The Structure of the Donald Trump Indictment

It’s late here, so this may be my only analysis before you all wake up.

But I wanted to lay out the structure of the Trump indictment.

The indictment charges him, alone, with four crimes:

  • 18 USC 371 (conspiracy to defraud the US)
  • 18 USC  1512(k) (conspiracy to obstruct the vote certification)
  • 18 USC 1512(c)(2) (obstructing the vote certifcation)
  • 18 USC 241( conspiracy to violate civil rights)

They all are entirely overlapping. That is, Trump’s conduct, and those of 6 alleged co-conspirators, is cited in all those charges.

These are four charges for the same crime. So if the DC Circuit or SCOTUS overturns how DOJ has applied 1512, there are two back stops.

The other most important part of this indictment is who is named as a co-conspirator (and who might well be charged, as far as we know, today, separately by sealed indictment):

  • Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant’s 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not. [Rudy Giuliani]
  • Co-Conspirator 2, an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President’s ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election. [John Eastman]
  • Co-Conspirator 3, an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the Defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded “crazy.” Nevertheless, the Defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-Conspirator 3’s disinformation. [Sidney Powell]
  • Co-Conspirator 4, a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with the Defendant, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud. [Jeffrey Clark]
  • Co-Conspirator 5, an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. [Kenneth Chesebro]
  • Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. [Mike Roman; update: NYT says it is Boris Ephsteyn]

I will fill in who these people are later. They are uncharged and I want to be fairly sure.

The key detail, though, is that there is a separate conspiracy branching off involving most of them, and many other paragraphs of this indictment.

I argued since April 2022 that DOJ could — and should — charge Trump first and build in the stuff around him. I reiterated that a few weeks ago.

There’s a lot here.

But — with some awesome exceptions, which I’ll come back to — not much beyond what’s in the January 6 Report. Credit where it’s due, much, but not all, of this indictment follows their map.

Update: I’ve added Mike Roman as Co-Conspirator 6. The January 6 Report matches a report from the indictment.

A campaign operative named Michael Roman was also tapped for a major operational role in the fake elector effort. When Findlay sent his email handing off certain responsibilities for the initiative, he also wrote that Giuliani’s team had designated Roman “as the lead for executing the voting on Monday” December 14th.73 Roman was the Trump Campaign’s Director of Election Day Operations (EDO), with team members who specialized in political outreach and mobilization in battleground States wherethe Trump team now urgently needed the fake electors to meet on December 14th. With help from his EDO staff, as well as Giuliani’s team and RNC staffers working alongside the Campaign as part of the Trump Victory Committee, Roman ran an improvised “Electors Whip Operation.”74 For example, Roman sent an email on December 12th directing an aide to create “a tracker for the electors” with tabs for Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, listing contact information, whether they hadbeen contacted, whether they agreed to attend on December 14th, and names of “[s]ubstitute electors” to replace any reticent or unavailable participants as needed.75 Roman referred to others on this email as the “WHIPTEAM” and directed them to fill out the spreadsheet, to update him on “what you have and what you need,” and to plan on a call that evening.76

177 replies
      • Tommy D Cosmology says:

        Bennie Thompson opened the House select committee hearings saying that Jan. 6 was about violating civil rights. That really stuck in my head.

      • Zinsky123 says:

        I agree. One of the commentators on MSNBC tonight said that Jack Smith has made it very clear in this indictment that Donald Trump is NOT the victim in this case. The United States of America is the victim. Smith makes that point eloquently in the way this is organized and presented and the chargings made. I think it is concise and sharp as a razor.

  1. Hcgorman says:

    Sorry if it was mentioned and I’m just not seeing it- who is the assigned judge?
    That is going to be important in my minds eye.
    And sorry again about the ticked up email address. I’m not good doing this in a phone!

    • Rayne says:

      This is something you could and should have looked up using a search engine.

      The judge assigned to Trump’s case, Tanya S. Chutkan, has been a tough jurist in cases against Jan. 6 rioters — and in a case that involved Trump directly. She has routinely issued harsh penalties against people who stormed the Capitol. She also denied Trump’s attempt to avoid disclosing documents to the House committee investigating Jan. 6, ordering him to turn over the material and writing, “Presidents are not kings.”


      Please do your own homework first before cluttering threads here; reserve this space for questions to which you can’t find the answers elsewhere.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        More about her in the previous thread. And since you have a name, start with wikipedia, usually good for starters and basic facts, which would help you refine a search.



      [FYI — ALL CAPS is perceived as YELLING on the internet. Please use mixed case in your comment text and username. /~Rayne]

        • bmaz says:

          No, And it would be beyond stupid to be reffing to Thomas. I do not agree with many elements of Smith’s strategy, but he is very far from stupid.

          • Rugger_9 says:

            It has to be someone in the direct loop throughout the process, and I would suspect that it’s one of the yahoos let in by Garrett Ziegler if not Stone (the ‘political adviser’ seems to rule out a lawyer who would be called out as one). If not Stone, how about Michael Flynn, ex-LTG?

            Ginny would not fit into this as well as Cleta Mitchell (who IIRC is a lawyer too).

        • Fraud Guy says:

          If you go for the king, you’d best not miss. Adding in going for the queen (of a self-styled judicial king), would just be asking for all sorts of shenanigans on his part to cause everything to miss.

      • mickquinas says:

        Epshtyn was my guess, although he pretends at being “in-house counsel”, IIRC. It would certainly be a statement from Smith to classify him as a political consultant and not an attorney. I’d love to see Flynn or Stone tagged here, but I think both of them might be crafty enough to be one step removed from the conduct charged in this indictment.

        • Rugger_9 says:

          Boris did sit at the defense table along with Tacopina in Manhattan, so he’s not just pretending to be a lawyer. The court would not allow him across the bar otherwise.

        • Beverley54 says:

          CNN is reporting it is Jason Miller, not sure if it has been confirmed but for the fact he once worked for CNN, perhaps they confirmed it with him.

  2. Grung_e_Gene says:

    You Lose all the Coup’s you don’t Launch. Can’t wait for the Next Insurrection. When the MAGATs break Donald John Traitor Trump out of Jail he will truly be the Mandela of our times!

    • smf88011 says:

      I don’t know what you have been smoking but I want some. That stuff is quite potent if you believe that BS you just spewed.

    • Rayne says:

      Gene, honey, your snark is a bit too subtle for the community today — just a bit. Might not have helped to have used capital letters in the wrong places and an unnecessary apostrophe.

        • bmaz says:

          For the love of everything sensible, PLEASE stop invoking “treason” and “traitor”. You look like an idiot when you do that.

          • Rayne says:

            It wasn’t earlofhuntingdon but Grung_e_Gene who called Trump a traitor (the word treason was not used).

            • Rugger_9 says:

              Since you seem to be new here, ‘treason’ is very specifically and narrowly defined in the US Constitution because of the abuse in Merrie Olde England. The Founders knew their history and why it was necessary to lay out the articles as completely as they did.

              Conspiracy to commit fraud against the US (Confraudus for short) will give plenty of years in Club Fed without having to prove who the enemy was as an element of treason.

              • Grung_e_Gene says:

                Since this site is all about the Law, The word “treason” exists nowhere in my comment. a Traitor is one who betray’s. Also a certain comment moderator is somewhat unstable… If they feel the need to ban people who make 100% accurate and perfect comments than that is their prerogative.

    • Wajimsays says:

      Well, as soon as most of the violent MAGA J6 perps get out of prison in several (to many) years, perhaps, though not likely. Trump has called for “protests” (like J6) at all of his recent previous indictments/arraignments, yet very few of his cultists showed up. Something to be said about law enforcement there . . .

      • hebmdyskebm says:

        Also the fact that deep down in the fever swamps of the online MAGA world they’re all now convinced every Trump rally/protest/event is crawling with undercover feds posing as their own. They’ve scared themselves away from him.

        • Tracy Lynn says:

          Besides, I believe that deep down they think (know) he’s a loser. Even these clowns don’t want to be associated with a loser. So they aren’t showing up for him.

  3. jeffme_01AUG2023_1923h says:

    Any chance Co-Conspirator 6 is Roger Stone?

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short and contains a common name, it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  4. obsessed says:

    Everyone seems to agree on Rudy, Sidney, Clark and Eastman, but lots of speculation on the other two. Savage Librarian says Roman & Cleta; Harry Litman says Jenna Ellis & Bannon; WaPo, as you say, says Chesebro.

    • Legonaut says:

      The top four seeds seem pretty solid, but there’s quite a scrum for the two wild card slots. There’s a lot of folks on the bubble — good candidates all!

      Maybe we need to expand the league playoffs?

    • Legonaut says:

      The top four seeds seem pretty solid, but there’s quite a scrum for the two wild card slots. There’s a lot of folks on the bubble — good candidates all!

      Maybe the SC needs to expand the league playoffs?

    • Savage Librarian says:

      After I read the indictment, I changed from Cleta to Jim Troupis, because of Wisconsin. But Troupis worked with Chesebro (sp?) so I’d be unsurprised if it was him instead.

    • Eric_Arrr says:

      I think we can rule out Mike Roman. In paragraph 101, it attributes an act which (I thought?) was known to have been performed by Roman to “an agent of the Defendant.” If Roman was one of the CC’s that attribution would read differently.

      [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. “Eric_Arrr” is your second username; you’ve commented previously as “Eric Arrr.” The underbar does make a difference. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • Rugger_9 says:

        Good option there, but how entwined was he in the political campaign? I still think if not Stone or Flynn, it will probably be someone in the last group ushered in by Ziegler. Bannon, Byrne, Lindell, Cyber Ninjas, why not O’Keefe as alternates?

  5. Sandgk says:

    For Co-Con 6 Mike Roman, Boris Epshteyn, a player to be named later.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • Sandgk513 says:

      Consider this the result of my username enlargement program.

      [Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]

  6. blueedredcounty says:

    When I read your first post about the indictment, Marcy, I kept wondering if Boris Epshteyn was co-conspirator 5, 6, or both. I think he would still end up in that list of co-conspirators, even if 5 is fleshed out to be Kenneth Chesebro.

  7. emptywheel says:

    Folks: My best guesses for 6 are either Epshteyn or Mike Roman.

    I’m going to leave it there until I do more work.

    It’s not Navarro.

  8. quickbread says:

    I’m reading the indictment, and although a lot of it I knew, in large part thanks to Marcy and team here, to take in the whole story at once is breathtaking and frightening. It’s chilling how close we came to losing our democracy. It seems like it was really only saved by a few key folks across the system who still placed country over party. If Co-conspirator 4 had succeeded in taking over the Justice Department, I shudder to think what would’ve happened next. They clearly had a plan for that outcome.

    • Mister_Sterling says:

      The American republic has been destabilized since at least 2016. It still teeters on the brink of collapse, with the defendant looking to upset biden next year. But today we finally saw a door to accountability. This trial ought to be first in line, given what is still at stake.

    • Molly Pitcher says:

      We are still very close to losing it all. The undermining work that has been done across the country with regards to the coming election is not to be overlooked. Gerrymandering, voter roll destruction, any and all sorts of obstacles to casting votes have been put in place all over the country.

      There is a lot of work ahead to make it thru the electoral college.

      • Fraud Guy says:

        There needs to be a lot of 14th Amendment remedies applied to the states who restrict citizens voting. Start dropping their representatives and electors, and they might pay attention.

      • GlennDexter says:

        All the more reason this trial should be open to the public. Let every citizen see and hear the wheels of Justice in action – prosecution and defense.
        The indictment says the country was the victim of these crimes.
        The trial must be televised. ( I don’r say that lightly)

      • BirdGardener says:

        Don’t forget all the election workers who have been harassed into quitting their jobs. While I’ve seen some news coverage of the harassment and subsequent resignations, I’ve seen nothing about who’s been hired to replace them (I’m too disabled to do the work myself). My fear/belief is that there’s a concerted r-wing effort to ensure that there are election-worker shenanigans next time around—on behalf of r-wing politicians.

    • RealAlexi says:

      Damn straight! And we’re a far cry from out of the woods and onto a good path as of yet.

      Those key people you mentioned should remind us all just how much character counts. It’s easily as important as policy and often much more so.

    • Bugboy321 says:

      What strikes me is that much of it we could see happening in real time. But there wasn’t a GD thing we could do about it except wait for the wheels of justice to grind. With a little more luck, and a little more talent, they just may have succeeded.

  9. KarenR_01AUG2023_1947h says:

    When my kids were little, and disagreed with me, when they learned I was right I would do a “Mommy was ri-ight” song and dance. Tonight I am humming “Marcy was Ri-ight” and I really hope that you are savoring the moment, you sure were right about the charges, about Smith, about timing… etc. Song and dance are optional, but lots of fun. Also, thanks for the many years of your analysis.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Another community member has published comments under the username “KarenR,” you’ll need to be more differentiated. Until you have a new unique username the date/time will be added to the username on this comment to distinguish you from the other KarenR. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  10. pleitter says:

    Re: article references WAPO for identification of co-conspirator 5 being Chesebro

    I did my own research noting that paragraph 54 of the indictment on p 22 of the pdf introduces Wisconsin memos. Found this link to a copy of the Dec 9 memo from Chesebro : which corresponds 54c in the indictment.

  11. tinatinao says:

    My vote for #6 is epshteyn. The pedophile. He was considered a consultant, then a trump lawyer after the 6th.

    • bmaz says:

      Has he been convicted of pedophilia? No. Do not engage in defamatory statements here, please.

      By the way, my guess is that #6 is Jason Miller, not Boris.

      • tinaotinao says:

        Sorry bmaz, I did try to look up the conviction and did not find conclusive evidence. So yes, that is the opinion of one who works with pedophiles.

      • mickquinas says:

        I knew I should have scrolled further down before commenting. Jason Miller surely could be a contender. He put out a statement on Jan. 5 that Pence agreed that he had the power to not certify, which outraged Pence’s chief of staff Marc Short, since he hadn’t actually talked to Pence about that apparently. He was a Bannon “War Room” cohost, and advised Jair Bolsonaro. Wikipedia refers to him as a “Senior Advisor” to Trump’s 2020 campaign and he doesn’t appear to be a lawyer. I still think that if it’s Epshteyn then Smith is making a real statement by not referring to him as an attorney, but that detail certainly argues in favor of someone like Miller. Smith doesn’t seem given to sass.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        Not a bad choice, but I don’t think he was in the inner circle like others were after the messy paternity case. Epshteyn perhaps but he’d acted as a lawyer and I would venture he would be cited as one.

  12. Merigriota says:

    I’m guessing Ronna Romney McDaniels just because they’ve got a full page photo in J6 Report in the section on the fake electors. Like, maybe the committee had more suspicions than they could prove at the time but they were feeling sassy about it.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. I’ve edited your username to match the one you used last as I suspect you didn’t intend to use your real name. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • Rugger_9 says:

      Probably not Ronna, but why not a Senator like Lee of UT or Cruz of TX, both self-proclaimed experts in Constitutional law. They also played key roles in planning the op. We also have Tuberville and the infamous telecon during the op, indicating a tactical role whether it was meant for Lee or not. Would SC Smith leave out ‘Senator’ to avoid giving too much away, instead going with ‘political adviser’?

      • jdmckay8 says:

        Maybe all those and a few others I can think of will be targeted in a 2nd wave of indictments. One thing I’ve heard from several legal pundits this evening has been: this indictment is built for speed.

        Makes sense to me. Everything I read tonight about the presiding judge is positive: “no nonsense”, “not partisan”, “seasoned”.

        I don’t want to get ahead of myself, so I’ll just say IMO… so far, so good.

    • Operandi says:

      It’s definitely not Ronna as she appears a couple other places in the indictment as “RNC Chairwoman”. The mentions of her in the indictment, paragraph 69 for instance, give the impression she was deeply involved in wrangling the fake electors. She seems to have worked the same magic as Meadows to keep herself out of the Gang of Six for the moment though.

  13. DrDavidK says:

    I’ve read the entire indictment, looking for evidence of testimony from Mark Meadows, but I only saw a mention of one of his texts (probably given to the J6 committee). I see testimony from Cipollone, Pence, and other people inside the White House, but where’s Meadows? And, not being a lawyer, what does his (as far as I can tell) absence mean about his cooperation or criminal exposure?

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username AND EMAIL ADDRESS each time you comment so that community members get to know you. YOu have used three different email addresses across seven comments which causes your comments go into moderation for validation. We don’t even ask for a working, verifiable email, only that you use the same one each time along with the same username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • gertibird says:

      Could it be that Meadows was not mentioned because he provided so much email, documentation and txt, and rounded all that by telling prosecutors all the players and what they did with a coop. deal that he be left out of indictments and testimony. It seems he of all people was around trump the most when all this happened and was the go to person for everyone to txt, email etc. where he would pass information onto Trump or try to steer or dissuade. After all we saw many txts from Ginni, Fox people and Congress people all going through him.

  14. cmarlowe says:

    What are the chances the trial will be televised? Who decides? I can’t seem to find a simple answer, maybe because there isn’t one.

    • Rayne says:

      Why are you asking the persons at this site? Why aren’t you directing that question to broadcast media? The contributors here have quite enough on their plates without having to answer this kind of question out of their lane.

      • cmarlowe says:

        Well, the broadcast media that I have seen so far tonight has provided inconsistent information, and anyway, they don’t decide. It is a legal issue, no?

        • Rayne says:

          No. Just stop with this line of inquiry here at this site. Go bone up on broadcast media and the First Amendment but do it on your own dime.

    • DavidScott says:

      At this time the federal court policy, per the Judicial Conference, is no cameras in the courtroom. There are some experimental trials in civil cases, but not criminal.

    • sohelpmedogs says:

      Maybe there will be a show based on the trial and instead of the show being called “The Apprentice” it will be “The Accomplice.”

    • gertibird says:

      “Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946.” This rule apparently was adopted because it was assumed the people would “act” differently and or give evidence more or less if being videotaped.

      Given that it would seem because of the National importance and interest, not to mention the ability to show the Magats and the entire country the real evidence there seems to be some benefits, but would that outweigh the possible detriments to the trial.
      I have no idea if this could or how be done since the law says no and surely if this exception would require Congressional approval there is no way Republicans would vote for that, but it sure would make the most watched tv ever. Any decision this huge would also take years to decide which would delay the trial. So no, there is no way we will see it televised.

      • Shadowalker says:

        Here’s what the courts say.

        “ A judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and in adjacent areas during investitive, naturalization, or other ceremonial proceedings. A judge may authorize such activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during other proceedings, or recesses between such other proceedings, only:

        1) for the presentation of evidence;
        2) for the perpetuation of the record of the proceedings;
        3) for security purposes;
        4) for other purposes of judicial administration;
        5) for the photographing, recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments; or
        6) in accordance with pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference.

        When broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing in the courtroom or adjacent areas is permitted, a judge should ensure that it is done in a manner that will:

        1) be consistent with the rights of the parties,
        2) not unduly distract participants in the proceeding, and
        3) not otherwise interfere with the administration of justice.”

        Though I have heard that SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts could issue a ruling allowing use of cameras wider latitude during the trial. Don’t know if that is true or I misinterpreted.

        • bmaz says:

          I question whether Roberts would do it, because it would show exactly why it should be done at the Supreme Court too.

      • cmarlowe says:

        Thx to gertibird, shadowalker & bmaz for the intelligent responses to my post.I owe each of you at least a dime.

        • bmaz says:

          I should note again that it is done in the 9th Circuit, mostly in CAND. It is actually not even controversial anymore. Should also note that this blog played a significant role in that getting initiated as to the Prop 8 case.

        • Rayne says:

          You could have looked this up with a search engine. And you could still contact broadcast media and find out what they are doing to lobby the federal court system.

          Look at how much time and effort others put into responding to your question and how much space this took up in this thread.

          I’m not going to hold your hand here. This site isn’t for lightweights not willing to put in the effort.

  15. WilliamOckham says:

    I kinda feel like co-conspirator 6 is out there shouting, “I Am Not A Number”. Let’s give #6 a name.

    Everything in the indictment about co-conspirator 6:

    Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant

    57. On December 7, Co-Conspirator 1 received the Wisconsin Memo and the Fraudulent Elector Memo. Co-Conspirator 1 spoke with Co-Conspirator 6 regarding attorneys who could assist in the fraudulent elector effort in the targeted states, and he received from Co-Conspirator 6 an email identifying attorneys in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

    To manage the plan in Pennsylvania, on December 12, Co-Conspirator 1, Co-Conspirator 5, and Co-Conspirator 6 participated in a conference call organized by the Defendant’s Campaign with the Defendant’s electors in that state. When the Defendant’s electors expressed concern about signing certificates representing themselves as legitimate electors, Co-Conspirator 1 falsely assured them that their certificates would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in litigation. Subsequently, Co-Conspirator 6 circulated proposed conditional language to that effect for potential inclusion in the fraudulent elector certificates.

    On December 13, the Defendant asked the Senior Campaign Advisor for an update on “what was going on” with the elector plan and directed him to “put out [a] statement on electors.” As a result, Co-Conspirator 1 directed the Senior Campaign Advisor to join a conference call with him, Co-Conspirator 6, and others.

    119. On the evening of January 6, the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1 attempted to exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol by calling lawmakers to convince them, based on knowingly false claims of election fraud, to delay the certification, including:
    a. The Defendant, through White House aides, attempted to reach two United States Senators at 6:00 p.m.
    b. From 6:59 p.m. until 7:18 p.m, Co-Conspirator 1 placed calls to five United States Senators and one United States Representative.
    c. Co-Conspirator 6 attempted to confirm phone numbers for six United States Senators whom the Defendant had directed Co-Conspirator 1 to call and attempt to enlist in further delaying the certification.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        Not just Seger (although I should have expected you to get that part). Don’t forget Patrick McGoohan in “The Prisoner”

        • John Colvin says:

          The Prisoner – best trippy spy drama ever. I am saving my nickels and dimes for a trip to Portmeirion village to see the Village in all its glory.

        • BirdGardener says:

          Popped in here just to give you the proper response: HO! HO! HO! HO! HO! HO! HO! (If I got the number of HO!’s wrong, it has been decades since I watched the reruns.)

      • DoctorChocolate says:

        Mentioning Bob Seger, my brother, a superb criminal defense lawyer, successfully defended Seger on the charges laid in connection with his “driving while intoxicated” offense in Nipigon, Ontario in 1997.

        (I hope this nom de web is suitable).

    • mickquinas says:

      And this makes me think that Jason Miller is probably “Senior Campaign Advisor” and Boris Epshteyn is back up for CC-6.

      My head is spinning.
      Sure would like to find some consensus on this street.

    • bjet_16AUG2022_1814h says:

      1) list of attys in all 7 states
      2) statement on electors
      3) false assurance electors’ signatures won’t be used unless LITIGATION is won
      4) six Senators’ phone #s

      [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • greenbird says:

      unfortunately,the actual text of paragraph 56 makes me plead for more clarity.

      “… such electors’ votes would be used only if ongoing litigation in one of the states changed the results [ – ] in the Defendant’s favor.”
      [ – ] my sticky note to identify pending clarification
      1 – “which were” in the Defendant’s favor.
      2 – “from” (not ‘in’)
      3 – “to” (not ‘in’)

    • Kenneth Fair says:

      I think CC#6 has to be either Mike Roman or Boris Epshteyn. They could both be described as a “political consultant” and both were involved in the fake elector scheme. The reason I think it is Epshteyn is because Roman was reportedly cooperating with Smith’s office a few weeks ago. Also, most of what is in the indictment can be found in the January 6 report. But the details about the proposed conditional language for the elector certificates and the attempts to confirm phone numbers for senators are not (unless I missed something). That indicates to me that Roman gave Smith’s team those details in exchange for immunity.

  16. missinggeorgecarlin says:

    So much winning! I might have to delete my “Trump University” references from my resume and LinkedIn.

  17. higgs boson says:

    Off-topic, sorry, but the NYT is reporting that in Michigan Matt Deperno is being arraigned on four felonies having to do with voting machine shenanigans.

    All in all, it’s been a pretty good day.

      • boloboffin says:

        Dude, why don’t you go ahead and permaban me since for whatever reason I cannot fathom, you’re jonesing to do it? I’ll be happy to read Marcy from an incognito page.

        Or, you could lighten up. Either way. But I’m done with your speedtrap act.

        • bmaz says:

          I Honestly do not give a damn what you do. Do you really know who #6 is? No? Then chill out. I will not “permaban” you, but please do not spew bullshit. Go “lighten” yourself up.

          You have your panties in a wad because I noted that you really had no idea who #6 is? Seriously? Don’t be fragile.

          • boloboffin says:

            Nowhere did I say I had the slightest idea who 6 was, much less say I was certain I knew. Strawman noted.

            What I said was HE knows who he is. Yes, maybe he is wandering around oblivious to what’s going on and ignoring the calls of Trump’s acolytes and lawyers who damn well know who he is and mean to make sure he has one of Trump’s lawyers. That’s possible.

            So, allow me to amend my initial statement: “Good evening to everyone except Co-Conspirator 6 who knows exactly who he is and any emptywheel moderators who need to touch grass.”


        • Ravenclaw says:

          He only said that #6 may not know he is #6 yet. A far cry from a threat or even a howl of derision.

  18. Christy Hardin Smith says:

    (First, Rayne or bmaz, I can’t remember if my handle here is ReddHedd or my name. Because I’m old and exhausted. Which would you prefer?)

    Haven’t seen anyone own up to being #6 outright just yet, but there are a few tantalizing clues and possibilities. After reading the fact patterns in which UICC #6 is involved, there are several, truly, but a couple feel more likely than others:

    A). Michael Roman, Trump campaign director of Election Day operations, delivered slates of fake electors to Rep. Mike Kelly’s chief of staff in a ploy to somehow present them to Pence.

    B). Boris Epshteyn: “ Many of the emails went to Mr. Epshteyn, who was acting as a coordinator for people inside and outside the Trump campaign and the White House and remains a close aide to Mr. Trump.”

    C). Roger Stone and his involvement in trying to install Clark atop DOJ and to use the Dept. To force states to validate the fake electors contrary to the law.

    D). Steve Bannon/Phil Kline promoting independent state legislature theory in furtherance of fake elector scheme.

    And I know I’m missing other possibilities, but those are the ones that stand out where I sit just now. It’s a scurvy infested bunch of weasels, I will say that. Back to indictment reading.

    [In re username: You’ve published comments here as “Christy Smith” and “Christy Hardin Smith” but not “ReddHedd.” You’ve used “Christy Hardin Smith” most often. Your call as to which name you’d prefer, you’re privileged. :-) /~Rayne]

    • Christy Hardin Smith says:

      Thanks, Rayne! Also, meant to say, I didn’t include Troupis in that speculative list, because I didn’t think he logically fit as a “political consultant” as he was more of a legal sidekick to the Chesebro electors memo scheme, which puts him in the legal column for me. We’ll see when this lot either owns up to their conduct and pleads to an information in lieu of indictment or when they are indicted themselves, I suppose.

  19. An actual cloud says:

    Totally off topic but where is Alex Jones in any of the J6 prosecutions? Given everything empty wheel has told us about his role on j6

    [Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]

  20. Eightletters_02AUG2023_0028h says:

    So 8 more indictments coming down the pike? One for each state cited here plus Bedminster? Love it, popcorn time. Wishing your democracy survives Trump. As Trump would say: Would be sad if something happened to it.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Other community members have tried the same “eightletters” because they lacked imagination. Try harder. In the meantime, date/time of your first known comment will be added to the username on this comment until you can come up with a more unique one. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  21. Hoping4better_times says:

    What about Mark Meadows? Not a fit to CC#6
    As Chief of Staff, he was actively aiding & abetting trump’s schemes.

  22. wasD4v1d says:

    Despite the odds-making about co-conspirators, I’m concerned that their cases might be charged in a way that once again allows a ‘joint defense’ arrangement. In the interests of both making Trump responsible for his own crimes and actually getting this to trial, wouldn’t it be better to make him face the law alone? Or is the indictment already constructed this way?

  23. WilliamOckham says:

    There is a more interesting question about #6. Why is #6 included in the indictment? There are many co-conspirators who could have been included. The only ones who made it in are the ones who are essential to showing Trump’s involvement in the conspiracy. If you took #6 out of the indictment, how would it be weaker? I don’t know. I do think it’s a crucial question.

    • Konny_2022 says:

      I think Marcy’s update in the original post that #6 is Mike Roman is correct, and I’d like to add to the quote from the J6C Report a quote from the J6C deposistion of Kenneth Chesebro on October 26, 2022 (p.64):

      7 Q Okay. Let’s pull up Exhibit 13. While we’re pulling it up, I’ll represent to
      8 you that this is a December 12, 2020, email that you wrote, again, to Josh Findlay and
      9 Mike Roman as well as others, regarding alternate elector coordination.
      10 And you wrote, quote, Mike Roman and I were on a conference call with Mayor
      11 Giuliani today
      , and the mayor indicated he’d like to wait until all the electors have voted
      12 before putting out any statements or otherwise alerting anyone to focus on making sure
      13 the vote gets done and minimize the chance of electors being harassed. [emphasis added]

      That would be consistent with para. 61 in the indictment:

      61. To manage the plan in Pennsylvania, on December 12, Co-Conspirator 1 [Giuliani], Co-Conspirator 5 [Chesebro], and Co-Conspirator 6 [Roman] participated in a conference call organized by the Defendant’s Campaign with the Defendant’s electors in that state. [emphasis and names added]

      And I think Mike Roman’s role in the fake electors scheme is of some importance, so that the indictment with no mention of Co-Conspirator 6 would actually be weaker.

  24. Yet Another Cynic Philosopher says:

    Had this all gone down at least a year earlier, there might have been meaningful consequences for Trump before the 2024 election.

    As it is, all he has to do is win.

  25. Joberly1954 says:

    The fourth crime charged against Defendant, “Conspiracy Against Rights,” (18 USC 241) is the statute that Congress first enacted in 1870 to suppress the KKK and uphold the newly ratified 15th Amendment, the right to vote (for men) regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

    Congress took this offense seriously in 1870. The penalties upon conviction in 1870 for interfering with “the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” were a fine of up to $10,000 ($207,000 in today’s dollars), up to ten years in prison, and to be deemed ineligible for federal appointed or elected office.

    As revised after WW II, the 18 USC 241 still calls for unspecified fines and up to ten years imprisonment . The ban on eligibility for federal office got deleted.

  26. Ravenclaw says:

    Had fun scrolling through all the guesses as to the identities of #5 and especially #6. Now that there seems to be a consensus, it’s worth asking “what about the other bad actors who aren’t listed here?” Was there insufficient evidence tying them to the conspiracy in any way? Are they being held in reserve for some future refiling? For the record, frequently mentioned names were (1) Boris Epshteyn, (2) Roger Stone, (3) Mark Meadows, (4) Jason Miller, (5) Michael Flynn. I’m omitting 1-2 that didn’t make sense to me, like Ginni Thomas (on their side but not at their side, so to speak), and probably missed someone. But several of these guys seem to have been in the scheme up to their eye teeth.

      • Ravenclaw says:

        I didn’t see any previous commenter naming him, but sure, go ahead.

        And in case #6 is Epshteyn, we should remove his name from my list and add Mike Roman.

  27. DinnerAtAntoine’s says:

    About 1512c2 & k – Is this really in danger of losing at DCC or USSC? Hasn’t it already withstood appellate challenges? I just cannot imagine a democratic system – anywhere at any time – which would truly say, hey it’s perfectly legal to violently interrupt a congressional or legislative act.

    *Maybe OSC adds additional buttressing statutes if they conclude 1512 is vulnerable. It’s just to me a truism that a democracy must make its legislation defensible by rule of law.

  28. Midtowngirl says:

    Not entirely sure this is appropriate to post here, but I came across a really useful website for searching through all the J6 Committee interview transcripts. It was put together by J6 “political prisoner” supporters, but a great search tool nonetheless.
    The search results provide links to the pdf files hosted on /, so it’s legit and safe to use.

    • Rayne says:

      Thanks for that, very helpful.

      Caveat to those who use that resource: Remember every visit leaves metadata.

  29. Badger Robert says:

    Thanks Ms. Wheeler. Who does Attorney Smith use to make it clear to the jurors that this was not politics, it was revolution?

  30. Savage Librarian says:

    Marcy, thanks for the update on Mike Roman. I was pretty sure it was him all along, but your update clinches it. The reason I thought of him from the beginning was because of all the things Eureka once pointed out to us. And, of course, you also filled us in about Roman some time ago. I miss Eureka and appreciate all that she generously shared with us.

Comments are closed.