Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance delivered a primer on how to read the latest indictment of former President Donald Trump — this time on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Vance notes the challenge encountered by prosecutors is in trying to streamline the charges, and make them “airtight,” and she assesses the work of Special Counsel Jack Smith‘s team as “artful” in its focus and presentation.
One of the key elements of Trump’s pre-indictment defense against charges he incited the riots on January 6, as well as his defense against his dubious questioning of the authenticity of vote counts, has been his right to free speech under the First Amendment.
(Trump and team, anticipating these charges, have been out in front of them selling the notion that the “weaponized DOJ” is trying not merely to charge him but to “censor” him.)
Vance says Smith’s indictment wisely separates the wheat (alleged crimes) from the chaff (bluster), removing the issue of Trump’s exercise of free speech from the charges and hamstringing that particular defense — at least from a legal standpoint.
Vance writes that the indictment “clarifies that this isn’t about going after Trump for his speech, which is arguably (at least in his view) protected by the First Amendment. It’s about his conduct, illegal conduct.”
[NOTE: The word “conduct” may sound familiar — it’s the same word GOP presidential challenger Chris Christie, also a former federal prosecutor, frequently uses to slam Trump.]
The events around the White House from election night forward are a stain on our country’s history & a disgrace to the people who participated. This disgrace falls the most on Donald Trump. He swore an oath to the Constitution, violated his oath & brought shame to his presidency.
— Chris Christie (@GovChristie) August 2, 2023
Vance says the indictment “sets up some parameters,” one of which is, critically, that “Trump could legally lie about the election and say it was tainted by fraud.”
“[But] the DOJ draws the line,” Vance writes, “and says that what [Trump] can’t do is pursue ‘unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.’” Here again, the indictment focus is on conduct — “unlawful means” — not speech.
That’s not to say the indictment fails to make the case that Trump knew his election claims were lies — in one section the indictment “the government sets forth its evidence that Trump knew the fraud claims he was making about the election were false,” Vance writes.
📢 Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance believes that Trump's impeachments bothered him more than he lets on. Recent efforts by Trump's MAGA forces in Congress to "expunge" his impeachments from the record suggest it really got under his skin. Read more: https://t.co/2I0UIYUVao
— 2paragraphs (@2paragraphs) July 24, 2023
Anticipating the GOP’s rallying around a notion that the case is politicized, Vance also notes that the Obama-appointed Judge in the case, Tanya Chutkan, was once held to be above political rancor and was confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 95-0 in 2014.
.jpg){kind=link}