

Expand full comment

Why should the election matter in this trial? Trump committed fraud by submitting fake electors, and appears not to have any defense to that charge whatsoever.

Expand full comment

It’s not a crime. No defense necessary. Please see my earlier comment before replying.

Expand full comment

We did that with Nixon. Now we have a Trump. Any questions.

Expand full comment

Assume Trump was right about the (non-existent) election fraud. It was still illegal to use fake electors because that's like fraud and stuff like that. I don't get to use fraud to take money out of the bank, even if I do have an account.

Expand full comment

The so-called “fake” electors were actually legitimate alternate electors and they had every right to be heard. I don’t know exactly what they did to make them “fraudulent” or “illegitimate”, but hopefully that will be explained by the indictment honestly.

Expand full comment
Aug 3, 2023·edited Aug 3, 2023

The better question is what could have made them legitimate, since not one of them was ever certified by their legislatures. which is the legal requirement in each state. Note the root of the words legitimate and legal -- "leg" -- LAW in latin. The weren't even close. They were purely fraudulent from the word go.

Expand full comment

Not really. Many of these fake electors have been indicted. Alternates mean they work if the regular elector is sick or for some reason can't perform his duty. Fake electors are ones to overturn American Votes.

Expand full comment