Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

Trump is fundraising with this

Trump says he faces 561 years in prison in fundraising email

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ces-561-years-in-prison-in-fundraising-email/

 

Doesn't the indictment itself disprove what Althouse is saying?

He isn't being prosecuted because of his speech. The indictment asserts he had the right to "educate" the public (as Althouse puts it), but he did not have the right to lead a scheme to send fake electors to Congress and commit electoral fraud in order to stay in power.

This also isn't about countering his "arguments" because that has been happening for years in the public forum. What hasn't happened is his "arguments" being used in court (aside from losing almost every election lawsuit he filed), where words matter a lot, as a defense against the charges that he sought to undo our electoral process through sham electors and un-held vice presidential authority.

 

Rogue's Gallery

 

I think so, unless she broadens the idea of "speech" (well yeah, I told them to find me nonexistent votes, I "spoke" that, and I told them to create a set of fake electors to overturn the election, I "spoke" that too, all free speech), and she definitely wants to broaden the idea of "politics" (based on her column) to include all sorts of shenanigans that can run afoul of our laws.

As if candidate X is simply better at politics if he can interrupt the peaceful and lawful transfer of power. "Well that sucks for the other politicians. They're just ain't as good at politics."

She has a very odd line, if any, between law and politics. It's like she want to draw it in pencil here, and then redraw it over here from paragraph to paragraph.

I do give her a golf clap for saying she's not a Trump supporter (TM).

 

Yes it does. What MAGA propaganda outlets are going to continue saying is false, but they don't care. They want to repeat it over and over again in the hopes that people just don't read the indictment and only believe it says what they want it to say.

The indictment is clear... Trump has the right to say what he wants but doesn't have the right to speak in a way that is in furtherance to a crime. EX: a mob boss ordering a hit. If Trump's defensive theory is correct, mob bosses who order murders should never be arrested or held to account.

 

I think she makes her position clear about the passage you cite in an earlier post this morning:

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/08/jack-smith-acknowledges-in-indictment.html

relevant excerpt:

ADDED: Paragraph 3 of the indictment concedes what had to be conceded and, really, concedes everything:



And that should have ended this woeful enterprise. This is a debate that should have taken place entirely in the political arena, and indeed, Trump's opponents have tried very hard to win this political debate. They achieved only mixed results, and instead of accepting the political outcome — and ironically they are criminalizing Trump's failure to accept a political outcome — they have chosen to fight this political battle in the courts.​

more at the link

 

Trump Campaign Worried There Might Not Be Enough Indictments To Meet All Fundraising Goals (theonion.com)

 

Then you and this lady leave out the next part that says that Trump could not use his free speech in furtherance to a crime. It's this type of lazy selective commentary that eviscerates any notion that you or your propaganda outlets you flood us with on all of us are nothing more than MAGA hacks.

 

this lady was a constitutional law scholar for thirty years at a top 40 law school, plus she's an expert on the federal courts. The "part that says that Trump could not use his free speech in furtherance to a crime" is PRECISELY what's debatable. Ad hominems about MAGA hacks do nothing to influence me.

 

But that doesn't address the fake elector plot at all. Yes, he was unsuccessful. He lost his legitimate court battles that the indictment says he had a right to pursue. Althouse is right that "that should have ended this woeful enterprise." But Trump didn't let it end. He went beyond his entitled court cases all the way to "scheming to send fake electoral slips to Congress" which feels patently illegal.

 

**** Trump.

The sooner that man is taking the long dirt nap the better for this country.

DD

 

Don't get your hopes up. Recent history suggests Trump doesn't have any fans on the Court, except maybe Justice Thomas. Trump's appeals get routinely and summarily dismissed, without opinion. The conservatives on the Court are country club Republicans and no doubt would prefer a Republican nominee that could win a general election. Even the three he picked show no deference to him - they probably credit Mitch and the Federalist Society for their nomination. The DC Court of Appeals will effectively be Trump's court of last resort.

 

I guess the bolded is what will have to be demonstrated. Again, I think a lot hinges on Trump's state of mind; and it is a truism that people can be "wishy-washy" in their beliefs--i.e., they can "flip-flop" in terms of their beliefs. I think it's entirely possible that Trump is weak enough to have been talked into one position on one day, and then talked into a second different position on the next day; and then on the third day he's talked back to position #1. With endless additional rounds of rinse-and-repeat.

Saying that an act "feels patently illegal" is fine, but demonstrating that act's actual illegality in a court is an entirely separate matter.

 

So if a mob boss orders a hit by telling a henchman to "take him out" or whatever, and the henchman attempts murder, the mob boss is just exercising "free speech?"

This isn't "debatable" as you would love it to be. Maybe the hacks on the Supreme Court decide to step in here on appeal to rewrite precedent, but at least now currently it's not debatable in any normal sense. You can't order a crime, and then because your hands are literally committing the crime, claim 1st amendment rights. That's not how any of this works.

 

to which I'd add, sure, it "felt" like O.J. Simpson was guilty of killing his ex-wife. But if the glove don't fit, you must acquit, so to speak.

The next year or two are going to be very interesting to see how this plays out.

 

But ignorance of the law is not a defense. The indictment lays out that Trump had been told multiple times by many people in his government that he had lost and that all of the conspiracy theories that Giuliani and Powell were throwing at him were wrong. He might have wanted them to be true, but he cannot argue that he wasn't told they were wrong.

Replace this with any other crime and the "Trump's state of mind" defense doesn't hold water.

Law: murder is illegal
Me: ok, got it
Person 1: Murder is actually cool
Me: Really? Wow. Ok, let's murder some people
Person 2: No, murder is still illegal
Me: But, he says murder is legal
Person 2: No, it isn't, and here is where that's written down (see: laws regarding electoral votes)
Me: Well, I think I'll go ahead and hire a hitman because Person 1 keeps saying murder is legal
Person 2: It doesn't matter what Person 1 says, the law says it's illegal
Me: *cleaning gun* I can't hear you

 

Jack Smith: Knock knock
Ginni Thomas: Who's there
Jack: Trait
Ginni: Trait who?
Jack: You're a traitor we know it's true, and the justice system is coming for you.

 

Perhaps co-conspirator #6...

 

Finished reading the indictment. Unlike the documents indictment, this thing is dense! But endlessly entertaining (in a gallows humor kind of way). I've long thought the Trump presidency was crying out to be made into a movie. I think this indictment should be made into a movie.

Yeah, they were lazy, unlike Trump!

Was thinking about this. I think institutional leaders like Biden, Obama, or Bush are pretty disposable because you can always slot in another guy like them. They could actually die in office, and the Admin could probably stagger on for awhile before people found out. But Trump was a subversive that was actually trying to upend how we govern (for the worse, but whatever). For someone who deeply resents the status quo and wants profound change, he's unique. There is no other guy who can do the same thing. There's no other guy that would commit felonies, break his oath to the Constitution, and betray his country for the sake of changing how we're governed. That's why the indictments make him more popular -- they want a revolution. I think that's why DeSantis faded. He says all the right MAGA things, but you can tell he's not going to go all the way.

 

I haven't seen anyone make a serious argument that this will be Trump's defense; so I'm not sure how this explains anything.

What the prosecution will have to demonstrate (if not prove outright) is Trump's criminal intent. And I think that's going to be a more difficult challenge than many suppose

again, I think this is why the early commentary is split on the question of whether these indictments are really about (a) freedom of expression and freedom of belief, or (b) defending democracy against election fraud.

If the latter, then there's going to be an enormous burden of proof on the prosecution. If instead it's about (a), then there's a chance some if not all of the indictments could be dismissed.

Again, as I said earlier, there is nothing here that even resembles a legal slam dunk. People of good will disagree about the charges signify, what the law says, and whether politically this is a prudent course of action. Obviously those three items are distinct from each other, but they are also obviously closely related to each other as well.

Again, there are legal analysts who don't see much "there," there in the indictments. One such view from the right:



I don't cite this to "prove" anything, other than show that people of good will can disagree on whether the indictments will hold up or not. To me, the most prudent thing would be to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.

If folks here find such a wait-and-see stance unsatisfying, I am happy to provide my usual "they've got the b*stard now" affirmation.