Trump Charged in Superseding Indictment | Drudge Retort

Advertisement

Tuesday, August 27, 2024

Trump Charged in Superseding Indictment

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged former President Donald Trump in a superseding indictment in his federal election interference case. "Today, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment, ECF No. 226, charging the defendant with the same criminal offenses that were charged in the original indictment," a Justice Department spokesperson said Tuesday. "The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government's efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court's holdings and remand instructions," the spokesperson said.

Posted by gracieamazed at 06:53 PM | 59 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

VIOLATIONS: * DONALD J. TRUMP, *

Count 1: 18 U.S.C. 371 * (Conspiracy to Defraud the United Defendant. * States) * *

Count 2: 18 U.S.C. 1512(k) * (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official * Proceeding) * *

Count 3: 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), 2 * (Obstruction of and Attempt to * Obstruct an Official Proceeding) * *

Count 4: 18 U.S.C. 241 * (Conspiracy Against Rights)

Full Indictment

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2024-08-27 04:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The noxious orange pedo deserves to get the Ethel Rosenberg treatment for J6.

#2 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-08-27 05:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Trump had seven corrupt routes he was taking.

Twelve if you count each fake electors scheme individually.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-08-27 07:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So the supreme court is going to have to smack Jack ------ down again

#4 | Posted by THEBULL at 2024-08-27 07:20 PM | Reply

Surely this.

#5 | Posted by chuffy at 2024-08-27 07:20 PM | Reply

The 12, for the record?

J6 insurrection
Pence Refusal
Congressional Objections
GA fake electors
GA intimidation of poll workers
GA threatening calls to the SoS, and Gov
MI fake electors
WI fake electors
AZ fake electors
PA fake electors
NM fake electors
NV fake electors

and maybe we should add the phone call to the AZ governor ... which he famously never picked up.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-08-27 07:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So the supreme court is going to have to smack Jack ------ down again

#4 | Posted by THEBULL

What do YOU think should happen to someone who ended the peaceful transfer of power in the USA?

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-08-27 07:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'm so old, I remember when the DR fascists were all hot and bothered by these statements:

"We could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial...It would grind government to a halt."

"If she were to win, it would create an unprecedented Constitutional crisis that would cripple the operations of our government...She is likely to be under investigation for many years, and also it will probably end up " in my opinion " in a criminal trial. I mean, you take a look. Who knows? But it certainly looks that way."

"She has no right to be running, you know that...No right."

What a bunch of weirdo suckers and losers.

#8 | Posted by chuffy at 2024-08-27 07:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LMAO!!!

#9 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-08-27 07:36 PM | Reply

Biden should dismiss this blatent lawfare persecution unless he wants to reap the wirl wind.

#10 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-08-27 07:40 PM | Reply

Well actually, Trump was right.

He told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton, the next president would be constantly under federal investigation and fighting off trial after trial.

He was absolutely right.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-08-27 07:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Biden should dismiss this blatent lawfare persecution unless he wants to reap the wirl wind.

#10 | Posted by visitor_

The biggest difference between us and you is that we're fine with prosecuting our leaders if they commit crimes.

You'd rather rip down the legal system than have your cult leader face the law.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-08-27 07:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#12. No you're not. Stop lying. You think if a speeder stops for the police they don't get a ticket. Goofball

#13 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-08-27 07:48 PM | Reply

Biden should dismiss this blatent lawfare persecution unless he wants to reap the wirl wind.

Biden should throw this blatant criminal in Guantanamo, along with his traitor friends in Congress and the SCOTUS...as "official acts," of course. It would be perfectly legal, and he is immune from prosecution.

#14 | Posted by chuffy at 2024-08-27 07:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Oh no, the liberals doing everything they can to have their political opponent removed from the election, again, to save democracy.

#15 | Posted by fishpaw at 2024-08-27 07:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

...liberals doing everything they can...to save democracy.
#15 | Posted by fishpaw

As they should.

#16 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2024-08-27 08:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#12. No you're not. Stop lying. You think if a speeder stops for the police they don't get a ticket. Goofball

#13 | Posted by lfthndthrds

It's not my fault that you're so unlikeable that you've never gotten off with a warning.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-08-27 08:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Fake news.

Trump won all this already. The legal scholars he frequently chats with about the subtle nuances of American jurisprudence all concur: it's a witch-hunt. He told us.

#18 | Posted by anton at 2024-08-27 08:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's not my fault that you're so unlikeable that you've never gotten off with a warning.

#17 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2024-08-27 08:04 PM | FLAG:

It's not my fault you've never ventured out of your safe space to discuss real world politics with the masses.

#19 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-08-27 08:22 PM | Reply

"doing everything they can to have their political opponent removed from the election"

How would this remove him from the election? Even if he's convicted and imprisoned, he could still run for office like Lyndon LaRouche did.

#20 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-08-27 08:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Biden should throw this blatant criminal in Guantanamo, along with his traitor friends in Congress and the SCOTUS...as "official acts," of course. It would be perfectly legal, and he is immune from prosecution."

Dammit Chuffy, you weren't supposed to talk about Plan B!

#21 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-08-27 08:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#20

As did Eugene V. Debs.

#22 | Posted by anton at 2024-08-27 08:36 PM | Reply

It's not my fault you've never ventured out of your safe space to discuss real world politics with the masses.

#19 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Whenever a trumper talks about "the masses" they mean the masses of morons in red hats and gold sneakers, and whenever a trumper talks about the "real world" they mean their cult's shared delusions that were brainwashed into their gullible minds by sociopathic billionaires.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-08-27 08:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

For a good time ask Trump supporters what the purpose of the j6 rally was. They will change topics immediately because in their heart they understand there was no legitimate reason for that rally to have taken place.

#24 | Posted by Tor at 2024-08-27 08:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Criminals should be held accountable.
Period.

#25 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-08-27 08:41 PM | Reply

Lfthndturds is a moron.

#26 | Posted by Angrydad at 2024-08-27 08:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Honest question:

Why do rwingers on this thread think, and I use the term loosely, that literally dozens of Trumpers, hand-picked Aides, lawyers, and such, have and will testify under Oath that they and or Trump committed all the Crimes in the Indictment?

Why are they lying under Oath against their Dear Leader?

Inquiring minds want to know... I mean, it couldn't be that ya'll just don't care that he's a criminal, right?

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2024-08-27 08:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#26 | POSTED BY ANGRYDAD AT 2024-08-27 08:51 PM | REPLY

Angry Drunk steals posting time from people with a brain.

#28 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-08-27 09:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Inquiring minds want to know... I mean

#27 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2024-08-27 08:58 PM |

That wouldn't be your mind.

#29 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-08-27 09:02 PM | Reply

Shocked that LoveTurds didn't have an answer to the question... Shocked I tells ya!!

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2024-08-27 09:04 PM | Reply

#27 Because they don't want to have they're lives ruined and be bankrupted by an out of control prosecutor.

#31 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-08-27 09:07 PM | Reply

#27 Because they don't want to have they're lives ruined and be bankrupted by an out of control prosecutor.

#31 | Posted by visitor_

Wait they're lying under oath so that they DONT get their lives ruined?

You know lying under oath is illegal right?

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-08-27 09:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Triggered beta males

Trumps neutered drones swarm this thread on anonymous impotent rage

Best thread of the day

#33 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2024-08-27 09:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Poor Corky. Kammy just isn't going to make it.

#34 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-08-27 09:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Visitor for the Idiot Award!

I had faith he could do it!

Follow-up question... Why would they perjure themselves under oath to accuse Trump of these crimes?

And why would they talk at all if they were themselves innocent?

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2024-08-27 09:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Let's give a high five to Jack Smith for being smarter than a bunch of so-called legal experts who call themselves Supremes.

I'll repeat what I said a couple days ago when we were all guessing.

"Nobody knows what's going on in Jack Smith's head."

Now we do. ~ LOL

#36 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-08-27 09:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#34

At least Visitor tried. TurdBoy just whiffs and misses each time.

It's almost like admitting Trump is a criminal.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2024-08-27 09:17 PM | Reply

Angry Drunk steals posting time from people with a brain.

Ok, but that doesn't explain why you're offended.

#38 | Posted by YAV at 2024-08-27 09:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Well.... since they have no actual argument to #27, other than a FF... guess we'll just have to accept the fact that they don't care that Trump's own people testified against him and that he's Guilty of the Indictments.

That he's a criminal, but that his Cult here just doesn't care.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2024-08-27 09:38 PM | Reply

Reek isn't taking the latest indictment well.

#40 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-08-27 09:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#39, if you haven't accepted that by now, it's probably too late for you

#41 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-08-27 09:50 PM | Reply

The reason today happened is because of what Trump did himself. Trump appealed the original indictments under his immunity claims, and this is what the SCOTUS ruled Jack Smith could try that falls distinctly outside any immunity shield for protected presidential duties.

Donald Trump is being charged for crimes he committed in a conspiracy as a presidential nominee, not as POTUS - which is precisely what the SCOTUS said could be done.

And those making this ruling and today's reindictments possible were the Republican-appointed judges. So if Trump's unhappy, that's who he should be directing his ire towards.

#42 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-08-27 09:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

soooo... is this how we get a couch fekker for preznit?

#43 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2024-08-27 10:21 PM | Reply

Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. Based on the statutes defining special counsel. He was given that title so Garland could fake this prosecution as non-partisan.

He wanted it both ways.

This case could easily be reassigned to a federal proscutor who could immediately hire Smith and his staff and they wouldn't miss a beat. But while it would be appropriate - a crime was clearly committed, the optics of the DOJ prosecuting a crime political rival is bad.

#44 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-08-27 10:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

This makes five grand juries that have indicted Trum:.

The New York State "Hush Money" Case
The Federal Classified Documents Case
The Federal Election Interference Case
The Georgia Election Interference Case
And this one, which is new because it was a brand new grand jury and a new finding and issued a new "true bill."

#45 | Posted by YAV at 2024-08-27 10:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional..

That IS the big question to decided.

#46 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-08-27 10:29 PM | Reply

Do you think so?
I don't based on law, but damn this Supreme Court.
www.washingtonpost.com

#47 | Posted by YAV at 2024-08-27 10:49 PM | Reply

REDIAL @ #46

They're basing the unconstitutional question on the fact that the Independent Counsel Act expired (sunset) in 1999.

Here is what I found:

www.ecfr.gov ~ CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

Excerpt:

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and"

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney General.

When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:

(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;

(b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or

(c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials.

If this matter is a big question, I'm no seeing it.

#48 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-08-27 11:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Republicans, remember: You asked for this. Given the choice between a dozen solid conservatives and one Clinton-supporting con artist and game-show host, you chose the con artist. You chose him freely. Nobody made you do it.

#49 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-08-28 09:41 AM | Reply

Jeffy shows up again, hoping there's been enough time between being asked a question he can't, or won't, answer, to bring up another debunked Fox "news" talking point. Yawn.

#50 | Posted by chuffy at 2024-08-28 12:16 PM | Reply

Hilarious... TrumpyBelle doesn't care at all that Trump is Guilty, his only deeply held concern is about whether the SC appointment is valid.

Pull the other one.

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2024-08-28 12:17 PM | Reply

Liberals didn't nominate a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist to their ticket.

Liberals aren't supporting a guy whose lawyers have almost all been disbarred.

Liberals didn't nominate a presidential candidate whose own Vice President refuses to support.

Liberals aren't donating money to a candidate whose (nearly) entire campaign staff, and cabinet, are either convicted criminals, pardoned felons (to get a pardon, you must admit to the crime you committed) or active participants in a plea deal.

Liberals didn't break into the Capitol Building to attempt an overthrow of the peaceful transition of power. They didn't smear faeces on the walls of that building. They didn't chant, "Hang Mike Pence."

This list goes on for a long time, but you get the picture. All of you clowns who come here to the DR to demonstrate your perfidy remind us daily what losers you are. It's astonishing, even now, how utterly ridiculous your "arguments" are.

#52 | Posted by chuffy at 2024-08-28 12:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. Based on the statutes defining special counsel. He was given that title so Garland could fake this prosecution as non-partisan.
He wanted it both ways.
This case could easily be reassigned to a federal proscutor who could immediately hire Smith and his staff and they wouldn't miss a beat. But while it would be appropriate - a crime was clearly committed, the optics of the DOJ prosecuting a crime political rival is bad.

#44 | Posted by BellRinger

You should ask for a refund for your Trump U Law Degree.

Will you admit you are wrong when both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court tell you how wrong you are? (Technically they already have in other cases)

Of course you won't. You'll pretend you never said it.

#53 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-08-28 12:47 PM | Reply

This case could easily be reassigned to a federal proscutor who could immediately hire Smith and his staff and they wouldn't miss a beat. But while it would be appropriate - a crime was clearly committed, the optics of the DOJ prosecuting a crime political rival is bad.

#44 | Posted by BellRinger

So you're complaining that it's not fair that DOJ is extending trump extra protection that isn't afforded to other criminals?

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-08-28 01:11 PM | Reply

You're missing the point, BELLRINGER.

It isn't unconstitutional. The appointment of a Special Counsel is well within the Attorney General's prerogative.

You and Trump are both shooting blanks.

#55 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-08-28 04:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jack Smith doesn't meet the qualifications for special counsel and Congress didn't create a new statute. This was pointed out long before this case even approached trial.

#56 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-08-28 08:32 PM | Reply

Lawyer who drafted special counsel regulations predicts fate of Judge Cannon's deeply dangerous' dismissal of Trump's Mar-a-Lago indictment

A Supreme Court lawyer and former acting U.S. solicitor general who drafted the special counsel regulations in the late 1990s blasted U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's dismissal of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago indictment as "cuckoo" and all but certain to be overturned on appeal.

Noting that challenges of special counsels' authority have repeatedly flopped in the courts, perhaps most memorably during special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, Katyal recounted some legal history.

"I think the most important point about this . .is eight different judges over the last many years have rejected this exact argument," Katyal said, including the Trump-appointed judge who presided over the felony gun trial of President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden. "And the special counsel regulations that Jack Smith is appointed under, I should say by way of disclosure to all of our viewers, I drafted those back in 1999 when I was a young Justice Department staffer in connection with the entire Justice Department."

Katyal said that when he and then U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno went to Capitol Hill and briefed the House and the Senate on the regulations, there was no pushback of the kind seen in Cannon's dismissal order.

"Not a single person from either political party [in Congress] said a word about this kind of idea that the special counsel wasn't authorized and that's so because we've had special counsels for over a century, since the time of President Ulysses Grant," Katyal said. "And now this judge comes along, and with the stroke of her pen tries to undo these very serious accusations against Donald Trump."

lawandcrime.com

#57 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-08-28 08:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#58

Hahahahahhahahahahah...deep breath....haahahahahhahahhahahahhaahah

The RepublicL0wn Party literally installed two actors as President of the USA. Try harder next time.

#59 | Posted by chuffy at 2024-08-29 06:20 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable