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

Here’s turley doing exactly that…

 

All these Republicans and etc. bringing up Democrats complaining about 2016 keep on forgetting Hillary Clinton never told a Secretary of State to find her enough votes to overturn the election and never told her supporters to fight like hell on Jan. 6 , 2017.

She conceded the next day after the election and on Jan. 6, 2017 VP Joe Biden certified the election peacefully. Without people threatening to hang him.

2016 and 2020 were not the same and this isn’t about jailing someone for disagreeing with the result of the election not even claiming election fraud.

 

Besides the fact that he knew what he was doing, and yes he did use the words, "Find me 11,xxx votes" which was the margin he lost by, he threatened legal action if he didn't get the result he wanted. That alone is breaking the law whether or not he thought it was fraud.

Secondly, he instructed AG's to appoint a different set of electors. He was informed this was illegal. Yet he still demanded it. That is a conspiracy to commit a crime, not free speech and no it doesn't matter if he thought the election was stolen, you still can't commit and illegal act which is what he tried to do.

 

I'm sure Jack has more direct evidence of Trump's knowledge than the guy you are arguing with, or the other Republicans and MAGA cultists who believe Trump's BS. Jack isn't gonna throw out all his hand until his day comes in court. There is one indisputable fact about Trump. He NEVER has, and never will admit he did or does anything wrong, and he never will. His narcissistic ego always stops him.

 

I don’t see how that is different than this situation. You’re arguing that Trump doesn’t have an intent to overturn the election. That seems the same as someone being tried for premeditated murder claiming they weren’t actually trying to kill someone. Ir my example of a Ponzi scheme. In all three you’re just accepting the word of the defendant. As you note though you can still get a conviction.

Except that Trump also incited a riot and there is plenty of evidence that he not only didn’t want to stop it but actually encouraged it.

Also there is plenty of evidence that Trump knew that the election wasn’t fraudulent as his own AG and many others told him and there is testimony from others that he acknowledged privately he lost.

In the hair on fire thread you noted that criminals aren’t always truthful in their language. We know that many who have done business with Trump that he uses coded language and obfuscates on tax and business returns. Your defense though of Trump is to accept his claims on face value.

 

Don't remember her sending out fake electors to submit certificates to the National Archives and Congress falsely asserting that trump, not Biden won their state's votes.

 

Don't remember her sending out fake electors to submit certificates to the National Archives and Congress falsely asserting that trump, not Biden won their state's votes.

 

LOL... hoping the maga ussc will save him...

 

Meanwhile...

 

Skeptical, even though the conspiracy to defraud included enlisting fake electors and sending in fake certifications. Interesting. I suppose you are clinging on to the fig leaf of … well, maybe there was a legal theory that was colorable and they really believed they won the election and their actions were not to defraud but to save the nation from fraud.

You must really love these people. Only the very best.

 

Incorrect, I was simply explaining the law. I in fact said that if Trump knew that he legitimately lost, then it would be fraud. I made no claim that Trump didn't have an intent to overturn the election and that there was evidence he did.

There is also evidence that Trump encouraged people to act peacefully and patriotically, to march to a place where they had a permit to protest. That he pointed out to the protesters that the police officers were the good guys and that the protestors must act lawfully. None of that has anything to do with the law of fraud though.

Yes, which I already mentioned.

I made no defense of Trump, nor did I suggest anyone take his claims at face value. I simply explained the law and gave examples of his claims that, if true, would be problematic for prosecution for fraud. I specifically noted that there was evidence the claims were not true.

 

Those tweets didn't come out until hours into the riot. After advisors, mtg, laura igraham and others advised him to do so.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/10/politics/jan-6-us-capitol-riot-timeline/index.html

 

what do you think happens if this case is tried to a jury?

I am struggling to come up with options for the defense in terms of calling witnesses and pretending evidence. To support the theory that Trump actually believed the election was stolen, they would need to call witnesses who themselves believed that, and told Donald it was stolen. But will Giuliani, Powell and the other crackpots actually testify? They have their own legal jeopardy to consider and surely would plead the fifth.

The best I can come up with is a testifying expert witness who can summarize all the “irregularities” and conspiracy theories, and opine that yes, it is the experts opinion that Donald really believed the election was stolen. Maybe two experts, an “election expert” (maybe cyber ninjas part 2) and a behavioral psychologist to tie it all together and say Donald really believed the election was stolen.

 

seems like stupid moniker is engaged in more of a legal exercise of identifying facts going in either direction, rather than saying what is credible or will win the day eventually.

 

Is the argument that if Trump truly believed the election was stolen and he absolutely thinks he must right that wrong, then he is in his legal right to do so, no matter what that entails?

That sounds like playing right into the prosecutors' hands.

If Trump did truly believe the election was stolen and he absolutely thinks he must right that wrong, he has admitted that he did conspire to overturn what he thought was a fraudulent election.

 

The usual Trump defense strategy is to delay until after the election so that he can wipe it clean afterward.

He might have a tougher time doing that with this case than the one in Miami, given the judge overseeing the case and the nature of the case (no confidential materials). The prosecutor knows they are playing against time, so that's probably why this case is not overly complicated by not including charges of incitement of violence, sedition or an attempt to overthrow the government. Though those charges might come later.