DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Auntie Cipation said:
Perhaps he did. I suspect not, for two reasons.

One, he admitted multiple times in private (later revealed in the writings of multiple authors) that he knew he hadn't won.

Two, I'm quite certain (but IMO because I can't identify sources) that for every lawyer telling him "you actually won" and "this scheme will work", there were multiple lawyers advising him otherwise. He didn't want actual laws and facts, he wanted things to go as he decreed they should go.

What I do think is entirely possible is that he believed his "crackpot lawyers" had come up with a scheme whereby he might actually get away with illegally overturning the election and remaining in office.

And of course, even if he DID truly believe he had won and the election win HAD somehow been fraudently stolen from him, that would not justify the violence nor the process disruption of January 6 nor the attempting to finagle false electors. The law lays out the legal process for objecting to election results, and even if he truly believed he had won, legal options were the only acceptable response.

MOO
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the attempt to finagle false electors indicate he knew he lost?
 
RANCH said:
I think that Trump's future will be determined at the ballot box before a trial on this case happens. JMO.
Click to expand...
While those of us who believe Trump is a danger to our democracy certainly believe he should never hold office again, that is NOT the origin or focus of these prosecutions. Rather it is to serve justice upon a man who committed multiple serious crimes.

Completing these prosecutions and imposing sentences will certainly be complicated if by some magic he manages to get elected in 2024, but I repeat it's not the point and will not be resolved by the outcome of the election, either way. MOO

RANCH said:
The 1st Amendment defense looks good to me. I see nothing but a lot of "defendant said this" throughout the entire document.

JMO.
Click to expand...
IMO, Jack Smith is not stupid enough to make that mistake. Nor is Fani Willis/Tish James/et al.

The indictment may refer to what was said, but that is certainly not all it refers to. Actions were taken, criminal actions IMO. And as Bill Barr said (and quoted here within the last page or so), conspiracy requires speech but is an action that is not 1A protected.

MOO
 
JerseyGirl said:
www.thedailybeast.com

Bill Barr Trashes Trump’s First Amendment Argument in Jan. 6 Case

“Free speech doesn’t give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.”
www.thedailybeast.com

Bill Barr expressed a damning view of Donald Trump’s attorney’s arguments that the latest indictment of the former president—this time in relation to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election—constituted an “attack on free speech.”

“They’re not attacking his First Amendment right, he can say whatever he wants,” the former Trump administration attorney general said in an interview Wednesday. “He can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better. But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech and all fraud involves speech, so you know, free speech doesn’t give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.” Later, Barr said he believed “we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg” and that special counsel Jack Smith’s team may “have a lot more evidence” about Trump’s state of mind that could help prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew that the election had not been stolen through fraud.
Click to expand...

It is interesting about Bill Barr: While Trump was president Bill Barr was his go to guy- Barr did his bidding basically. I think Bill Barr did not understand the depth of Trump's derangement (for lack of a better word- the word corruption comes to mind but I degress). In any event, Bill Barr went very far in protecting Trump as he did with the Mueller report. So Barr goes along and goes along and then-- comes the election and Barr is now going OMG, Trump is attempting to stop the peaceful transfer of power--- and after doing a little of his own investigation into allegations of fraud, he could find none, but OMG Trump would not let it go-- he knew he lost, but he could not, would not give up that power that he coveted and Bill Barr said, this is a bridge to far, I am outta here. Bill Barr is now speaking truth to power-- better late than never.
 
If Trump IS re-elected will all this be ignored or pishawed away? <modsnip - off topic>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CrimeDawg123 said:
Does anyone here think Donald Trump truly honestly believed he won the election?

And if you do, do you really want someone so incapable of understanding the truth (even after 60-some odd lost court cases) to be your president?
Click to expand...
The indictment isn't about what Trump believed; it is about his criminal activity after the election. I will never vote for a politician I believe to be corrupt.

JMO
 
dgfred said:
If Trump IS re-elected will all this be ignored or pishawed away? <modsnip - off topic>
Click to expand...
If he is re-elected, it's my understanding that he has the power to pardon himself for any federal crimes (though I think I have read that accepting a pardon means legally admitting guilt?).

However any State convictions can not be pardoned by POTUS -- though there are State processes for pardoning from State crimes, and who knows if he will have the ability to persuade them to do so.

MOO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gosh MyBelle... maybe an honest independent will run. But who knows if they have some skeletons too.
 
MyBelle said:
will never vote for a politician I believe to be corrupt.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I would say that all politicians have an ego, or they would not run for office. Some are corrupt and we don’t even know it at first, like George Santos. Some are truly in it because they honestly wish to help their constituency. It takes time for the truth to come out as they go through their terms, when we can better grasp how they govern and what accomplishments they actually have, if they have any.

IMO, Donald Trump has a constituency of one. It’s about serving him and not the country.

Trump cares about appearances beyond all else. He likes that his son Barron is so tall. He likes to have pretty wives (All in a row). He likes to be saluted and have people call him “sir.”

He adores palling around with the strongmen he admires, who don’t have to bend to the will of the people, like Putin and Kim Jong-Un.

If we didn’t know that Trump was all about Trump before, we certainly know it now.

Fool me once, etc.

IMO


ETA: to respond to @smeck:

For some reason, I can’t get your quote below to copy? But yes, I’m a New Yorker and it’s no surprise.
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court’s rejection of a controversial election theory may also have another huge political consequence for future presidential contests: It obliterated the dubious fake elector scheme that Donald Trump deployed in his failed attempt to seize a second term.

Mainstream election lawyers on both sides of the aisle denounced the theory in the months after the 2020 election. But because no court had ever directly ruled on the theory, its proponents were able to describe it as a plausible, if untested, interpretation of constitutional law. Eastman himself, currently facing disbarment in California for his actions to subvert the election, has claimed that he was engaged in “good-faith” advocacy on an unsettled legal question.

www.politico.com

How the Supreme Court’s decision on election law could shut the door on future fake electors

“It keeps the toothpaste in the tube,” one election expert said.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
 
Many people knew what tRump was like from his business dealings over the last 20 years or so. It was no surprise to New Yorkers and others that he was corrupt. How anyone can ignore his evil agenda is beyond my comprehension.
 
SouthAussie said:
Just for your notes, in case you want it, Bloomberg says the case number is US v. Trump, 23-cr-00257, US District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC) Link

Court Listener has a few items under the case number.

www.courtlistener.com

United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257 - CourtListener.com

Docket for United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
www.courtlistener.com www.courtlistener.com
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for this link! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 149 more.
Total: 1,584 (members: 150, guests: 1,434)

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
1,434
Total visitors
1,584
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,521
Messages
18,109,953
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top