Wed: The First Amendment is the Last Thing They Need

I hate peer pressure and you should too.

If One Person Calls You a Horse, They Are Crazy.  If Two People Call You a Horse, It's a Conspiracy.  IF Three People Call You a Horse, Get a Saddle.

pg 6 - 8

The Defendant’s Knowledge of the Falsity of His Election Fraud Claims

11. The Defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents made knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election. These prolific lies about election fraud included dozens of specific claims that there had been substantial fraud in certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for the Defendant to votes for Biden. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue — often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts — and he deliberately disregarded the truth. For instance:

a. The Defendant’s Vice President — who personally stood to gain by remaining in office as part of the Defendant’s ticket and whom the Defendant asked to study fraud allegations—told the Defendant that he had seen no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud.

b. The senior leaders of the Justice Department — appointed by the Defendant and responsible for investigating credible allegations of election crimes — told the Defendant on multiple occasions that various allegations of fraudwere unsupported.

c. The Director of National Intelligence — the Defendant’s principal advisor on intelligence matters related to national security — disabused the Defendant of the notion that the Intelligence Community’s findings regarding foreign interference would change the outcome of the election.

d. The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”)—whose existence the Defendant signed into law to protect the nation’s cybersecurity infrastructure from attack—joined an official multi-agency statement that there was no evidence any voting system had been compromised and that declared the 2020 election “the most secure in American history.” Days later, after the CISA Director—whom the Defendant had appointed—announced publicly that election security experts were in agreement that claims of computer-based election fraud were unsubstantiated, the Defendant fired him.

e. Senior White House attorneys — elected by the Defendant to provide him candid advice—informed the Defendant that there was no evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, and told him that his presidency would end on Inauguration Day in 2021.

f. Senior staffers on the Defendant’s 2020 re-election campaign (“Defendant’s Campaign” or “Campaign”) — whose sole mission was the Defendant’s re-election — told the Defendant on November 7, 2020, that he had only a five to ten percent chance of prevailing in the election, and that success was contingent on the Defendant winning ongoing vote counts or litigation in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Within a week of that assessment, the Defendant lost in Arizona—meaning he had lost the election.

g. State legislators and officials — many of whom were the Defendant’s political allies, had voted for him, and wanted him to be re-elected — repeatedly informed the Defendant that his claims of fraud in their states were unsubstantiated or false and resisted his pressure to act based upon them.

h. State and federal courts — the neutral arbiters responsible for ensuring the fair and even-handed administration of election laws—rejected every outcome-determinative post-election lawsuit filed by the Defendant, his co-conspirators, and allies, providing the Defendant real-time notice that his allegations were meritless.


12. The Defendant widely disseminated his false claims of election fraud for months, despite the fact that he knew, and in many cases had been informed directly, that they were not true. The Defendant’s knowingly false statements were integral to his criminal plans to defeat the federal government function, obstruct the certification, and interfere with others’ right to vote and have their votes counted. He made these knowingly false claims throughout the post-election time period,