'Frankly incriminating': George Conway reveals Trump’s latest 'admission of guilt'

03 September 2024

One of former President Donald Trump's ongoing criminal cases involves his alleged interference of the certification of election results on January 6, 2021. And according to an anti-Trump conservative lawyer, the ex-president may have just given the prosecution a huge gift.

Over the Labor Day weekend, Trump sat down with far-right pundit Mark Levin for a Fox News interview and said he had "every right" to interfere in the 2020 election. He also said that getting charged with multiple felonies was a net positive for his 2024 campaign.

"It's so crazy that my poll numbers go up. Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it," Trump said. "You get indicted and your poll numbers go up."

In a Tuesday segment on CNN, George Conway — the ex-husband of top Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway — said that Trump's interview may very well be additional ammunition that Department of Justice special counsel could use against him. He also said that if he were Trump's attorney, he would remind the ex-president of his Fifth Amendment right "to stuff a sock in his mouth."

"But he's not capable of doing that and he continually makes remarks that are frankly incriminating," Conway said. "His statement there in that interview with Mark Levin — that to the effect that he had the perfect right to interfere with the election — is an admission that he tried to interfere with the election and that he wasn't trying to enforce federal law, and act in his capacity as president of the United States. He was trying to win an election that he clearly lost. And that's a crime."

"For him, it's just yet another admission of guilt. And he's made many of them over the years," Conway added.

On Thursday, both Smith's team of prosecutors and Trump's defense attorneys will meet to discuss the next steps for the D.C. election interference case. Smith recently retooled the indictment to better comport with the Supreme Court's controversial Trump v. United States decision, in which the conservative majority ruled that Trump had absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all "official acts" during his administration.

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling benefiting Trump, the Court maintained that the definition of what constitutes an "official act" is up to the discretion of lower court judges, like U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the D.C. case. Smith has argued in briefings that because Trump's rally on January 6 was paid for by his campaign and not with tax dollars that he was not acting in his capacity as president, and should thus still face prosecution.

Trump's attorneys are still trying to have the case dismissed. They argue that because Trump was in the lame duck period of his presidency at the time of the January 6 insurrection, that any and all actions their client took fall under the immunity umbrella. A trial before Election Day is unlikely, and should Trump win the November election, he would have the ability to either pardon himself or have his appointed attorney general dismiss the case, as well as the other federal case against him in the Southern District of Florida for allegedly mishandling classified government documents.

Watch Conway's segment below, or by clicking this link.

From Your Site Articles