Legal Experts Say There's More Than Enough Evidence To Convict Trump For Election Interference

Multiple legal experts - including former DOJ officials and federal prosecutors - have put together a prosecution memo that lays out all of the evidence that is publicly known, and they've come to the conclusion that more than enough evidence exists to not only indict Donald Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election, but also to secure a conviction. The big charge would be conspiracy to defraud the government, but that's just one of many potential charges the former president could be facing, as Farron Cousins explains.

Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

A panel of multiple different legal experts have put together a sample prosecution memo that they say is basically the outline that would happen if they were a part of the doj. And some of these people were at one point, but in their sample prosecution memo, these legal experts have laid out plenty of instances where they believe that the criminal evidence is so overwhelming that not only will it secure an indictment against Donald Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election results, but they believe that the evidence that's publicly known and that is key, by the way, is enough to already secure a conviction against Donald Trump. These experts are Norm Eisen, Noah Bookbinder, Donald ier, Joshua Stanton, Daniel Perry, Deborah Perlin, and Kayvon Farhadi. So you've got a lot of great legal minds there. People that I have quoted in the past in videos. And what they've done is essentially what the D O J will do when they eventually decide to prosecute Trump.

You put together this prosecution memo. It lays out all the evidence. It has the pros, it has the cons, it has the avenues, it has the statutes, and it basically builds step by step how they would go about prosecuting Donald Trump. So in their sample prosecution memo, these experts say that the big charge, which is the one I've talked about the most, is likely going to be conspiracy to defraud the government of the United States. You know, essentially Trump's plan and, and his lawyer's plans to go out, seize the voting machines, to run the alternate slates of electors based on bogus claims of voter fraud. That would be an attempt to deceive the federal government into, you know, putting up these fake electors. So that is the conspiracy to defraud the government of the United States. Of course, I distilled it down to like this, but, but really to explain it, it's like this, but all you need to know is that the attempt to convince the government to switch out the electors based on phony information, that was their attempt to defraud the government.

That's the best way to distill it. And again, that really is all we need to know about that. Uh, but they continue, uh, here we conclude. There likely is sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction of Trump for his three-step plan to overturn the election. According to raw story, Trump worked with his lawyers to overturn an election he knew he had lost, which they say constitutes a conspiracy to defraud the US and the administration of elections. And after those schemes failed, they tried to obstruct an official proceeding by attempting to block certification of Joe Biden's win or delay the electoral count. But then Vice President Mike Pence refused to act on that plan. The memo continues when Pence refused. Trump went to his last resort triggering an in an insurrection with the hope it would, uh, throw Congress off course delaying

The transfer of power for the first time in American history. This implicated statutes such as 18 US Code 2383, which prohibits inciting an insurrection and giving aid or comfort to insurrectionist. So not only do these legal experts say that we've got 'em on defrauding the government, like that's, that's pretty easy. They also say that we can probably get him under the 14th amendment, you know, inciting the insurrection, which would prevent him from ever holding a public office in the United States ever again. Now, that's a big one. That's what a lot of people have been asking me about, like, will this, uh, you know, potential conviction here prevent Trump from running for office and only if Jack Smith secures it under that 18 US Code 2383? I think that's, yeah, 2383. Now, if they get that he's done, he can't run for office again under the 14th Amendment.