[COPY] Memorandum: The Case for Criminal Conspiracy Against Donald Trump and Project 2025

Introduction

I do not write this as an attorney. I write this as a citizen and a systems analyst who has seen feedback loops break and authoritarian capture metastasize. Trump and his enablers have breached every constitutional fault line. The January 6th insurrection was not an endpoint, but a trigger. Project 2025 is not a policy agenda, but the continuation of the same conspiracy.

The question is simple: Can a criminal conspiracy charge be brought against Trump and the architects of Project 2025? The answer, under law and logic, is yes.

The Issue

Whether Donald Trump and his enablers can be charged under federal conspiracy statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States) and 18 U.S.C. § 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy), for their actions surrounding January 6, 2021, and the ongoing implementation of Project 2025.

The Rules

18 U.S.C. § 371: It is unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, if one or more do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy.

18 U.S.C. § 2384: If two or more persons conspire to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force its authority, they are guilty of seditious conspiracy.

Precedents:

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): Speech inciting imminent lawless action is not protected. Trump’s exhortations on January 6 and the coordinated lies that followed cross this threshold (Stone, 2019).

United States v. North (1990): Demonstrates that even powerful executive officials can be held criminally accountable for conspiracies that subvert lawful government functions (Shanor, 1990).

United States v. Rhodes (2022): Seditious conspiracy convictions for the Oath Keepers show how organizing, recruiting, and directing—even without personally breaching the Capitol—meets the statutory threshold (United States v. Rhodes, 2022).

The Application

Agreement

Trump did not act alone. He drew from a network of Fox News loyalists, lawyers, and operatives who collectively schemed to overturn the 2020 election. The Eastman memos, Meadows’ notes, and Giuliani’s communications serve as documentary proof of an agreement to obstruct Congress (Cheney, 2022).

Overt Acts

The overt acts are unmistakable:

The pressure campaign on Mike Pence to violate the Electoral Count Act.

The summoning of a mob to Washington on January 6 with the words, “Be there, will be wild.”

The deployment of media figures and cabinet members to amplify the “stolen election” lie across every Fox platform (Ben-Ghiat, 2020).

Intent

Intent is the linchpin. Trump’s intent was not rhetorical—it was operational. He sought to delay or deny the lawful certification of Joe Biden’s victory. That is precisely the kind of “defrauding the United States” the Supreme Court has upheld as criminal under § 371 (Kelley, 2022).

Continuity Through Project 2025

Project 2025 is not a break from January 6 but its codification. It is the legal-administrative blueprint to finish what the mob could not: the destruction of constitutional guardrails. The same actors who fueled January 6 now craft a “policy” platform to hardwire autocracy into law (Chotiner, 2025). This continuity reinforces the conspiracy frame, as it is ongoing, active, and coordinated.

Obstacles

I am not naïve. Judicial capture is real. The Supreme Court, dominated by Trumpist sympathizers, may nullify prosecutions. But that is a political obstacle, not a legal one. The law does not cease to exist because judges abandon courage.

Statute of limitations? Five years for conspiracy, unless the conspiracy is ongoing. Project 2025 extends the conspiracy beyond January 6, resetting the clock.

Conclusion

If conspiracy law does not apply to Trump and Project 2025, then it does not apply to anyone. The statutes are written precisely for moments like this: when elites collude to trample democracy. Trump and his enablers agreed, acted, and intended to defraud the United States. The only missing ingredient is the will of prosecutors and the independence of courts.

I say plainly: either we bring conspiracy charges now, or we admit that we no longer live under constitutional rule.

References

Ben-Ghiat, R. (2020). Strongmen: Mussolini to the present. W.W. Norton & Company.

Cheney, L. (2022). Oath and honor: A memoir and a warning. Little, Brown and Company.

Chotiner, I. (2025, May 16). Donald Trump’s culture of corruption. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com

Kelley, B. (2022). January 6: How politicians, lawyers, and media fueled the insurrection. Beacon Press.

Shanor, C. R. (1990). Executive accountability and United States v. North. Yale Law Journal, 99(8), 2551–2567.

Stone, G. R. (2019). Perilous times: Free speech in wartime. W.W. Norton & Company.

United States v. Rhodes, No. 22-cr-15 (D.D.C. 2022).

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

Disclaimer

I am not an attorney. This article was written solely from open-source intelligence (OSINT). I am not a threat to the United States Constitution, nor do I belong to any group or institution advocating the overthrow of a lawful government. Binghamton University has no involvement in or responsibility for these writings. The views expressed are my own, an act of civic analysis and resistance, nothing more.

LICENCE MIT

Copyright Ronald J. Botelho, MS 2025