Under that reasoning then no one could be convicted of perjury or fraud as long as they claimed they truly believed it. Further in this case it isn't just a held belief with no consequence. Trump actually took action and told others to take action based upon his "belief" even when he was told that his "belief" wasn't true such as in the call with the GA Sec. of State. This would be like if I started selling Twins merchandise celebrating their win in game 4 and refused to pay off legal bets that I made that the Twins would win game 4. Even though i saw the game was told by many others that the Twins lost. I couldn't just argue that I truly believe the Twins win and would still be liable for fraud.
Trump isn't in trouble because he lied about losing, or even that he challenged the result. He's in trouble because he committed fraud. Whether you believe something or not, when you break laws, you are still accountable. Trump knew what he was doing was illegal, he was warned what he was doing was illegal. He did it anyway.
Again, it isn't what you claim you believe, it is what you actually believe. I never mentioned Trump. I said that saying something you believe is true is not lying. I don't care about Trump or what he believes. Great. I never mentioned Trump. I was talking about the definition of lying.
This is voter fraud really looks like to the MAGAT crowd. GOP has committing voter fraud for literally decades
so how would someone ever be convicted of perjury or fraud? Also this thread and the initial post you responded was about Trump so he is directly relevant to what we are discussing.
(ignoring the context of this cartoon being a play on words about Trump's deliberate lies and defense of it) That's absolutely correct. If you genuinely believe something to be true, it's considered a mistake rather than a lie. Expanding on your example, let's say you mistakenly believe it will be 75 degrees tomorrow, but when tomorrow arrives, it's actually 100 degrees. If you still insist it's 75 degrees and genuinely believe it, it transcends a mere mistake; it becomes a matter of psychological perception illness. Now, let's take this a step further. Imagine you genuinely believe it's 75 degrees, even when others provide evidence that the thermostat registers 100 degrees. Yet, you persist in claiming it's 75 degrees because you previously bet on that temperature and lost. You took actions in your attempt to get others to officially alter the record to 75 degrees to secure your win. What would such a situation represent?
Circumstantial or direct evidence of an intent to deceive. One could even be wrongly convicted of perjury or fraud, because even though they did not intend to deceive, the state of the evidence leads the finder of fact to conclude that they did. And yet, not at all relevant to the claim I made. Exactly. Still not a lie though. No matter what is causing you to have that genuine belief. If you persist in claiming it is 75 degrees because you genuinely believe it, then it is still not a lie. If you persist in claiming it is 75 degrees but don't genuinely believe it, because you want to win the bet, then it is a lie.
So In your view then if someone truly believes something it isn’t a lie so they couldn’t be convicted of perjury or fraud? So if someone sold colorful rocks to cancer patients and claimed they they cured cancer and they was their homes belief that wouldn’t fraud? You initial response was to a cartoon about Trump and this is a thread about trump. If it’s not about Trump why did you even respond to the cartoon? Also I’ve brought up general questions and two examples not related to Trump. Your response is jus that it about sincere believe. Yet as a prosecutor you understand that under certain situations lying can be a crime. Is it still your contention that sincere belief even in response to evidence the other way is a defense?
Sorry I replied to your last post before seeing this one. And that is exactly the point that you keep on skirting. We cannot actually look into people’s minds and as you know polygraphs aren’t admissible. Whether someone has a sincere belief or not we can’t prove. What we can prove is that they had the evidence that there claim was unsupported and for practical Purposes they are lying. Then why did you respond to the post you did or in this thread? It would be like if I responded to a post in the Astros thread on Framber Valdez saying “good pitching helps You win” and then claimed it had nothing to do with Framber Valdez. And in this particular circumstance that again you responded to. It does matter.
People can be convicted of things of which they are innocent, and found not guilty of things they actually did. I would never say because of fact X, defendant cannot be convicted of charge Y. Correct, fraud requires an intent to deceive. If the person honestly believed that the rocks cured cancer, then they have no intent to deceive. Because I disagreed with the statement which was the heart of the cartoon. Sincere belief in the proffered fact is always a defense to fraud. Lying can be a crime, but stating something you genuinely believe to be true is not lying. How am I skirting it, I said it exactly. See above. Not really, no.
Y’all. Arguing with @StupidMoniker is like playing poker with your brother’s ignorant kid. Example: StupidMoniker: (flips over a pair of twos) “I win I have a pair of aces” Everyone else: Liar! We can see your pair of twos. StupidMoniker: (scoops pot) Everyone else: (kicks his ass for lying, cheating and stealing. Example 2: Stupid moniker: I’m a LiBeRTaRiRan and don’t care about Trump. Clutch Fans: Your constant defense of Trump and his Republican enablers proves you’re lying. Stupid: (continuing to post in defense of Trump) “nuh huh… it’s not a lie because I believe it.
