A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[TwiceHorn 31533]

3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

What if the questioning has nothing to do with a legislative function?

Well, the questioning is almost certainly going to center around, or at least include, what Donald Trump and others said to him about certifying the electoral vote on 1/6, when we know Eastman, at least, was trying to convince him that he could reject the electoral votes of swing states and throw the election to the House.

So, the argument would go that all of the evidence sought relates to his activities on 1/6 in connection with the electoral count and on that day and in that context he was President of the Senate and acting in a legislative capacity.  So, he cannot be questioned on that under Speech & Debate clause.

That would probably fit within the notion of legislative activity as applied in Speech & Debate analysis.  It tends to be pretty broad.

The counter would seem to be that Pence is not a legislator and only nominally becomes one on certain relatively rare occasions.  And, on this particular occasion, for the electoral count, Pence himself concluded that his function was ceremonlal only, and involved no discretion or other deliberative function.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

1 hour ago, Poe It Up said:

Good lord, they’re not going to put former presidents in jail.

Why not?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33887]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why not?

it's what his feefees are saying. 

[bolverk 29717]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the questioning is almost certainly going to center around, or at least include, what Donald Trump and others said to him about certifying the electoral vote on 1/6, when we know Eastman, at least, was trying to convince him that he could reject the electoral votes of swing states and throw the election to the House.

So, the argument would go that all of the evidence sought relates to his activities on 1/6 in connection with the electoral count and on that day and in that context he was President of the Senate and acting in a legislative capacity.  So, he cannot be questioned on that under Speech & Debate clause.

That would probably fit within the notion of legislative activity as applied in Speech & Debate analysis.  It tends to be pretty broad.

The counter would seem to be that Pence is not a legislator and only nominally becomes one on certain relatively rare occasions.  And, on this particular occasion, for the electoral count, Pence himself concluded that his function was ceremonlal only, and involved no discretion or other deliberative function.

Fulton County Grand jury is in. Not much in there other than they found no widespread fraud in Georgia election and they believe one or more of the 75 witnesses lied.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/02/16/us/georgia-trump-special-grand-jury-report.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Edited February 16, 2023 by bolverk

[Neonmoon 38130]

They won't indict Trump. Our system is only set up to punish the poor or violent. 

[Biff Tannen 45715]

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Fulton County Grand jury is in. Not much in there other than they found no widespread fraud in Georgia election and they believe one or more of the 75 witnesses lied.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/02/16/us/georgia-trump-special-grand-jury-report.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Explain this to me like I'm 5.  Was not this grand jury supposed to be deciding if dotard interfered in the election with his phone call to the Sec of State?  We all knew there was no fraud in the election.  Why are they mentioning that?  

I'm also really sick right now, so forgive me if my brain isn't working.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Explain this to me like I'm 5.  Was not this grand jury supposed to be deciding if dotard interfered in the election with his phone call to the Sec of State?  We all knew there was no fraud in the election.  Why are they mentioning that?  

I'm also really sick right now, so forgive me if my brain isn't working.

The grand jury was not confined to Trump, it examined other evidence of election-related crimes by anyone, to include the fake electors, etc..

It was an investigative grand jury, using its subpoena powers to gather evidence, it was not an "indicting grand jury."  So, hopefully it sussed out enough evidence of intention and other activities, by Trump and others to constitute triable and convictable violations of Georgia law.

Again, like with most of this stuff, the phone call, alone, is merely evidence of a crime, it is not conclusive that a crime occurred.  You could not possibly go to trial on the phone call alone and reasonably expect a conviction.  Other evidence supporting the notion that he wanted Raffensperger to fabricate votes, or ignore valid votes, or otherwise explain that "find votes" means what you think it means would be required to support a conviction in a criminal trial.  And there may have been other incidents, not recorded, that play some role in determining whether a crime was committed.

I figured this report would be a wet fart, but that's astonishingly lame.  It is not reasonable to expect a judge to open up grand jury deliberations in any detail, certainly a level that identifies witnesses, until at least indictments are brought, if not cases tried.  But this is a real nothingburger.

[Rimbo 26057]

On 1/3/2023 at 9:29 PM, tx 3 putt said:

 

pretty sure it's 100% on them to fund raise all of the money needed for a trump library 

And what will they do when all of them are colored in?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Again, like with most of this stuff, the phone call, alone, is merely evidence of a crime, it is not conclusive that a crime occurred. 

It's weird. Because in other cases involving election law, like Crystal Mason casting a provisional ballot as was the option given to her by poll workers, it's plenty enough evidence to take to trial, convict and hand out a 5 year prison sentence. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

12 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

It's weird. Because in other cases involving election law, like Crystal Mason casting a provisional ballot as was the option given to her by poll workers, it's plenty enough evidence to take to trial, convict and hand out a 5 year prison sentence. 

You realize that's an easy case don't you?  It's basically casting a vote when she knew she was a convicted felon.  That's the crime and it's easy to prove. It is virtually a one-witness case:

Q. Ms. Mason, you pled guilty to tax fraud in 2011?

A. Yes.

Q.  And you knew it was a felony, and you served five years in a federal prison?

A. Yes.

Q.  And you were on supervised release after getting out?

A. Yes.

Q.  Is this your signature on a ballot you tried to cast in November 2016?

A. Yes.

Done and dusted.

All that other shit about provisional ballots, what poll workers said, etc. goes to whether she should have been prosecuted at all, offered a nice plea deal, or sentenced to something far less than five years.

The crime there is simple and easy to prove.  There's no need to explain anything, or use circumstantial evidence of intent.

Most of the crimes Trump may have committed may not even be crimes and may need to be "shoehorned" into some other criminal statute that either isn't prosecuted often (or ever) and/or requires proof of a specific intent to commit the crime.

Edited February 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 45715]

I've come to appreciate @TwiceHorn explaining all of this to us non-lawyers and as frustrating as it is, I know he's acting in good faith, so I've stopped getting upset about it.  However, I think what all of his explaining has done is shown me how utterly fucked up and broken our justice system is.  Aside from voting rights, I'd say the justice system is number 2 on the list of shit that needs to be absolutely scratched and started over from the beginning.  But that will never happen, so onward we go, into oblivion.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I've come to appreciate @TwiceHorn explaining all of this to us non-lawyers and as frustrating as it is, I know he's acting in good faith, so I've stopped getting upset about it.  However, I think what all of his explaining has done is shown me how utterly fucked up and broken our justice system is.  Aside from voting rights, I'd say the justice system is number 2 on the list of shit that needs to be absolutely scratched and started over from the beginning.  But that will never happen, so onward we go, into oblivion.

I freely admit flaws in the justice system.  But the need to carefully prepare a case against a former POTUS, who is insane and has insane followers, using statutes that often don't quite fit the crime is not one of them.

People are mad because what they think are obvious crimes are not so obvious to the legal system, which requires a criminal statute that fits the offense and real, actual admissible evidence of the crime that meets the elements of the statute, and plenty of it.  That's not a flaw in the justice system.  The flaws tend to be much more subtle.

[Pato del Muerto 52571]

That his actions don’t fit into any statute of the justice system is the flaw.  

[Biff Tannen 45715]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

People are mad because what they think are obvious crimes are not so obvious to the legal system, which requires a criminal statute that fits the offense and real, actual admissible evidence of the crime that meets the elements of the statute, and plenty of it.  That's not a flaw in the justice system.  

 

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

That his actions don’t fit into any statute of the justice system is the flaw.  

This

[TwiceHorn 31533]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

That his actions don’t fit into any statute of the justice system is the flaw.  

That's actually a flaw of the legislative system, as they write the laws.  And those fuckwads are plenty happy to write more drug laws etc, and increase the sentences, for personal poltiical gain.

[Underdog 28767]

So have the two poll workers brought any litigation against Trump for the harassment they've had to endure due to him calling them out by name?  

[Red Five 40881]

So that Georgia phone call isn't a slam dunk? 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

All that other shit about provisional ballots, what poll workers said, etc. goes to whether she should have been prosecuted at all, 

Right. That's my point. Advice from a poll worker didn't mitigate the decision at all to prosecute or, unbelievably, create a reasonable doubt, and further unbelievably, mitigate a 5 year sentence. 

In the judgement of prosecutors, apparently there is no reasonable doubt a woman taking the advice of a poll worker is breaking the law while there IS a reasonable doubt a man with access to the best legal resources calling an election official and telling him to find, completely coincidentally, just enough votes to give him a victory is attempting to conspire in election fraud. 

[Biff Tannen 45715]

9 minutes ago, Red Five said:

So that Georgia phone call isn't a slam dunk? 

Nope.  Don't make a fuck.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

Just now, Red Five said:

So that Georgia phone call isn't a slam dunk? 

Of course not.

Here's what seems to be a pretty obvious Georgia statute that might apply:

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-604 (a)(1) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

Direct Examination:

Q.  Mr. Raffensperger, you have heard the recording of Mr. Trump asking you to, quote, "find us 11,780 votes"?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that in fact what he said?

A. Yes.

Q.  Did he ever elaborate on what he meant by "find" votes?

A. No.

Q. Did you have an understanding as to what he meant by "find" votes?

Strenuous objection.

Cross-Examination:

Q.  Mr. Raffensperger, is it not possible that Mr. Trump simply wanted you to recount the votes?

A. Yes.

Q.  Is it not possible that Mr. Trump wanted you to throw out any invalid votes?

A. Yes.

Q, Isn't it true, as you sit here today, that you have no real reason to believe that Mt. Trump intended you to commit a felony violation of Georgia election laws when he asked you to find 11,000 some-odd votes and any such reason would be speculation on your part?

A.  Well yes.

That's abbreviated, but that line of questioning mean acquittal, right there.

 

[hornmpa96 2620]

I’m sure this was discussed previously but can someone explain why he wasn’t tried as Co-Conspirator #1 in the Michael Cohen case?

He’s no-longer President and accordingly the DOJ policy on indicting a sitting President doesn’t apply.

That always seemed like a slam-dunk to me.

[Biff Tannen 45715]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Of course not.

Here's what seems to be a pretty obvious Georgia statute that might apply:

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-604 (a)(1) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

Direct Examination:

Q.  Mr. Raffensperger, you have heard the recording of Mr. Trump asking you to, quote, "find us 11,780 votes"?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that in fact what he said?

A. Yes.

Q.  Did he ever elaborate on what he meant by "find" votes?

A. No.

Q. Did you have an understanding as to what he meant by "find" votes?

Strenuous objection.

Cross-Examination:

Q.  Mr. Raffensperger, is it not possible that Mr. Trump simply wanted you to recount the votes?

A. Yes.

Q.  Is it not possible that Mr. Trump wanted you to throw out any invalid votes?

A. Yes.

Q, Isn't it true, as you sit here today, that you have no real reason to believe that Mt. Trump intended you to commit a felony violation of Georgia election laws when he asked you to find 11,000 some-odd votes and any such reason would be speculation on your part?

A.  Well yes.

That's abbreviated, but that line of questioning mean acquittal, right there.

 

That last answer should be "absolutely not because I have a functioning brain and critical thinking skills".

[TwiceHorn 31533]

55 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Right. That's my point. Advice from a poll worker didn't mitigate the decision at all to prosecute or, unbelievably, create a reasonable doubt, and further unbelievably, mitigate a 5 year sentence. 

In the judgement of prosecutors, apparently there is no reasonable doubt a woman taking the advice of a poll worker is breaking the law while there IS a reasonable doubt a man with access to the best legal resources calling an election official and telling him to find, completely coincidentally, just enough votes to give him a victory is attempting to conspire in election fraud. 

I agree that the case shouldn't have been prosecuted and a maximum sentence should not have been sought.  It was most likely an abuse of prosecutorial discretion to bring the case and an abuse of judicial discretion to give her a maximum sentence under the statute, likely because of her skin color and for whom she voted. (But, given that her original crime was inflating tax returns, which requires some bit of sophistication, it could beggar belief that she didn't know she couldn't vote).

But the prosecutors chose to bring the case and met their burden of proof, easily, and secured the conviction.  And that's what we're talking about here.

The first question the DOJ has to ask is "do we have the proof to convict"?  And, under these circumstances, that takes a lot more than a couple of twitter posts and people bloviating on a blog.  It takes time to develop that proof. 

Right now, it's not Garland dithering over whether to investigate or bring a case, it's the trial lawyers trying to put together a case they can win.  Takes time.  For Fani Willis, and for the US Department of Justice.

Edited February 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31533]

55 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That last answer should be "absolutely not because I have a functioning brain and critical thinking skills".

That's not the way this works.  An answer like that would get shredded on cross examination and the case would immediately go to shit.

This is really the fundamental problem here.  People don't understand what is required to prove a fact in court or to prove an intention by circumstantial or other evidence.

We all "know" that the moon is not made of green cheese.  But none of us have personal knowledge of that fact and none of us could competently testify to that in court.  Proving that the moon is not made of green cheese would be unexpectedly difficult.   Only 12 people have ever had personal knowledge of that fact, and all but four of them are dead.

Edited February 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[RomaVicta 29993]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I freely admit flaws in the justice system.  But the need to carefully prepare a case against a former POTUS, who is insane and has insane followers, using statutes that often don't quite fit the crime is not one of them.

People are mad because what they think are obvious crimes are not so obvious to the legal system, which requires a criminal statute that fits the offense and real, actual admissible evidence of the crime that meets the elements of the statute, and plenty of it.  That's not a flaw in the justice system.  The flaws tend to be much more subtle.

We've seen with our own eyes what any of us would label criminal behavior even if there is not statute clearly defining it. From trying to force Ukraine to help him against Biden if they wanted the promised and funded military aid to nepotism resulting in billions coming to the family members he appointed to government even though absolutely nothing qualified them.

He tried to overthrow an election and we have tape of his call to Georgia to "give me a break" and "find" another 11,000 votes. He's a tax fraud. As President of the United States he labeled people "enemies of the state."

Oh, and he stole state secrets and tried to keep them for who knows what. Actually we know exactly why he stole them. Money and leverage.

Law enforcement seems impotent in the face of arresting a former president. DOJ dithers for the same reason. Kid gloves. It's maddening if you follow. The mob he sent to Congress should have a mirror image in the form of a mob seizing this sleazeball and stringing him up.

At the very least, the man should be cuffed everytime he appears in public.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

40 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

I’m sure this was discussed previously but can someone explain why he wasn’t tried as Co-Conspirator #1 in the Michael Cohen case?

He’s no-longer President and accordingly the DOJ policy on indicting a sitting President doesn’t apply.

That always seemed like a slam-dunk to me.

He was certainly apparently named in Cohen's indictment, but not as a co-conspirator, per se.  He was identified as "Individual-1."  That does not necessarily mean that they had the proof necessary to convict "individual-1" for the campaign finance crime.

Remember, too, that the Stormy Daniels stuff was joined with income tax evasion and bank fraud in Cohen's indictment.  He pled guilty to all of it, but that's a far cry from having it proved in court.  It was kind of an add-on to "paper crimes" that they had Cohen dead to rights on, so he pled to the whole banana. Additionally, in the indictment, they failed to allege Individual-1's knowledge of the payment to Attorney-1, Avenatti.  And that is the thing that blows it all to hell.  We all think we know Trump knew damn right all about it, but proving that is not as simple as it seems.

Also note that Cohen's indictment was filed the same day he pled guilty, so it was one of those package deals arranged in advance even of his indictment.  One of those, Mr. Cohen we can indict you on this, this, and this and your sentence will be a maximum of 45 years, or, you can plead guilty to all of it and we'll only ask the judge for three.  Of the crimes charged, bank fraud was the biggie, the headshot, as it carries a 30-year maximum, the rest just five.  So I'm sure that was the charge that drew the plea.

So any notion that Trump could have been indicted and convicted as "Individual-1" in the nine some-odd months after January 2021 is far from a slam dunk.

Edited February 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31533]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

We've seen with our own eyes what any of us would label criminal behavior even if there is not statute clearly defining it.

But you see, that's the problem.  A crime is not some notion of bad behavior floating in the atmosphere.  It can either be proven to meet the elements of a statutory crime beyond a reasonable doubt, or, it's not actually a crime.

[RomaVicta 29993]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

But you see, that's the problem.  A crime is not some notion of bad behavior floating in the atmosphere.  It can either be proven to meet the elements of a statutory crime beyond a reasonable doubt, or, it's not actually a crime.

Of course, I know that. That's the problem. His actions deserve statutes to stop those actions. That's the irksome point. He led an uprising to destroy the republic. I saw it. I've seen the evidence since then. There's a serious problem with this miscreant not being behind bars or worse. 

His assassin would be a hero as far as I'm concerned. He's the enemy of the state not the press or me. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Of course, I know that. That's the problem. His actions deserve statutes to stop those actions. That's the irksome point. He led an uprising to destroy the republic. I saw it. I've seen the evidence since then. There's a serious problem with this miscreant not being behind bars or worse. 

His assassin would be a hero as far as I'm concerned. He's the enemy of the state not the press or me. 

Don't get me wrong, I agree.  I'm not saying he's innocent.

But there's considerably more trigger work involved in getting the sumbitch thowed in jail than people think or want to admit.

[Jhawkmvp 1489]

2 hours ago, hornmpa96 said:

I’m sure this was discussed previously but can someone explain why he wasn’t tried as Co-Conspirator #1 in the Michael Cohen case?

He’s no-longer President and accordingly the DOJ policy on indicting a sitting President doesn’t apply.

That always seemed like a slam-dunk to me.

A couple weeks ago they revived the investigation and were supposed to present information to a grand jury sometime soon.

[Chewbacca 7782]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I agree that the case shouldn't have been prosecuted and a maximum sentence should not have been sought.  It was most likely an abuse of prosecutorial discretion to bring the case and an abuse of judicial discretion to give her a maximum sentence under the statute, likely because of her skin color and for whom she voted. (But, given that her original crime was inflating tax returns, which requires some bit of sophistication, it could beggar belief that she didn't know she couldn't vote).

But the prosecutors chose to bring the case and met their burden of proof, easily, and secured the conviction.  And that's what we're talking about here.

The first question the DOJ has to ask is "do we have the proof to convict"?  And, under these circumstances, that takes a lot more than a couple of twitter posts and people bloviating on a blog.  It takes time to develop that proof. 

Right now, it's not Garland dithering over whether to investigate or bring a case, it's the trial lawyers trying to put together a case they can win.  Takes time.  For Fani Willis, and for the US Department of Justice.

And this is why nothing will happen to that fat fuck.  I'll lay money on it.

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

[TwiceHorn 31533]

1 hour ago, Jhawkmvp said:

A couple weeks ago they revived the investigation and were supposed to present information to a grand jury sometime soon.

That's NY state.  Cohen was federal.  The notion that the federal case against Trump was a slam dunk was probably delusional.

It would have taken a lot of work to nail down Trump's knowledge of the deal for a five year max sentence, and there were only nine months until the expiration of the statute of limitations.

And, of course, 1/6 happened.

[henrygandorf 29194]

7 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Our system is only set up to punish the poor or violent. 

i'm hoping that trump becomes both.

[safe sex 11746]

Crazy how things always seem to go right for him to avoid culpability and accountability.

[atomheartbevo 89782]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

People are mad because what they think are obvious crimes are not so obvious to the legal system, which requires a criminal statute that fits the offense and real, actual admissible evidence of the crime that meets the elements of the statute, and plenty of it.  That's not a flaw in the justice system.  The flaws tend to be much more subtle.

[Captainant 27741]

It's always fun to get the well-cited and articulated reason from TwiceHorn on why the fascists will get away with it. Really makes me feel full of hope and proud to be an American, and absolutely not full of dread at all.

[troph 24905]

I was distracted the last six months but have always been the negatory in our house and my wife the check this out “dis gonna be gud” one in our house. So with primaries about a year out - plus or minus - is garland or Georgia gonna get him or not?  I say no. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

21 hours ago, Captainant said:

It's always fun to get the well-cited and articulated reason from TwiceHorn on why the fascists will get away with it. Really makes me feel full of hope and proud to be an American, and absolutely not full of dread at all.

Except for the part where I never say that.  I explain why it's not as easy as people think.  I remain hopeful that they won't get away with it.

If they don't bring charges, it's not because Merrick Garland is a pussy.  It is, most likely, because they don't have the evidence to convict.

No one has called Fani WIllis a pussy yet, but looky looky here, they're on about the same timeframe.

Edited February 18, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27741]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Except for the part where I never say that.  I explain why it's not as easy as people think.  I remain hopeful that they won't get away with it.

You've explained in painstaking detail how our legal framework can not and will not EVER stop the fascists from doing their dirty work. There may be some vague hope that they'll eventually get what's coming, but you're ignoring or overlooking all the real, tangible damage to our democracy and society at the hands of these people that you can only hope that they don't get away with it. 

Can you share some of why you're hopeful? Because all I ever seem to read about the criminal proceedings is that our laws just don't address their behavior, and we need to amend our laws to address it. 

In what reality is that something that will actually happen? Where is there any evidence of consequence for any of these fucking fascists that turned the levers of power against citizens they choose to "other"? 

Oh I know, I bet we'll just have to hope right? There's so many reasons to believe they'll face actual consequences that meaningfully discourage their sort of actions in the future. We've been SO good at that up till now. 

[UpperWestside 6187]

On 2/13/2023 at 3:46 PM, Red Five said:

I said something to someone a few months ago about how I don't pay any attention to the NFL anymore. 

"Oh yeah I know what you mean. All the 'end racism' and cancer stuff, it's like hey I just want to watch football."

"Um, no. I just don't give a shit about the NFL."

This would be where I am at too. I just do not care for the NFL. That is mostly because I just cannot watch guys slowly kill themselves due to the hits they are taking. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

I stopped watching the NFL when the Oilers moved to Tennessee. 

[Brisketexan 105286]

I stopped watching the NFL when the Oilers moved to Tennessee. 

Preach, brother.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

Fuck Bud Adams and Jeff Fisher 

[Satchel 6948]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:07 PM, Neonmoon said:

They won't indict Trump. Our system is only set up to punish the poor or violent. 

That’s CRT nonsense. Stop it! Right now! 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

7 hours ago, Captainant said:

You've explained in painstaking detail how our legal framework can not and will not EVER stop the fascists from doing their dirty work. There may be some vague hope that they'll eventually get what's coming, but you're ignoring or overlooking all the real, tangible damage to our democracy and society at the hands of these people that you can only hope that they don't get away with it. 

Can you share some of why you're hopeful? Because all I ever seem to read about the criminal proceedings is that our laws just don't address their behavior, and we need to amend our laws to address it. 

In what reality is that something that will actually happen? Where is there any evidence of consequence for any of these fucking fascists that turned the levers of power against citizens they choose to "other"? 

Oh I know, I bet we'll just have to hope right? There's so many reasons to believe they'll face actual consequences that meaningfully discourage their sort of actions in the future. We've been SO good at that up till now. 

I explain that prosecuting Trump to a conviction is more difficult than "hurr durr we've got him on tape" or "derp he told Lester Holt."

One of the difficulties is that sometimes what he does doesn't clearly line up with a statutory crime.  It's a difficulty, it's not insurmountable.  And yes, we could stand some better laws concerning official conduct.  But so far, we seem to have one that can be adapted to fit his misconduct.  Treason, however, is not one of them and I wish people would stop screaming treason all the time.  To paraphrase Popehat, "it's not treason, dammit."

Another difficulty is that many of the crimes that do fit require proof of a specific intention to commit the crime in question.  Trump is such an idiot and murky thinker that even when he does essentially confess to a crime, he does so in imprecise language and then immediately contradicts himself, at least verbally.  We all know that he probably has the worst intention humanly possible at any given time, but proving that intent within the courtroom environment is another matter entirely.

My main point is that prosecuting Trump is not a simple matter, it's complex, it takes some time to develop facts, especially when the witnesses have privileges with murky contours, are liars in the first place, and seem to be scared to death to cross Trump.  Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's impossible or that it won't happen.

I see positive signs all over that Jack Smith is building on the work of his predecessors and going hammer and tongs after Trump.  I don't think they're doing that just for shits n giggles, they're trying to build a convictable case.

Further, just about every Trump legal entanglement since he left office has gone poorly for him, including civil cases that he used to "win" by sheer obstreporousness.  I think that trend is going to hold.

Edited February 18, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Born to Run 6569]

Obstreporousness.

Learned a new word today; hat tip as always.

[Willfully Horn 8048]

My hope has always been that he face the judgement of twelve citizens. 

Ultimately, that is how our system determines guilt. I can move on from a not guilty verdict more easily than if the DOJ, or Fani, determine they don’t have a slam dunk case. 
 

And intent? Intent? Like I said. Let the jurors decide.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

My hope has always been that he face the judgement of twelve citizens. 

Ultimately, that is how our system determines guilt. I can move on from a not guilty verdict more easily than if the DOJ, or Fani, determine they don’t have a slam dunk case. 
 

And intent? Intent? Like I said. Let the jurors decide.

Proof of a specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt can be muy dificil.  And, it's not just convincing jurors.  I would make an educated speculation that jury verdicts of conviction are overturned on the sufficiency of evidence of a specific intent more often than any other sufficiency of evidence issue.

[Gatorubet 30294]

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I see positive signs all over that Jack Smith is building on the work of his predecessors and going hammer and tongs after Trump.  I don't think they're doing that just for shits n giggles, they're trying to build a convictable case.

I think trying Trump on a case where there is a good chance he might be found not guilty is more dangerous to the body politic then bringing charges just to bring charges.  We agree he is a loathsome lying piece of shit who deserves to rot in jail on general principles.   Criminal statutes are not general principles. 

And you have to focus on the elements of the statute compared to the facts, because even if a jury of Trump haters convicts him, the appellate court will correctly overturn on a high profile case with clear possible political motivations unless you have the goods per the statute.