Last week, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith indicted Donald Trump, in Washington, D.C., for the alleged crimes of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, and Obstruction of, and Attempt to Obstruct, an Official Proceeding. The indictment, the third against former President Trump this year, alleges that Trump asserted claims of election fraud that he knew to be false, as a pretext to pressure selected state governments to refuse to certify electors, or to promote his own electors. The indictment further alleges that President Trump conspired to pressure Vice President Pence either to recognize Trump electors or to refer back to the states which electors to recognize. The purported legal basis for this strategy was set forth in a two-page memorandum authored by a law professor and advisor to President Trump, John Eastman, named by the indictment as a co-conspirator. That memo argued that merely disputing the electors would be sufficient to affect the election because: (1) without the disputed electors, Trump would have a majority of the remainder, or (2) if he needed a majority of all electors, the failure of both candidates to obtain a majority would throw the election to the House.
Share this post
Ghosts of the Hayes-Tilden Election of 1876
Share this post
Last week, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith indicted Donald Trump, in Washington, D.C., for the alleged crimes of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, and Obstruction of, and Attempt to Obstruct, an Official Proceeding. The indictment, the third against former President Trump this year, alleges that Trump asserted claims of election fraud that he knew to be false, as a pretext to pressure selected state governments to refuse to certify electors, or to promote his own electors. The indictment further alleges that President Trump conspired to pressure Vice President Pence either to recognize Trump electors or to refer back to the states which electors to recognize. The purported legal basis for this strategy was set forth in a two-page memorandum authored by a law professor and advisor to President Trump, John Eastman, named by the indictment as a co-conspirator. That memo argued that merely disputing the electors would be sufficient to affect the election because: (1) without the disputed electors, Trump would have a majority of the remainder, or (2) if he needed a majority of all electors, the failure of both candidates to obtain a majority would throw the election to the House.