Avoid making negative or unhelpful posts, and instead focus on providing constructive feedback and ideas that can help to move the discussion forward.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 3
...in peacetime.
'Never before in the history of this country have we seen a president try to overturn an election. You can only be charged with treason in this country if the country is at war, but to me this seems like the closest thing you can charge to treason in peacetime.'
That's Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutor, explaining why this indictment of former president Donald Trump is such a big deal. WAPO
No. of Recommendations: 1
'Never before in the history of this country have we seen a president try to overturn an election. You can only be charged with treason in this country if the country is at war, but to me this seems like the closest thing you can charge to treason in peacetime.' - ges
--------------
You are whipping yourself into quite a frenzy there ges. The thing is, it is not a crime to dispute the results of an election no matter who is doing the disputing. If it were a crime then Staci Abrahams and Hillary Clinton would be in prison.
Further, the prosecutors will have to prove that Trump knew the election was fair and under that scenario some of his action could be criminal. Now, the problem is that there little chance that prosecutors can get inside of Trumps head and prove he did not think he was the legitimate winner. Certainly his observed behavior and rhetoric supports that belief.
Prepare to be disappointed.
No. of Recommendations: 7
The thing is, it is not a crime to dispute the results of an election no matter who is doing the disputing.
But it is a crime to call up a state official and demand "find me 11000 votes", or to interfere (or attempt to interfere) in the election process, etc. He's not up on charges for disputing it. He's up on charges for trying to influence/manipulate the results (and/or officials). From what I've seen (I haven't read the complaint, just summaries in the news).
I'm still expecting GA to go after him. They have him on tape asking to find him 11000 votes. That's pretty blatant.
No. of Recommendations: 7
bighairyguy: The thing is, it is not a crime to dispute the results of an election...
When you illegally conspire with others to remain in office through a fake electors scheme, it's a crime. Are you suggesting Clinton or Stacey Abrams (at least get her name right) conspired to send fake electors to overturn the election or did anything other than infrequently grouse about their losses?
bighairyguy: Further, the prosecutors will have to prove that Trump knew the election was fair and under that scenario some of his action could be criminal. Now, the problem is that there little chance that prosecutors can get inside of Trumps head and prove he did not think he was the legitimate winner. Certainly his observed behavior and rhetoric supports that belief.
I see this argument being made and, frankly, it's silly. You don't get handed a Get Out Of Jail Free card because of what you think you know or what you believe. Or do you think a man who kills his neighbor because he believes he was sleeping with his wife is unindictable? In addition, for Trump to dispute what was "in his head," he'll have to testify and there's no way on God's Green Earth Trump is going to get on the witness stand.
No. of Recommendations: 4
But it is a crime to call up a state official and demand "find me 11000 votes" - 1pg
--------------
Why? Now if it was accompanied with a credible threat such as "If you don;t I will hunt you down and make you sorry", then you might have something.
He's up on charges for trying to influence/manipulate the results (and/or officials).
Again, not a crime. Every campaign speech is an attempt to influence elections. Doesn't even have to be true. Such as Harry Reid stating the Mitt Romney didn't pay his taxes and then later smirking at the lie, "It worked, didn't it."
I know many of you just hate Trump so very much that you want his words to be crimes but proving that in criminal proceedings is much harder (high bar for admissible evidence) than in impeachment proceedings and you see how that worked out.
No. of Recommendations: 2
the prosecutors will have to prove that Trump knew the election was fair and under that scenario some of his action could be criminal... there little chance that prosecutors can get inside of Trumps head and prove he did not think he was the legitimate winner. Certainly his observed behavior and rhetoric supports that belief.
Prepare to be disappointed.
-----------------------------
That is a tall order, surely. But I think Trump is up to it. There seems to be witnesses inside Trump's camp that advised him, that listened to him, that cooperated at his direction. It seems the whole thing began long before the election was over. My favorite is "we have no proof, but lots of theories" about election fraud - guess who said that? :) I might've agreed with you a few months ago, but when I see how the ExP bumbles around and shoots himself in the foot in this magic document case then anything becomes possible. Get enough witnesses and a few docs and you can build that scaffolding - executive privilege, national security, etc., - all can be penetrated if you're stupid enough. This was thrown together on the fly inside the white house and you're going to see evidence of the coercion from at least seven states - with Trump's recorded phone call, with other statements her made to witnesses.
I think there's probably more than enough.
No. of Recommendations: 3
But it is a crime to call up a state official and demand "find me 11000 votes", or to interfere (or attempt to interfere) in the election process, etc. He's not up on charges for disputing it. He's up on charges for trying to influence/manipulate the results (and/or officials). From what I've seen (I haven't read the complaint, just summaries in the news).
I'm still expecting GA to go after him. They have him on tape asking to find him 11000 votes. That's pretty blatant.
No just that. :)
WAPO: In the Trump case, Willis has said she is focused on the phone calls Trump made to multiple Georgia officials seeking to reverse his defeat, his campaign's efforts to persuade the Georgia legislature to declare Trump the winner, the gathering of Trump's electors to cast electoral college votes for Trump after Joe Biden had been declared the winner in the state, and the Trump campaign's potential involvement in an unauthorized breach of election equipment in rural Coffee County, Ga.
Dozens of people participated in those efforts, according to reams of emails, texts and deposition transcripts from the House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack: Trump lawyers such as Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, Ray Smith and John Eastman; senior advisers including then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows; Jeffrey Clark, then a senior official at the Justice Department; and Georgia GOP leaders including the party chairman, David Shafer, and its then finance chairman, Shawn Still...
ME: Hard to prove but: :)
...Trump may have hurt himself, however, in his appearance last month at a town hall broadcast by CNN, during which he explained that he called Raffensperger to tell him, 'You owe me votes because the election was rigged.' Willis could offer the statement as evidence of Trump's intent for Raffensperger to switch votes, several legal experts said.
'Subjects of criminal investigation aren't usually reckless enough to go on national television and admit their corrupt intent,' Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University, wrote on Twitter after the appearance. 'But Donald Trump just handed Fani Willis a new piece of evidence and tied a bow on it.'
No. of Recommendations: 8
The thing is, it is not a crime to dispute the results of an election no matter who is doing the disputing. If it were a crime then Staci Abrahams and Hillary Clinton would be in prison.
A person would have to be comatose or brain dead to not see the difference between 'disputing' and what Trump has been doing.
No. of Recommendations: 3
this pretty much shows trump hires lawyers bad at defense AND spin publicity.
"The indictment demonstrates that Smith has collected voluminous evidence showing that Trump knew he was lying. But a successful prosecution does not hinge on what Trump believed about the 2020 election. If Trump is convicted, it will be based on his actions."
its clear that MAGA does not want to see trump jailed short of something like 1st-person on-camera mass murder AND confession (i.e., a white-collar crime they can comprehend without much narrative). this support, and his proven ability to incur interminable delays, are his only real tools. and its the country's peril to underestimate either.
https://popular.info/p/the-biggest-misconception-a...
No. of Recommendations: 2
BHM: The thing is, it is not a crime to dispute the results of an election no matter who is doing the disputing. If it were a crime then Staci Abrahams and Hillary Clinton would be in prison.
SANO: A person would have to be comatose or brain dead to not see the difference between 'disputing' and what Trump has been doing.
ME: We need Albaby here. His ability to summarize the distinction eloquently is admirable.
A repeated pattern that shows directed coordinated effort that effects a crime(s), coupled with witness testimony that shows intent can get past the PT Barnum big sheew of "belief" to mask intent and continue the grift. Here, witness statements show intent begins prior to election day upon realization the polls show Trump won't win, and witnesses show the competing different schemes - invoke the insurrection act with an attempt to use the DOJ to put color of authority behind election lies to coerce states, with Eastman's slates of alternate electors winning, blocked by Pence, and insurrectionist militant elements being directed in on Jan 6.
This can be understood by a person with less than average intelligence who puts the good of the Republic ahead of partisan politics and who doesn't have Trump as their identity.
