Counting the False: A Trump Campaign to Imply the Myths of The Rightful Candidates: On Election Night in 2020, When Congress Gathered on Capitol Hill

And now, Smith is pursuing Trump himself — along with six yet unnamed co-conspirators — alleging criminal schemes that reached the highest level of American government. If successful, can strip Trump of any pretense of good faith or good will. But make no mistake, the outcome of this case is uncertain for exactly the reason it’s so important: So very much of the case depends on Trump’s state of mind.

Following an investigation by special counsel Jack Smith, a grand jury voted to charge Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering and conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.

They claim the charges are politically motivated. They are attacking the special counsel. But they don’t necessarily refute specific allegations,” Ordoñez said. “They don’t argue Trump never incited those followers who attacked the Capitol. They never say that Trump didn’t seek a group of fake electors.”

On election night, when he claimed he was the rightful winner and that the election was being stolen through fraud, Trump refused to acknowledge the results.

In the weeks following the election, Trump’s campaign pursued dozens of lawsuits in states where Trump lost. Courts repeatedly rejected the Trump team’s election fraud claims.

He continued to push his false claims and raise money for them. According to the House Jan. 6 Committee, Trump raised nearly $250 million between Election Day and Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump, leaning on legal theories proposed by outside attorney John Eastman, wanted Pence to refuse to count certain Electoral College votes — a theory that Pence rejected as unconstitutional.

Eastman is currently fighting to retain his law license. The State Bar of California opened a case against him for allegedly pushing false voter fraud accusations during the 2020 election.

Trump’s advisers were working on a ruse that would allow Republican officials in states where Biden had been elected to put forward alternate slates of electors.

But as Congress was meeting on Capitol Hill, Trump was hosting a rally down by the White House. In a long, rambling speech, he repeated his claims of election fraud and told the crowd to “fight like hell” and march to Congress.

On that day, Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, injuring scores of law enforcement officers, forcing a panicked evacuation of the nation’s political leaders and threatening the peaceful transfer of power after Trump lost the 2020 presidential election.

The Justice Department launched a nationwide investigation to find and hold those who broke into the Capitol accountable. So far, more than 1,000 people have been arrested in connection with the attack.

Even before the indictment was unsealed, Trump and his allies were actively working to control the narrative, calling this a sham indictment and accusing the Biden administration of trying to interfere with the 2024 election.

The criminal charges against former President Donald Trump related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election are some of the most serious allegations facing him, one law professor told NPR.

Former President Donald Trump was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on four counts related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, according to court documents.

Investigating the 2020 Election Corruptcy in Washington D.C., Appeals to the Supreme Court of Criminal Jurisprudence

The AP wrote, “Chutkan, a former assistant public defender who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, has consistently taken the hardest line against Jan. 6 defendants of any judge serving on Washington’s federal trial court, which is handling the more than 800 cases brought so far in the largest prosecution in Justice Department history.”

According to The Associated Press, Chutkan stood out for her tough punishment for Jan. 6 rioters. In at least seven cases examined by the AP, Chutkan imposed harsher penalties than what federal prosecutors sought for those rioters.

In this case, Trump is also facing a serious Washington, D.C., federal judge with years of experience, Tobias said. The case was assigned to Judge Chutkan.

Investigations into election interference are ongoing elsewhere, as well. Arizona’s Democratic attorney general is investigating the 2020 fake electors there, and a Georgia prosecutor is set to soon announce her long-awaited charging decisions in an investigation into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election there.

Six people are labeled as co-conspirators in the indictment. The individual numbers are given but they are not identified by name in the court document.

Tobias noted that prosecutors used this charge especially during the Civil Rights era to prosecute those who intimidated and terrorized Black voters at that time as well.

The Enforcement Act, passed between 1868 and 1870 and the basis of federal activism in prosecuting corruption of the franchise, was repealed in the 1890s according to the Justice Department.

The Indictment of Donald Trump in the January 6, 2020, Campaign for the Presidency of the House of Representatives, John Eastman, and Sidney Powell

The Justice Department is conducting a lengthy and complex investigation into the events of January 6, 2021.

DePerno has been charged with undue possession of a voting machine, willfully damaging a voting machine and conspiracy, according to the special prosecutor investigating the case.

And it works. In March, Trump had just 42% of the vote in Republican polling, according to a RealClearPolitics average. His numbers went to 50% a day after he was charged in a deal with an adult film actress.

Trump conditioned his followers to support him after two impeachments and 3 indictments, so they’re more likely to support him now that he has scandals and allegations against him.

But as NPR White House correspondent Franco Ordoñez pointed out in an interview with All Things Considered, the attacks from Trump and his supporters are focusing on the process — not so much the substance.

And their descriptions line up with that of people who could be of interest to investigators, such as former Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and Sidney Powell, and former DOJ attorney Jeffrey Clark.

Attorneys helped boost election fraud claims. Co-conspirator 3 was an attorney who privately acknowledged that the election fraud claims were crazy. Another, co-conspirator 4, was a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and “attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures.”

This indictment only charges Trump, so he’s the only person in it. There are some hints in the court document for the future of other people potentially facing charges.

But the indictment does more: It skillfully avoids breathing air into a Trump claim of selective prosecution. To not bring this case against Mr. Trump was an act of non prosecution. Over 300 people were charged with obstructing the congressional proceedings after the attack on the Capitol. In this indictment, the special counsel Jack Smith wisely brings that same charge, but now against the alleged leader of the effort to thwart the transfer of power.

Despite being summoned to court, Donald Trump is the top Republican in the race. We might hear about his trial as he attempts to get the White House if he pleads not guilty.

Although the Jan. 6 select committee referred Mr. Trump for investigation for inciting an insurrection, Mr. Smith wisely demurred. The Justice Department has not charged that offense in any other case involving the attack on the Capitol, and insurrection has not been charged since the 19th century. Since no one else has been charged with any crime related to January 6, it would probably be an issue. And since the penalty for the insurrection offense is that the defendant would not be eligible to hold federal office, it would have fueled a claim of weaponizing the Justice Department to defeat a political rival.

Well, political speech covers even information that turns out not to be true. It’s protected by free speech. But at the bottom, the government will never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as I said, that President Trump did not believe in the righteousness of his cause.

Exactly. And free speech encompasses political advocacy, which often involves acting on that free speech. So, for example, if I were to take a position that I believe or I don’t believe, that young men should register for service, there’s a Supreme Court case right on point that says I’m entitled to do that. Even though I am advocating a certain action or inaction, it’s still protected by the First Amendment.

So prosecutors are saying that these are criminal acts, but you’re making the argument that former President Trump was exercising his constitutionally protected right to free speech. Was that the case you were going to make?

Well, it’s not a big surprise. When you look at this indictment, it doesn’t really say much other than President Trump was exercising his right to talk about the issues and advocate politically for his belief that the election was stolen and was improperly run. Counsel gave advice on a lot of legal and constitutional issues. So, it’s a very straightforward defense that he had every right to advocate for a position that he believed in and his supporters believed in. And this is the first time in the history of the United States where a sitting administration is criminalizing speech against a prior administration. It’s really quite unprecedented and it really will politicize the criminal justice system, which is terrible to see.

Well, it depends on what information is provided. This indictment literally lists election issues in seven states. So we’ll be litigating a case of unprecedented magnitude. I’ve been involved in large white collar cases for many years, over 40 years of practicing law, this is going to be one of the biggest cases in the history of the United States. The trial could take anywhere from six months to nine months. So to expect that counsel is going to get ready in 90 days for a case like this is quite absurd.

It’s really up to the court. And also, it depends on Secret Service and the United States marshals. We have no objection to appearing in court in the way that it’s going to roll out.

Will Jack Smith have the right to a speedy trial in the case of a Democratic high-profile trial? An attorney for Donald J. Lauro

Well, we’re looking for a more diverse area that has a more balanced political jury pool. The country is very, very divided politically right now, and this indictment is very divisive. It goes to issues of free speech and political activity. We want the jury to be more balanced. West Virginia was more split than the state as a whole. And we’re hoping for a jury that doesn’t come with any implicit or explicit bias or prejudice. So it makes sense to go to a place like West Virginia.

The special counsel, Jack Smith, has said this will be a speedy trial. Do you want the case to go to trial before the election?

The president will comply with the summons and show up to the court, which is a voluntary way to get the party to show up.

He told NPR that this is going to be one of the biggest cases in the history of the United States, and that he wants sufficient time to study the documents, interview witnesses and look at the evidence.

John Lauro, one of Donald Trump’s lawyers, said that the right to a quick trial belonged to defendants rather than the government.