Actually, no. The indictment indicates that even DJT initially believed what they were proposing was "crazy."So it's possible that Trump was given advice from his lawyers and he didn't know that he was doing anything illegal. So no intent. JMO.
Actually, no. The indictment indicates that even DJT initially believed what they were proposing was "crazy."So it's possible that Trump was given advice from his lawyers and he didn't know that he was doing anything illegal. So no intent. JMO.
BBM. Trump has no real defense to the charges. Claiming the 1st Amendment "protects" him is the lamest excuse I've seen.
JMO
I'm not so sure I believe those accounts. A member of The View and second hand information from an aide.Trump privately admitted he lost 2020 election, top aides testify
‘He knows he lost’: Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Trump acknowledged he lost 2020 election
Trump Knew He Lost the Election, Aides Testify
Fox News' Sean Hannity says he knew all along Trump lost the election (example of a close friend who knew)
Jarring new video, evidence Trump knew he lost: Key takeaways from the latest Jan. 6 hearing
The Jan. 6 case against Trump: He knew he was lying
Jan. 6 panel presents proof: Despite the lies, Trump knew he lost
Unfortunately, we live in a political and social climate where people have been led to believe that certain news is "fake" if it's not reported by certain sources. So, if those certain news sources aren't reporting on the hearings where people testified and provided evidence that Trump knew, then they just wont consider it fact at all. It just... never happened.
Plausible deniability is a hot commodity these days. If 99 people tell you something you don't want to hear but you finally find that one person that tells you otherwise... well, I guess you're all set!
Crazy or illegal?Actually, no. The indictment indicates that even DJT initially believed what they were proposing was "crazy."
I will say this about all of these indictments. I feel they are meant to prevent Donald Trump from being elected President in 2024.
The only problem is they are having the opposite affect. He is doing great in the polls. So far anyway. JMO.
![]()
Why Trump's poll lead went up after criminal indictments
Facing criminal charges has only strengthened the former president's lead in the Republican race.www.bbc.com
Please read the indictment and decide for yourself what he knew and when he knew it. It's pretty clear, IMO, and I imagine many more details, provided by those present and involved, will be made public should this go to trial. I would also point out that DJT opted to proclaim his candidacy long before his advisors (again) advised against it. That's very telling to me. It gave him the excuse to cry "election interference" when he had to have known he would be charged at some point. If we're being honest, he really wasn't that interested in being POTUS the first time around and even complained about how hard it was. Why would he do it again when he could just fade out and golf? MHOCrazy or illegal?
I'm not so sure I believe those accounts. A member of The View and second hand information from an aide.
They can tesify at trial and let the jury decide. JMO.
Exactly. And that fact that his lawyers are co-conspirators pretty much throws that defense ("but mah counsel!") right out the window.Actually, no. The indictment indicates that even DJT initially believed what they were proposing was "crazy."
A more likely scenario if Trump is convicted is a lengthy appeals process and the conviction is overturned. JMO.I agree with you that as soon as these indictments were released, Trump's approval rate surged among Republicans. However, the same thing happened during his first indictment then his numbers dwindled again.
Watching CNN tonight there was a discussion regarding the chance that not only Trump does become the nominee, he actually wins the election in 2024.
Amongst the talking heads were theories regarding how this would play out if by the time of the election Trump could be in a jail cell. Almost all the panel felt that any of the other candidates that ran would probably be required to issue a blood oath of support and someone would meet with Trump in prison and hear his formal pardon of himself.
So the way I look at it, as a concerned outsider, I wonder just how badly the following situations would play out and create a civil war in the country. Sounds excessive but I can feel the seismic rumblings already.
Situation one: Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. He loses the election to the Democratic nominee. If he has been found guilty and resides somewhere in prison, he stays in prison until he either finishes his sentence or is paroled, reflecting the 11th commandment that no one is above the law.
Situation two: Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee and also wins the general election. Meanwhile, he's been languishing in jail. He pardons himself and regains the presidency.
Out of those two scenarios which one do you think will benefit the US?
Civil war can only happen when both sides decide to fight over existential threats to 'their' democracy.
AUG 2, 2023
Ex-US President Donald Trump has lashed out at prosecutors on the eve of his court appearance on charges of plotting to overturn his 2020 election defeat.![]()
Bill Barr says Donald Trump 'knew well he lost the election'
The former attorney general undermined Mr Trump's case ahead of his court appearance.www.bbc.com
The "unprecedented indictment" shows the "corruption, scandal, & failure" of the US under Joe Biden's presidency, he wrote on social media.
Security is being ramped up in Washington DC for Thursday's hearing.
[...]
Mr Trump's lawyers have hinted at their defence strategy.
Attorney John Lauro appeared on NBC's Today show on Wednesday and said he planned to argue that Mr Trump was protected by the right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
[...]
On Wednesday, an apparent hoax 911 call about an active shooting at the Capitol triggered a lockdown in three Senate office buildings and a major police emergency response.
Speaking to reporters during the alert, US Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger said the police force that battled rioters two-and-a-half years ago was well-trained and prepared for active-shooter drills.
"We're prepared for anything that may happen tomorrow," he said, referring to Mr Trump's court appearance.
[...]
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES Image caption, While his would-be challenger is beset with legal woes, President Biden (centre) is on holiday in Delaware![]()
![]()
All what aides? I didn't see the attorney general in any of those links. WSJ is behind a paywall so I can't read those links. Is it in there?Just to be clear: are you saying you think it's possible that all of those aides, including his own attorney general, whom he himself appointed--are lying, misremembering, or ... what exactly?
All what aides? I didn't see the attorney general in any of those links. WSJ is behind a paywall so I can't read those links. Is it in there?
Of course the indictment will say that Trump is guilty. That's what it's for.Please read the indictment and decide for yourself what he knew and when he knew it. It's pretty clear, IMO, and I imagine many more details, provided by those present and involved, will be made public should this go to trial. I would also point out that DJT opted to proclaim his candidacy long before his advisors (again) advised against it. That's very telling to me. It gave him the excuse to cry "election interference" when he had to have known he would be charged at some point. If we're being honest, he really wasn't that interested in being POTUS the first time around and even complained about how hard it was. Why would he do it again when he could just fade out and golf? MHO
BBM. Bingo! I wonder how many in the "co-conspirator" category were in on the "planning meetings" held at the Willard Hotel.It protects him from incurring consequences because of what he said.
It does not protect him from incurring consequences of what he actually did.
ETA:
If I sit around listening to people saying I should put out a contract on my husband whom I believe cheated on me, and even agree, that's protected free speech.
If I actually hire the the hitman, that's not.
Edited to add again: Just for clarification, I DO NOT have a husband whom I believe cheated on me. LOL