Even though a judge has ruled that Donald Trump voted fraudulently, his decision may not have much practical impact on a Justice Department investigation. Nevertheless, the evidence that Trump signed false documents in order to obtain votes could be a useful data point for criminal prosecutors.
Trump’s attorneys claimed that Fulton County, Georgia, improperly counted 10,000 votes, including votes of dead people, felons, and unregistered voters. However, this allegation was based on a false filing that Trump’s legal team filed in Georgia state court.(Also Read: Russian President Vladimir Putin Declares Martial Law in the Four Annexed Regions of Ukraine)
Carter decided that 33 documents are not protected by the attorney-client privilege because they have to do with a crime or an attempt to commit a crime.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a document may not be protected by attorney-client privilege if it is prepared for the purpose of a criminal trial or investigation. However, Carter ruled that there are exceptions to this rule. In addition to these exceptions, the Court also said that an attorney’s work-product materials may be subject to criminal discovery.
This rule applies to all federal agencies, and it states that certain records are exempt from attorney-client privilege if they relate to a crime or attempted crime. However, in the context of FOIA requests, work-product privilege is protected. In Carey-Canada, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., for example, the Court said that the government didn’t have the right to object to the plaintiff’s discovery request because the plaintiff had enough facts to back up his claim.
The court also said that such a determination is not required for every document that a client receives from a lawyer. This decision cited cases such as Arthur Andersen, Coastal States, and Judicial Watch, Inc., which each set a lower standard for the duty of confidentiality. The Court also pointed to recent cases such as Petroleum Info. (976 F.2d), which suggests a new harm standard for documents that are mundane and not policy-oriented. On the other hand, Lee v. FDIC, on the other hand, said that attorney-client privilege protects documents related to a crime or an attempt to commit a crime, even if they are not part of an ongoing lawsuit.
In the United States, this decision is a significant victory for the plaintiffs. It is the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a government agency’s claim that its internal documents can be subject to attorney-client privilege. It is important to remember that this decision is not the final word on the matter.
Further, it is important to note that Carter v. United States Department of Justice also reveals a significant change in the practice of protecting documents in criminal investigations. In this case, the plaintiff was a political campaign finance task force investigating the role of money in politics. The court also didn’t agree with the defendants’ claim that these documents should be kept secret because they were about terrorism.
Donald Trump swore under oath that fraud numbers were “true and correct.”
Donald Trump signed a document containing voting statistics in Georgia and swore that they were “true and correct.” These numbers were wrong, but he still filed the document anyway. It’s not clear why Trump would knowingly lie to the American people. After all, he worked as an attorney for the president, and the vice president pushed the theory that a vice president can rig elections.
The emails were obtained after US District Judge David Carter ordered Donald Trump’s former lawyer to hand over the emails. John Eastman, Trump’s attorney, claimed the emails were covered by attorney-client privilege. However, Carter found eight of them relevant.
The emails show that the president repeatedly sought to offer false assurances about voter fraud. While Donald Trump did not admit it, his lawyer, John Eastman, failed to clarify the false claims. The emails also show that Trump was aware of the false numbers but refused to correct them.
Donald Trump signed documents he knew to be false.
A US district court judge ruled that former President Donald J. Trump signed documents he knew to be false and voted fraud. The judge was ruling in a case where the former president challenged the election results in Georgia. His team argued that a county had improperly counted 10,000 votes and that the results were not correct. The judge also noted that Trump’s attorneys had warned him that the numbers were false.
The judge’s ruling has little practical impact on the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation into election fraud. However, it may be significant to criminal prosecutors, as it provides a clearer picture of Donald Trump’s involvement in the election. The former president’s lawyers argued that Fulton County in Georgia had erroneously counted more than 10,000 votes, including those of dead people, criminals, and unregistered voters. The legal team filed the lawsuit in state court in Georgia on Dec. 4, 2021, and claimed that the voting results were based on faulty voter counts.
The Donald Trump campaign has filed a second lawsuit in response to the ruling. Eastman had tried to withhold the documents from the committee, citing attorney-client privilege. But the committee argued that there is a legal exception for the disclosure of information about ongoing crimes.
After the attack on the Capitol, Donald Trump asked Eastman for a presidential pardon.
A committee investigating the attack on the Capitol revealed that John Eastman sought a presidential pardon from President Donald Trump shortly after the attack. The disclosure, made at the end of Eastman’s third hearing, appears to show the degree of Eastman’s guilt. In an email to Rudy Giuliani, Eastman requested to be included on the presidential pardon list. He is the key figure behind the plan to overturn the 2020 election.
Eastman has been a prominent supporter of President Donald Trump for many years. He was a prominent member of the Republican Party and a candidate for the committee. He argued that his requests were not an admission of guilt. He maintained that he had acted as a precaution to protect himself and other Americans from the attack. However, the committee said that he has never been granted a presidential pardon.
The pardon request by Eastman was arguably the most significant moment in the investigation. It showed that the former Vice President had a conscious awareness of his crimes and the ramifications of those actions. It also signaled that Eastman had sought a presidential pardon and that he understood his actions were unlawful. Eastman’s last-ditch effort to block the certification of the election was not fruitful. He also suggested that the legislatures adjourn for 10 days to conclude their investigations.
In a crucial portion of the hearing, the committee found evidence that Eastman had told Donald Trump about his illegal plan two days before the attack. Eastman has also spoken to the House select committee about the uncertainty of the 2020 election.
Trump filed lawsuits to delay the final tally of Electoral College votes from Georgia.
President Donald Trump’s lawyers had advised him to file lawsuits to delay the final tally of Georgia’s Electoral College votes. They had alleged that thousands of votes were not counted and that some of them were from felons, dead people, and unregistered voters. The lawsuits were eventually dismissed after the judge rejected them.
Despite the fact that the president was aware of the lawsuits that would be filed by Texas and Georgia, he continued to press the attorney general to refrain from rallying Republicans to fight the Texas lawsuits. The Secretary of State of Georgia finally certified the results of the presidential election, and the third count showed that Biden won Georgia by 11,779 votes.
The lawsuits filed by Donald Trump and his campaign to delay the final tally of Georgia’s Electoral College votes have been rejected by other courts. The Trump campaign had claimed that the ballots arrived after the polls closed on November 3, but county officials testified that they were received on time. The Republican lawsuit, filed in federal court, failed to win, and the appeals process has failed.
The Trump campaign is moving to intervene in a Supreme Court case involving the extension of mail-in ballots. The Trump campaign wants to stop Democratic officials from hiding ballot processing and extending the deadline for mail-in and absentee ballots. They also want the ruling to be reversed.
Trump’s attorneys claimed that Fulton County improperly counted the votes of dead people and felons.
The Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, is facing a legal challenge over the count of Electoral College votes in Georgia. His attorneys have alleged that Fulton County, Georgia, improperly counted the votes of dead people, felons, and unregistered voters. They have also sought a delay in the state’s upcoming 2021 election. Their lawsuit was filed in December 2020.
Several top Justice Department officials have told Donald Trump that his claims of voter fraud in Georgia are unfounded. However, the state has investigated these claims and certified the election results. Trump also raised debunked allegations about ballots being transported in suitcases and in video footage. Raffensperger has said that the claims are false and that the U.S. Attorney General and Georgia Bureau of Investigation investigated the claims.
Regardless of the facts, the Trump administration has alleged that at least 10,000 dead people and felons voted in Georgia. While these numbers are difficult to verify, Raffensperger’s office has conducted multiple investigations into every allegation and delved into multiple rabbit holes to corroborate their findings. They discovered that there were approximately six thousand dead people, 2,423 unregistered voters, and more than 2,056 felons who voted in Georgia. In Georgia, fewer than 70 people who had been convicted of a crime voted in the presidential election.
Donald Trump’s attorneys have filed a separate legal complaint after the initial one, citing the same inaccurate numbers. They also said that they verified the allegations under oath. (Also Read: U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss Apologizes for Government Mistakes)