The headline in our local “newspaper” in exaggerated dark print read
“Trump Charged in Bid to Overturn Election.”
No surprise, the front page article was from the Washington Post. Also not surprising was that there was no mention in the entire “newspaper” of Devon Archer’s closed testimony to a House committee. Probably just a coincidence that these two things occurred on the same day! Hmmm!
What should be obvious to anybody who has a thinking brain is that all of these anti-Trump lawsuits are being coordinated to interfere with him running for President.
On that same day I read a very interesting take on how this federal lawsuit might just bite the anti-Trump leftists in the butt.
From Jeff Childers C&C:
This newest indictment includes four counts, for mainly two reasons: that President Trump “conspired to defraud the United States,” and that he “conspired to interfere with the certification of the election.”
First, nearly all the conduct described in the four counts is speech, and not just speech, but political speech. Political speech is the most protected kind of speech under the Constitution’s First Amendment. That probably won’t stop the Obama-appointed judge from letting the case survive an inevitable motion to dismiss, but my initial take is the counts can’t survive without rewriting the Constitution.
The situation is slightly more complicated because the DOJ framed the counts as “fraud,” which is a type of speech that isn’t protectable, but that raises its own problems. Even if Trump did lie, which is debatable, lying isn’t illegal, not without something more, like being under oath, or harming someone who relied on the lie.
So the DOJ must first prove Trump lied, and then it must marry the lies to something else that can except them from First Amendment protection.
Which brings us to the DOJ’s next big problem, which is an interesting twist. A central material issue in this shiny new indictment is the truth or falsity of whether significant 2020 election fraud occurred or not. After all, the DOJ is claiming that Trump “lied” about election fraud, thereby — ironically — committing a fraud of his own.
In other words, they’re saying Trump committed fraud by alleging fraud. You can’t make this stuff up.”
Childers, who is a practicing attorney, then continues that the DOJ’s major problem will be “discovery,” as in order to prove that Trump lied when he said there was fraud, the court will have to allow discovery into those instances where Trump is claiming there was fraud. Consequently in these instances the DOJ will be forced to prove that fraud did not occur, and that, sport’s fans, will be impossible as there was obvious election fraud in multiple states.
I am going to look forward to the DOJ trying to prove a negative because as we all know proving a negative is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Let the fun begin!
8/3/23