Your last answer basically shows you've been wasting your own time, which you can, and all of our time. Since you acknowledge your participation in this is irrelevant to the actual topic. I do have one question that I really don't understand. Per the example that I cited about someone selling colorful rocks to cure cancer. As someone who job is to uphold the law would you then say that because that person had a sincere belief in what they are doing, that colorful rocks can cure cancer and was selling them for a profit, that that person should be charged with defrauding cancer patients or suffer any other legal sanction? HOw would you know they had a sincere belief to begin with? And what you keep on skirting is that your argument that sincere belief is a defense against fraud or perjury is that without telepathy we cannot actually prove sincere belief. We do still prosecute people for fraud and perjury. Your argument would essentially make it impossible to ever convict someone of those crimes.
Can you quote some of these "constant defenses" of Trump I have posted? I can quote some of the many times I have called him a moron and said I don't and have never supported him. Given my "constant defense" of Trump, you should have no trouble posting 5-10 times I have defended Trump. No one requires you to respond to me. Certainly no one requires you to make up my position and respond to the straw man you have concocted. You are free to post nothing, or to say, yes StupidMoniker, you are right, saying something you believe to be true is in fact not lying. No, someone whose claims align with their sincere belief in the claim should not be charged with fraud. The issue is in how you figure out if they have such sincere belief. Our system is imperfect, especially when it comes to determining mens rea. I am not skirting that at all. I have said repeatedly that we can and do charge people with fraud, we do so on the basis of circumstantial evidence to establish intent to defraud, and some of those convicted undoubtedly had no intent to defraud and are wrongfully convicted for relying on their sincere belief. That is the nature of the game.
At the risk of wasting my own time I’m responding because I don’t believe you are ignorant nor do I question you motives. What I do find odd is your argument in regard to your position as someone upholding the law. You write yourself “No, someone whose claims align with their sincere belief in the claim should not be charged with fraud.” so I’m not putting words in your mouth or creating a strawman when you are saying that sincere belief would be the defense against perjury and fraud. My point is that short of telepathy we have no way of actually proving sincere belief. You are recognizing my point that we have to rely upon other means to prove whether someone is lying and that we cannot rely upon”sincere belief”. So rather than me putting words in your mouth it sounds like you actually agree that just a stated sincere belief isn’t enough to be an acceptable defense.
The answer is what you just quoted me saying. We don't know that someone actually has a sincere belief. All we can do is all we can do. Quoting myself: You are (unfortunately I suspect intentionally) not understanding the difference between the practical realities of the legal system (a finder of fact considers evidence to make a determination as to actus reus and mens rea), and the definition of lying (knowingly claiming as true that which you believe is false or vice versa).
There are two things here that you have not addressed. 1. Even if someone sincerely believes in a different truth, if they instruct someone to commit a crime based on that, it is still criminal. If you tell someone to smuggle drugs because you believe it's legal and they do it, you've committed a crime. You agree there? 2. If you can demonstrate that the person should have known the truth, then it doesn't matter what they believe. If I sell rocks to someone to cure cancer, I've committed fraud because no matter what I claim to sincerely belief, I should have known that those rocks did not cure cancer. In fact, this is an actual case - Dr. Christine Danie sold herbs and prayer as a cure for cancer - she was a minister, and truly believed she was helping people. She is in prison for that now.
I think if you review my posts above, I have addressed them, but that is neither here nor there. A lot of things can be criminal, even if you think it is okay. Criminal law is statutory, and it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the law. Ignorance of the law is also not an excuse. The sovereign citizens are a good example of this. They may or may not actually believe that there is no requirement you have a driver's license, insurance, and registration to drive a car (or travel by car or whatever language they prefer to use), but even assuming that is their actual belief, the law doesn't match their belief and penalties are not based on their belief, but merely on the fact that they were driving without meeting the requirements. Again, criminal law is statutory, and in some cases, the statutes read "know or should have known". In other cases, there is no should have known version.
Stuff just got real ... https://truthsocial.com/@BidenHQ How many days will Truth Social give Biden before they ban him for speaking the Wrong Truth and not sticking to Trump's Alternative Facts?
Theoretically yes but from a practical Point of view without telepathy there is no difference. Me claiming that the Twins won the ALDS and are playing the Rangers the only way of practically determining whether I am lying or sincerely believe that is the objective evidence that the Twins didn’t win the ALDS and that witnesses can attest that I watched the games.
So to bring this all around, and you can care or not about this part but just speaking to the forum, under what has been stated here then legalistically Trump has committed election fraud whether he sincerely believed he wan the election or not. The above argument would even say it doesn’t matter whether Trump believes it or not.
You fail to understand the distinction between the irrelevance in belief in the law and the relevance in belief in the facts. You would have to examine the individual statutes to determine if it was Trump's beliefs were relevant under those statutes. This is a pretty far tangent from what I was talking about, but always happy to follow where a conversation leads. No, from the point of view of an ability to prove something in court, there may be no difference. For many practical reasons (one's own morality, for example) there is a huge distinction between saying something you believe to be true that is wrong and saying something you believe to be false.
Your own statements shows that whether Trump believed something or not if evidence can show that what actually happened didn't go as he claims it was and whether the he knew the law or not: you wrote A lot of things can be criminal, even if you think it is okay. Criminal law is statutory, and it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the law. Ignorance of the law is also not an excuse." You also wrote: "I have said repeatedly that we can and do charge people with fraud, we do so on the basis of circumstantial evidence to establish intent to defraud, and some of those convicted undoubtedly had no intent to defraud and are wrongfully convicted for relying on their sincere belief. That is the nature of the game." In the case of the particulars whether Trump knows the law or not doesn't matter. Whether Trump believes he is lying or not circumstantial evidence can be used to establish that (legally) he is lying. In the GA case it is a criminal conspiracy to fraudulently get people to change an election. In the call with the GA Sec of State Trump tried to get the Secretary of state ot change an election. In that same call he was told by others that there was no fraud in the election and that the election results couldnt' be changed. Now we can't look into Trump's mind but that is clear evidence he was told there was no fraud in the election yet still pressed both the Sec. of State and also others to try to change the election. You're stating an idealistic reason, morality, and not a practical reason. Your own internal morality could dictate you don't knowing lie but that like sincere belief no one else can actually determine that other than external actions.
Yes, I did write both of those things. For some reason you don't seem to understand that those are two different things. True of this and every case. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove that he is guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It would legally establish that he is lying, not establish that legally he is lying. For me there is a clear distinction. He was under no duty to accept their analysis over that which he was relying upon. Honestly, having reviewed the entirety of the call, I wouldn't bring a fraud charge in that case. Morality is quite practical. You are drawing a distinction between internal and external, not practical and theoretical (or now idealistic). My claim was related to the internal. You are continuing to argue against the claim with the external. I think you are smart enough to know the difference, which means you are intentionally arguing against a straw man. I have stated very clearly that court cases are not determined based on whether or not someone is actually lying, but rather on what the evidence shows in court. You for some reason cannot accept that and keep trying to say that even someone who states something they sincerely believe is actually lying because we don't have telepathy. That is simply a misstatement of what lying means.
I presume your contradiction is a typo. But you’ve already answered that evidence can legally establish he’s lying. Trump has no duty to accept it but under the reasoning you presented already that doesn’t mean he hasn’t committed a crime. I would have no duty to accept the analysis that the Twins lost the ALDS yet they wouldn’t be a valid defense to pay legal bets that I made on the games or getting others to not pay legal bets they made. You keep on accusing men of creating a strawman yet you’ve agreed that we actually can prove that someone is legally lying so therefore for practical purposes yes we can not only prove a lie but also hold someone a accountable for actions based on a lie. You’ve further acknowledged that we can not actually know whether someone is actually sincere in their belief. Your argument is idealistic internal belief. I’ll grant you that. That in someone’s internal view they can believe they are being truthful regardless of objective reality. As you’ve stated that isn’t a legal standard and in many cases the term for that is “delusion”.
No, there is no typo, it is the order of the words that is the distinction. If you made a bet, you would have a duty to abide by the terms of the bet. There is no analysis of who wins a baseball game, you can watch a video of every run scored and the team with more runs won. There is no such thing as legally lying. I said that you can prove that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a finder of fact (judge or jury). I also said that proving this doesn't actually prove that someone is lying, and people can be lying and found not guilty or telling the truth and found guilty. I keep accusing you of creating a strawman because you read this over and over and then say, "you've agreed that we actually can prove someone is legally lying." This is true, but that doesn't change the fact that this sincere belief is the only thing that actually determines if what someone says is a lie or not. Their internal view is the objective reality of whether or not they are lying. I have stated that it isn't a legal standard, which is why it is so strange that you keep referring to a legal standard or saying prove someone is legally lying.
