more: https://t.co/gFP5xgpWOf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0.pdf
-snip-
The Indictment alleges that former President Trump understood that he had lost the election and that the election results were legitimate but that he nevertheless was “determined to remain in power.” He then conspired with others to cast doubt on the election’s outcome and contrived to have himself declared the winner. (The Former President Trump’s campaign and his supporters also unsuccessfully challenged the election results in several state and federal courts.)
Indictment charges that he and his co-conspirators allegedly advanced their goal through five primary means:
First, they “used knowingly false claims of election fraud” to attempt to persuade state legislators and election officials to change each state’s electoral votes in former President Trump’s favor. For example, he and his allies falsely declared “that more than ten thousand dead voters had voted in Georgia”; “that there had been 205,000 more votes than voters in Pennsylvania”; “that more than 30,000 non- citizens had voted in Arizona”; and “that voting machines . . . had switched votes from [Trump] to Biden.”
Second, then-President Trump and his co-conspirators “organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states . . . attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow.” They “then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.”
Third, then-President Trump and his co-conspirators pressed officials at the Department of Justice “to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome.”
Third, then-President Trump and his co-conspirators pressed officials at the Department of Justice “to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome.”
Fourth, then-President Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence to “use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” When the Vice President rebuffed them, he stirred his base of supporters to increase pressure on the Vice President. Ultimately, on the morning of January 6, 2021, he held a rally in Washington D.C. where he “repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters” and “directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused.”
Fifth, and finally, from the January 6 rally, thousands of his supporters — “including individuals who had traveled to Washington and to the Capitol at [his] direction” — swarmed the United States Capitol, causing “violence and chaos” that required the Congress to temporarily halt the election- certification proceeding. At that point, he and his co-conspirators “exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification.”
Then-President Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results were unsuccessful and the Congress certified the Electoral College vote in favor of President-Elect Biden. On January 11, 2021, nine days before President-Elect Biden’s inauguration, the House of Representatives adopted an impeachment resolution charging then-President Trump with “Incitement of Insurrection.” H.R. Res. 24, 117th Cong. (2021). The single article of impeachment alleged that he had violated “his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States . . . [and] his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed . . . by inciting violence against the Government of the United States.” The impeachment resolution asserted that “President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or that his statements on the morning of January 6 “encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol,” and that he attempted to “subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election” by other means, including by threatening a Georgia state official into manipulating the results.
Importantly, by the time the United States Senate conducted a trial on the article of impeachment, he had become former President Trump. At the close of the trial, on February 13, 2021, fifty-seven Senators voted to convict him and forty- three voted to acquit him. Because two-thirds of the Senate did not vote for conviction, he was acquitted on the article of impeachment.
-snip-
(Jackson, J., concurring). We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.
* * *
At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”