In my view, NONE of the Trump indictments have legal standing. But that is now for our courts and eventually, Supreme Court to decide.
Here, it is not even clear that Smith has alleged anything that the law forbids. The indictment relates in detail Trump’s deceptions, but that doesn’t mean they constitute criminal fraud. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed just a few weeks ago, fraud in federal criminal law is a scheme to swindle victims out of money or tangible property. Mendacious rhetoric in seeking to retain political office is damnable — and, again, impeachable — but it’s not criminal fraud, although that is what Smith has charged. Indeed, assuming a prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump hadn’t actually convinced himself that the election was stolen from him (good luck with that), hyperbole and even worse are protected political speech.
As for obstruction, Americans, presidents included, have a right to attempt to influence Congress, even based on dubious or imagined evidence. To establish obstruction, Smith must prove that Trump’s efforts at persuasion were corrupt — again, in the sense that he knew his badgering and lobbying had no factual or legal merit. The concept of corruption is meant to reach clearly criminal conduct, such as evidence manipulation or witness tampering. It has never been understood to reach wrong-headed legal theories. To apply it that way, as Smith proposes, would chill not only political speech, but the constitutional right of a defendant to mount a legal defense.
Finally, Smith is charging Trump with a civil-rights violation, on the theory that he sought to counteract the votes of Americans in contested states and based on a post–Civil War statute designed to punish violent intimidation and forcible attacks against blacks attempting to exercise their right to vote. What Trump did, though reprehensible, bears no relation to what the statute covers.
In his press conference announcing the charges, Smith — for good reason — did not dwell on his questionable charges. He instead emphasized the Capitol riot. Anyone witnessing his remarks would have believed that Trump had incited a forcible attack on the Capitol. Of course, Smith has not charged him with any such thing because he doesn’t have the evidence to tie him criminally to the riot. The prosecutor was making a political statement, clearly aimed at swaying the jury pool in blue Washington, D.C., where the Justice Department brags daily about having charged more than a thousand rioters.
There is a reason Smith does not have a solid statutory crime to rely on. To criminalize the conduct for which he seeks to convict Trump, Congress would have to write sweeping laws that could easily be wielded by one party against another to punish objectionable political conduct. That would undermine both electoral politics and the rule of law.
This indictment shouldn’t stand.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/this-trump-indictment-shouldnt-stand/
Here, it is not even clear that Smith has alleged anything that the law forbids. The indictment relates in detail Trump’s deceptions, but that doesn’t mean they constitute criminal fraud. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed just a few weeks ago, fraud in federal criminal law is a scheme to swindle victims out of money or tangible property. Mendacious rhetoric in seeking to retain political office is damnable — and, again, impeachable — but it’s not criminal fraud, although that is what Smith has charged. Indeed, assuming a prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump hadn’t actually convinced himself that the election was stolen from him (good luck with that), hyperbole and even worse are protected political speech.
As for obstruction, Americans, presidents included, have a right to attempt to influence Congress, even based on dubious or imagined evidence. To establish obstruction, Smith must prove that Trump’s efforts at persuasion were corrupt — again, in the sense that he knew his badgering and lobbying had no factual or legal merit. The concept of corruption is meant to reach clearly criminal conduct, such as evidence manipulation or witness tampering. It has never been understood to reach wrong-headed legal theories. To apply it that way, as Smith proposes, would chill not only political speech, but the constitutional right of a defendant to mount a legal defense.
Finally, Smith is charging Trump with a civil-rights violation, on the theory that he sought to counteract the votes of Americans in contested states and based on a post–Civil War statute designed to punish violent intimidation and forcible attacks against blacks attempting to exercise their right to vote. What Trump did, though reprehensible, bears no relation to what the statute covers.
In his press conference announcing the charges, Smith — for good reason — did not dwell on his questionable charges. He instead emphasized the Capitol riot. Anyone witnessing his remarks would have believed that Trump had incited a forcible attack on the Capitol. Of course, Smith has not charged him with any such thing because he doesn’t have the evidence to tie him criminally to the riot. The prosecutor was making a political statement, clearly aimed at swaying the jury pool in blue Washington, D.C., where the Justice Department brags daily about having charged more than a thousand rioters.
There is a reason Smith does not have a solid statutory crime to rely on. To criminalize the conduct for which he seeks to convict Trump, Congress would have to write sweeping laws that could easily be wielded by one party against another to punish objectionable political conduct. That would undermine both electoral politics and the rule of law.
This indictment shouldn’t stand.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/this-trump-indictment-shouldnt-stand/
Dumbest and Dumb Fuck trolling the thread in an echo chamber while avoiding any facts or arguments to the contrary. 
