The Indictment of Donald J Trump for Conspiracy to Defraud, and Obstruct an Official Proceeding, and Against Rights

Points in the indictment of activities that were legal:

• ·        He ran for reelection in 2020 and lost.
• ·        He disputed the election results, as is his right.
• ·        He made false claims about the election process; he knew the claims were false; he filed charges and launched investigations to support his claims; he lost those efforts to prove outcome-determinative fraud; all of which is within his rights.

Points in the indictment of activities that were illegal:

• ·        He conspired to defraud the United States using dishonest means in an attempt to obstruct and defeat a lawful government process of collecting, counting, and certifying the presidential election.
• ·        He conspired with others to obstruct the lawful January 6 congressional proceeding to certify the election results.
• ·        He conspired to disenfranchise the rights of others to legally vote.

All of this was in furtherance of Trump’s efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election.  The document goes on to list six unnamed coconspirators who worked with the defendant to overturn the election.   One part in this process involved the submission of fraudulent slates of electors from seven states. 

These were not “backup” electors where a disputed count existed in a key state, but were fake electors sent to disrupt the legitimate proceedings sent from states where the results were not in dispute.  All legal election challenges in these states had failed.  While these efforts ultimately failed, the effort to defraud the United States was illegal.

There was also an effort to use the power of the Justice Department to conduct sham election investigations in furtherance of the crime of overturning the election results.  They further tried to enlist the Vice President in their efforts to alter the legitimate results.

The document goes on to explain how, when, and why the defendant knew that he had lost the election and that he knew that there was no evidence or avenue for proving outcome-determinative fraud.  Eight paragraphs of explanation are provided in detailed list form on this point.

They then provide six different examples of wild unfounded speculations created from whole cloth by the defendant and his coconspirators designed to sway public opinion and to solicit others to act in furtherance of their crimes.  References to dead voters, non-existent voters, suspicious vote dumping, double voting, non-citizen voting, and voting machine manipulation were made by the defendant with the full knowledge that these claims were false.

By page ten of the indictment, a state-by-state analysis is given listing the activities that assisted in the fraud being committed.  An employee of the defendant, Co-Conspirator 1, made a claim to the Arizona House Speaker where he charged that non-citizens, non-residents, and dead people had voted in their election.  When asked for proof the employee had to admit he had no such evidence.  His actual comment was, "We don't have the evidence, but we have lots of theories."  Even with that admission, he still tried to elicit the help of that official to select a phony slate of electors that would support the Defendant which would be contrary to the actual certified outcome of the election in Arizona.

It is an important distinction to be made here that, while the First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech, even speech that is knowingly untrue, it provides no such protection for speech that is used to commit a crime.  In fact, virtually all frauds and conspiracies begin and are dependent upon speech and verbal communication.  None of the speech referenced in the actual charges in the indictment is protected by the First Amendment.  It is part and parcel of the crime being committed.

The next section with a Georgia reference identifies specifics surrounding the falsified claim of voter fraud perpetrated by manipulation of election machines and election software.  There was no evidence to support these claims, they were but theories.  There was also no foundation for the claim that 10,000 dead people voted while diligent research had found just 2 such instances.  A senior campaign advisor to the Defendant wrote, "When our research and campaign legal team can't back up any of the claims made by our Elite Strike Force Legal Team, you can see why we're 0-32 on our cases. I'll obviously hustle to help on all fronts, but it's tough to own any of this when it's all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership."

In item 31 (f), of the indictment under the Georgia heading, the phone recording from the Defendant to the Georgia Secretary of State is referenced where the Defendant asks him to “find 11,780 votes.”  This activity is also part of a separate action by state officials against the Defendant.

The document goes on to describe similar activities, all of which had already been investigated and found to be without merit in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  While the charges had no merit and lacked evidence the goal was to muddy the waters with claims of fraud to then disenfranchise the voters in those states with a false slate of electors that would overturn the actual results for key states.

In Michigan, the Senate Majority Leader was sent a text message from the Defendant’s lawyer (Co-Conspirator 1) that stated, "So I need you to pass a joint resolution from the Michigan legislature that states that, * the election is in dispute, * there's an ongoing investigation by the Legislature, and * the Electors sent by Governor Whitmer are not the official Electors of the State of Michigan and do not fall within the Safe Harbor deadline of Dec 8 under Michigan law."

The subsequent public statement from the Michigan House Speaker is telling.  He states in part that, “We've diligently examined these reports of fraud to the best of our ability..., I fought hard for President Trump. Nobody wanted him to win more than me.  I think he's done an incredible job.  But I love our republic, too. I can't fathom risking our norms, traditions, and institutions to pass a resolution retroactively changing the electors for Trump, simply because some think there may have been enough widespread fraud to give him the win. That's unprecedented for good reason. And that's why there is not enough support in the House to cast a new slate of electors. I fear we'd lose our country forever. This truly would bring mutually assured destruction for every future election in regard to the Electoral College. And I can't stand for that.  I won't.”

Time after time the Defendant and his Co-Conspirators were rejected by Republican leaders in the various states who abhorred the thought of overturning the popular vote so as to appoint a slate of electors who would then vote for the Defendant.  Repeated claims by the Defendant that 205,000 more votes in Pennslyvania were counted than there were actual voters, were wholly unfounded and without any basis in reality.

In Wisconsin, the Defendant paid for a recount that only managed to increase the margin of defeat.  The Defendant’s challenge of the election was heard and rejected by the state Supreme Court.  The Wisconsin Governor accordingly certified the election.  At that point the Defendant decided to take the fate of the Wisconsin election into his own hands.  The plot was then expanded to include Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania.  In those seven states the Defendant would fraudulently identify false slates of electors with phony certifications to send to Washington to name the Defendant the winner in those states.

A ”Wisconsin Memo” was drafted that was ultimately used as the basis for similar documents in the other states, designed to subvert the federal government function by stopping Biden electors’ votes from being counted and certified.  While the original Wisconsin Memo was written on the premise that the alternate slate of electors was being sent to “preserve” the rights of Wisconsin voters, the new memo, the new memo for the remaining “contested” states were designed to establish a fake controversy to derail the certification process that would establish Biden as the new president-elect.

The new fraudulent electors were given special instructions on how they could mimic the legitimate electors in those six states.  This would be necessary because the fraudulent electors wouldn’t have access to the legitimate state process or official resources.  They elicited the help of the RNC Chairwoman to gather electors for those states.  She was told these electors would only be used if the “contested” elections in those states were litigated successfully.

Attorney’s in each of the states was selected who could assist with the process.  The Arizona attorney recounted the conversation with the Defendants Co-Conspirator 5.  The idea was to have the electors send in their votes, even though the votes would be illegal under federal law as they hadn’t been signed by the governors of the respective states, so as to precipitate a fight in Congress on January 6^th.  The wild idea was that Congress is not bound by federal law because they make laws.  They believed this could be successful as they would be sent to the Defendant’s Vice President and he could get “someone” to object to the actual votes being counted and the fake votes substituted.

In Arizona, it was planned that the Arizona lawyer would file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court to falsely claim that litigation was pending to provide cover for the fake electors.  This would be necessary because two participants in the Arizona part of the plot feared their actions would “appear treasonous” if there was no pending court proceeding.

In Pennsylvania fears that they were doing something illegal resulted in assurances from Rudy, I mean Co-Conspirator 1, that the signed certificates would only be used if litigation was successful.  Co-Conspirator 6 then circulated conditional language to that effect, but only for Pennsylvania.  The Defendant feared that if the other states heard about the conditional language they too might want similar language and “it could snowball.”

With all the confusion, the Defendant asked for an update.  In a text message from the Deputy Campaign Manager responded, "Here's the thing the way this has morphed it's a crazy play so I don't know who wants to put their name on it."  A senior Advisor wrote, “Certifying illegal votes.”  Participants in the group text then refused to put their names on it because none could “stand by it.”

On December 14, 2020, the legitimate electors in all 50 states and the District of Columbia cast their ballots for president.  The result, 236 votes for the Defendant and 306 for Biden.  On this same day, at the direction of the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1, convened a sham proceeding in the seven targeted states to cast their fraudulent votes.  In some states, the fraudulent electors attempted to gain access to state capitol buildings to satisfy legal requirements but were denied access.  In any case, the fraudulent votes from the fake electors in the targeted states were mailed to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and others.  These votes were subsequently used to target the government function in the legitimate election process contrary to promises made that this would not be how they would be used.

In late December, the Defendant attempted to have the Acting Attorney General sign a letter outlining claims of election fraud in the selected states.  When the Acting Attorney General told the Defendant that the Justice Department could not and would not change the outcome of the election, the Defendant responded, "Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen."

On December 28, 2020, a Justice Department letter was drafted by Co-Conspirator 4 claiming election fraud in Georgia, and this letter was duplicated with appropriate changes to the other targeted states.  The letter requested that the states convene a special legislative session so they could choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.

The Acting Deputy Attorney General promptly responded to Co-Conspirator 4 by email and told him that his proposed letter was false, writing, "Despite dramatic claims to the contrary, we have not seen the type of fraud that calls into question the reported (and certified) results of the election."  Shortly after this exchange, Co-Conspirator 4 was directed to not have unauthorized contact with the White House.

That admonition was ignored and Co-Defendant 4 and on January 3, he met with the Defendant who made him the new Acting Attorney General.  On that same day, the newly minted Acting Attorney General met with Deputy White House Counsel and reiterated that there was no outcome-determinative fraud and that if the Defendant remained in the White House beyond January 20^th, there would be “riots in every major city in the United States.”  Co-Conspirator 4 responded with, “Well, that’s why there is an Insurrection Act.

At this point the Acting Attorney General has not been officially fired, Co-Conspirator 4 thinks he is the Acting Attorney General and there is a pending national security briefing scheduled that includes the Defendant.  That meeting happens where they also discuss Co-Conspirator 4’s (aka Acting Attorney General???) plans to investigate election fraud, and the current/former/who knows Acting Attorney General questions his job position.  It is then related to the Defendant that the entire Justice Department is on record that they will resign if Co-Conspirator 4 is appointed its new head.  The Defendant relents and un-promotes Co-Conspirator 4.

With January 6^th fast approaching the Defendant tries to enlist his VP who has a ceremonial role in the certification process in Congress.  It is here that the Defendant tries to convince the VP to accept the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than count them.  Not wanting to join the coup and knowing, like the defendant, that the claims of voter fraud and election manipulation are false, the VP declines to alter or otherwise agree to throw the country into chaos.

The Defendant, on December 19, 2020, using the widespread anger he had fomented within his supporters, tweeted, "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"  In weeks that followed, the Defendant continued to disseminate information that he knew to be false to his followers to get them to rally in Washington and disrupt the ceremonial proceedings that would formalize the election of Joseph Biden. 

While the Defendant and his co-conspirators knew that the Vice President had no such power as they advocated, they continued in their efforts to get the VP to override the official votes and “make the determination on his own.”  Co-Conspirator 2, who had previously acknowledged in writing that such an action would be in violation of the Constitution and the ECA (Electoral Count Act).  On January 1, 2021, the Defendant called the VP and berated him for not supporting his lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that, at the certification, the VP would have the authority to invalidate the election results.  When the VP rightly informed the Defendant that this would be unconstitutional, the Defendant told the VP, “You’re too honest.”

The Defendant continued in his efforts to disrupt the constitutional process of certifying the election when he tweeted, "The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!"  Calling this a “protest” conveyed the Defendant’s dissatisfaction with the results of the validated election.  The conspiracy to overthrow the valid election results continued with Co-Conspirator 2 (CC2) circulating a memorandum with a plan calling on the VP to send the elector slates back to the states for a final determination as to which slate of electors to count.

On January 4, 2021, the Defendant, CC2, the VP, the VP’s Chief of Staff, and the VP’s Counsel met to once again convince the VP of widespread election fraud that would require him to reject Biden’s legitimate electoral votes.  The White House Counsel was not invited as he had already weighed in on the fact that the claims of outcome-determinative election fraud were false.  The Defendant, as recorded in contemporaneous notes taken by the VP from the meeting, claimed that he, “Bottom line-won every state by 100,000s of votes” and “We won every state.”

During this meeting, the VP questioned CC2 on whether the proposal was defensible.  The response was that it had never been tested before.  The VP turned to the Defendant and said, “Did you hear that?  Even your own counsel is not saying I have that authority.”  The Defendant responded, "That's okay, I prefer the other suggestion" of the Vice President rejecting the electors unilaterally.

Also on January 4^th, CC2 acknowledged to the Defendant’s Senior Advisor that no court would support his proposal.  The Defendant’s Senior Advisor then told CC2, “You’re going to cause riots in the streets.”  CC2 responded that there had previously been points in the nation's history where violence was necessary to protect the republic. After that conversation, the Senior Advisor notified the Defendant that Co-Conspirator 2 had conceded that his plan was "not going to work."

The following day, January 5^th, the Defendant had the VP’s Chief of Staff and Counsel meet with CC2 so they could convince the VP to unilaterally reject the electors from the targeted states.  CC2 admitted that, should this ever be subject to judicial review, the proposal would be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court.  The VP’s Counsel told CC2 that following this proposal would be disastrous and the election might be “decided in the streets.”

Even knowing that the VP was not on board with his plan, the Defendant continued with his efforts to use his supporters to disrupt the certification process and he falsely claimed that the VP had the authority to reverse the election outcome.  That same day, the Defendant tweeted again that the VP had the authority to reject the election results.  In a second tweet at 5:05 p.m. the Defendant tweeted, "Washington is being inundated with people who don't want to see an election victory stolen .... Our Country has had enough, they won't take it anymore! We hear you (and love you) from the Oval Office."

Later on January 5^th the Defendant met with the VP and told him he would have to publicly criticize him.  Fearing for his safety, the VP alerted his Secret Service detail.  When the crowds began gathering and could be heard from the White House, the Defendant told all within earshot that the crowd was going to be angry.  The Defendant, through his campaign office, issued a public statement that he knew was a lie: "The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act."  This would mean that, when the VP did as he said he would, it would look like a betrayal.

On January 6^th, the Defendant continued fomenting his followers with false information.  He put the burden wholly on the VP upon whom the Defendant again falsely claimed had the power to overturn the election.  If the VP would only do this one little thing, “WE WIN.”

The Defendant also had a Senator’s office attempt to deliver certificates for alternate slates of electors for Michigan and Wisconsin to the VP’s office claiming that the archivist didn’t receive them.  The VP’s office rejected them.  At 11:15 a.m. the Defendant made a final plea to the VP to reject Biden’s legitimate electoral votes.  When the VP again refused, the Defendant changed his planned public remarks to be issued on the Ellipse and reinserted the language about the VP’s authority to change the election outcome.  Advisors had previously convinced him to remove those remarks as they were knowingly a lie.  They would become part of what has been referred to as The Big Lie.

At the Ellipse, CC1, CC2, and the Defendant, lied to all present continuing to claim election fraud and urging the VP to overturn the election results.  CC1 called for the crowd to initiate, “trial by combat.”  CC2 continued with similar rhetoric as did the Defendant.  The Defendant lied to the crowd when he stated that the Pennsylvania legislature wanted “to recertify the votes.”  The only way this can happen is if Mike Pence sends them back.  The crowd chanted, “Send it back.”  The Defendant further said that regular rules no longer applied, “And fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it?”  When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules."

The Defendant finally told the crowd at the Ellipse, “We fight, We fight like Hell, And if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”  The crowd was then told to march on the Capitol to “take back our country.”  Thousands then marched toward the Capitol.

We all know what happened next.  We have seen it all repeatedly on video tape from that assault and heard about it firsthand in testimony.  The Defendant also saw and heard what was happening.  He let it continue hoping it would save his presidency.  His family and advisors asked him to call it off.  He started it and he alone could end it.  Through a series of tweets and finally a Twitter video message from the White House Rose Garden, he finally told his rioters that even though “we had an election that was stolen from us,” they should leave the Capitol.

The Defendant, after his video tweet, joined others in the outer Oval Office and said while watching the video of the attack on television, “See, this is what happens when they try to steal an election.  This is what happens.”  At 6:01 p.m., the Defendant tweeted, "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"

It wasn’t over for the Defendant.  He  and CC1 still tried to call Senators and Representatives to get them to delay the certification.  On one such call the voicemail message left for one Senator said, "We need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you. And I know they're reconvening at eight tonight but the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow-ideally until the end of tomorrow."

At 7:01 p.m. the White House Counsel called the Defendant and asked him to withdraw his objections to allow the certification.  He refused.

At 3:41 a.m. on January 7, as President of the Senate, the Vice President announced the certified results of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Biden.

All of the above was contained under the heading, Count One of the indictment, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.  It described in detail the Conspiracy as charged.  This description took 42 pages of the 45 total in the indictment.

Count Two of the indictment is labeled, Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding and incorporated all of the above by reference.  The same is true of Count Three, Obstruction of, and Attempt to Obstruct, an Official Proceeding.  These three counts reference differing statutes covering the described events.

Count Four was slightly different in that it was Conspiracy Against Rights in that the Defendant and his Co-Conspirators and others, did injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States-that is, the right to vote, and to have one's vote counted.  Count Four falls on page 45, the last page that bears the signature of Jack Smith, Special Counsel, United States Department of Justice.