exactly, he says added to "our" team. not "his" team. why are you defending the orange piece of shit?
A reminder about Chesebro: An architect, along with Eastman, of the fake electors scheme... who wrote in a memo: "It is important that the alternate slates of electors meet and vote on December 14 if we are to create a scenario under which Biden can be prevented from reaching 270 electoral votes, even if Trump has not managed by then to obtain court decisions (or state legislative resolutions) invalidating enough results to push Biden below 270." So from the very beginning, the plan was to find a way to block Biden’s win even if efforts to do so through through legal means failed. The conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that their litigation was successful in one of the targeted states—instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates at Congress's certification proceeding. This past week in court Chesebro's lawyer admitted that Chesebro knew at the time of drafting up his fake electors that Biden had won, that the election was not stolen. So, this was NOTHING AT ALL like the Hawaii electors case which trump's defenders like to cite as defense for his treason. In a nutshell, Chesebro was wise to plead guilty. He was dead meat otherwise.
I read that she is required to testify moving forward as part of her plea deal. I can't imagine a prosecutor offering a plea deal without their testimony being part of the equation. Classic prosecution for RICO cases...give out plea deals to the underlings for their testimony against the bigger fish.
Three years later and you still believe this shit? Haven't learned your lesson from being burned after every other claim like this turns out to be false? Almost three years now and not a single credible shred of evidence has emerged that the election was fraudulent. Over sixty court cases that were dismissed for lack of evidence and you are still posting this kind of garbage because you just cant let it go that your beloved Trump lost and lost badly.
how so? the order itself is very narrow in scope and simply prohibits trump from speaking about the prosecutor or potential witnesses. it in no way inhibits his ability to speak in general terms about the trial or to proclaim his innocence. The supreme court has upheld similar gag orders in the past. That said the order has been lifted while it is on appeal. I think, if anything, the appeals court will send the decision back to Judge Chutkin and ask her to revise the order, but it will be upheld. truth why are his lawyers striking plea deals? If all of this is just a ruse wouldn't it make more sense that these people would be maintaining their innocence?
