The Georgia indictment is said to use the same "conspiracy to commit fraud" nonsense.

The USSC has suggested in very recent rulings that "fraud against the Government" still requires some form of tangible defrauding of money or property. Not just some generic idea that fraud undermines reputation or questions legitimacy.

According to most legal experts, the Jack Smith indictment is basically attempting to criminalize speech. Specifically speech that is otherwise protected by the constitution. There seems to be no real tangible fraud that was committed, so Smith just suggests that lying can be criminal if it undermines a Democrat winning the Presidency.

Many have pointed to cases brought before the appeals courts and have pointed to recent rulings at the highest level that still suggest that criminal fraud against the government requires tangible harm by way of money or property, the same as it does in all other fraud cases. I have seen a few legal people some point to a ruling from 1910 that offers some degree of logic that allows for fraud against the government in other conditions, but generally the latest rulings are the precedent for these questions and the most recent rulings are far more straight forward and more directly associate to this issue.

Moreover, the default argument being made by many is that Smith would have to prove that Trump "knowingly" lied. Don't fall for it. I think this is just a clever manner to suggest that there is a real case when there probably isn't. The experts I trust are quick to point out that even a blatant lie is still protected speech. Some have offered the fairly reasonable argument that all politicians lie. To say that politicians lying to sway Americans to their side is criminal fraud would be akin to criminalizing the entire elected government.

The case in Georgia appears to be built on the same logic as Smith's latest indictment. That Trump's words and actions were "fraud" and that the intent was to undermine the process and undermine the government. We will likely see "obstruction" and "fraud" charges similar to Smiths.

But the problem is the same.

There was no tangible obstruction or fraud in the legal sense and the process of recounts, contests, protests, and legal challenges are not criminal. The call to the Governor did not offer any threats or bribes. Just a request that is not illegal in any sense. But the idea that Smith and Fani Willis (Georgia prosecutor) are pushing here is that even a set of perfectly legal actions can still be determined to be a criminal conspiracy if the anticipated result is criminal. But of course, then you need a specific crime to tied to that logic?

Let's go with obstruction of the official count in Georgia which will likely be on the indictment. If Trump had convinced Kemp to dig deeper and the investigation found enough problems that the new counts changed the outcome. Would that be illegal?

Of course not. It would have been a legal victory for Trump.

But what about fraud? Is it fraud to seek legal measures, to protest, contest or otherwise challenge an election? Those measures "legally" exist. How can using them be seen as illegal? Would it have been fraud had one of those attempts succeeding in stopping the certification and changing the outcome?

Again... of course not. Same thing.

It certainly seems like they believe it was criminal for Trump to challenge the election results even if he didn't commit any specific crimes in his challenges?

Ahem...

I have read and talked to more than one honest Democrat and the honest ones will tell you that they don't care about the law or criminal statutes. The honest Democrats will just tell you that Trump is bad and there needs to be an excuse (of any sort) to put him in jail so he cannot become President. Some might take a little coaxing and a little prodding to get them to admit it. But there truth is that to these haters, even if there is no real "good" case against Trump, then they would still want whatever bad cases are left to be pursued as vigorously as they can be pursued, simply because of their slavery to their own hate.

I have a gut feeling that Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, and Fani Willis are three people with that amount of hate. They probably feel justified in bringing even the poorest of poor cases against Trump, just because they hate him so much and believe everyone else should to.