1. GOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS
2. the defendant engaged in a multifaceted conspiracy aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election by targeting deceit at the federal government function (which included the certification proceeding on January 6) by which votes are collected, counted, and certified.
3. Trumps latest defense motions: a case of misplaced “advocacy” or constitutionally protected speech, and he urged the federal judge presiding over Trump’s Washington, D.C., trial to sweep aside Trump’s bid to “sanitize” his conduct
4. “The defendant attempts to rewrite the indictment, claiming that it charges him with wholly innocuous, perhaps even admirable conduct — sharing his opinions about election fraud and seeking election integrity,” wrote assistant special counsel James Pearce, “when in fact it clearly describes the defendant’s fraudulent use of knowingly false statements as weapons in furtherance of his criminal plans.”
5. The indictment alleges a criminal agreement [PAGE 23] That claim is flatly contradicted by the indictment, which alleges in Count Four a conspiracy to violate the rights and privileges secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of one or more persons, that is, the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 130. The count incorporates dozens of factual allegations laying out how the defendant and his co-conspirators carried out their criminal agreement, including that they “pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”
6. The indictment charges that the defendant corruptly obstructed and impeded an official proceeding, namely, Congress’s certification of the presidential election, and conspired to do so. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 125-28. The defendant argues (ECF No. 114 at 21-27) that the indictment fails to allege that he engaged in any conduct that obstructed or impeded the certification proceeding or that he acted “corruptly.” He is wrong again
7. The First Amendment does not protect the defendant’s criminal conduct
8. The First Amendment does not protect fraudulent speech or speech otherwise integral to criminal conduct, particularly crimes that attack the integrity and proper function of government processes. The defendant’s arguments are based on an inaccurate and self-serving characterization of the charges, and his motion should be denied.
9. Judge Michael Luttig quote" Executive vesting clause" is what Trump violated and is quintessential Insurrection or rebellion against the constitution, it is the rebellion against the USA 🇺🇸, his attorneys are arguing Trump wasn't responsible for j6. Their argument isn't the issue. They're playing semantics with words...
10. The question under 14th Amendment, is not if he engaged in an Insurrection against the US constitution, the question is not is if he engaged in rebellion against the USA it's against the constitution.
11. The ambit of character separate matters..
12. People think Disqualification clause is anti democratic, it's not correct. The constitution itself tells us the conduct arise of rebellion and this makes him Disqualified
13. It's the constitution of the American people by the framers, 1868 ratified, they were our representatives, they determined section 3 and who takes an oath should be disqualified
14. LUTTIG QUOTE: Trump is a clear and present danger then and now... that's bold
15. The processes will roll themselves up in state and to Supreme Court, it will not be the case of ballots
16. 14th Amendment Section 3,
17. Helena Haba is on news max and they're both saying stupid things Gag overseas are absolutely wack" " he's protected by secret service and always will be, they have to" "there's no criminal acts and dares judges to throw him in jail" "the 1st amendment is a real thing"
18. This reminds me, a treasonous traitor shouldn't be protected
