January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance

[Bozo_Casanova 26,474]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

Sid Caesar?

And Imogene Coca

Edited January 11, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

43 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

The man is literally on tape asking a state AG to "find me 11,780 votes," but I guess our pathetic little laypeople minds are not able to see how that's purely innocent.

Well that's how reasonable doubt works.  Trump or someone testifies or argues that "find me" just means recount or something, not "create out of thin air" or something insidious.  The jury doesn't have to believe that that is true, just that there's a reasonable chance that it might be true, and just one juror at that.  And when you have a dipshit like Trump that speaks insincerely and imprecisely about 90% of the time, it's not that far-fetched.  So the government is going to need to marshal other evidence that corroborates that the possibility that it was innocent or some kind of misstatement of intention is unlikely or untrue.

To use your own language, it doesn't have to be "purely innocent," just possibly innocent.

Edited January 11, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Beau Vine 54,246]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well that's how reasonable doubt works.  Trump or someone testifies or argues that "find me" just means recount or something, not "create out of thin air" or something insidious.  The jury doesn't have to believe that that is true, just that there's a reasonable chance that it might be true, and just one juror at that.  And when you have a dipshit like Trump that speaks insincerely and imprecisely about 90% of the time, it's not that far-fetched.  So the government is going to need to marshal other evidence that corroborates that the possibility that it was innocent or some kind of misstatement of intention is unlikely or untrue.

To use your own language, it doesn't have to be "purely innocent," just possibly innocent.

So if he stood in the middle of 5th Avenue and gunned someone down, the prosecution would be hesitant to  charge him with murder because when he said, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” there's a reasonable chance that he was talking about taking pictures of someone?

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

18 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

So if he stood in the middle of 5th Avenue and gunned someone down, the prosecution would be hesitant to  charge him with murder because when he said, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” there's a reasonable chance that he was talking about taking pictures of someone?

Poor analogy, but addressing it, assuming there were witnesses to the gunning down, the prosecution could be assured of securing some homicide conviction, because the intent only applies to the "level" of offense, murder, manslaughter, etc. depending on the particular homicide statutes involved.  And it's easy enough to charge him with all or most of the homicide offenses and let the jury sort it out.

The prior statement of "intention" could be construed by a jury a number of ways, just by itself, short of "premeditation."  But if he told Meadows behind closed doors that he really believed that, so much so that he thinks he might even test it out, then you have a whole nother ball game.

You can be sure that the government doesn't want to indict and go to trial until they've pretty much nailed down all the corroboration of intent they can reasonably get.  There's not going to be a range of "lesser included offenses" the jury can convict on in these.

Edited January 11, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[RomaVicta 29,927]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

The man is literally on tape asking a state AG to "find me 11,780 votes," but I guess our pathetic little laypeople minds are not able to see how that's purely innocent.

The laypeople that end up being a jury of his peers has been just that pathetic before.

I have ruminated on jailing Trump and his co-conspirators awaiting indictment and trial. TwiceHorn explained why that is legally a bad idea. Still, I moved by the idea of a close associate of the Supreme Court and her thoughts on what to do in cases of sedition, that is them:

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

The laypeople that end up being a jury of his peers has been just that pathetic before.

I have ruminated on jailing Trump and his co-conspirators awaiting indictment and trial. TwiceHorn explained why that is legally a bad idea. Still, I moved by the idea of a close associate of the Supreme Court and her thoughts on what to do in cases of sedition, that is them:

I actually didn't say it was a "bad idea."  The original purpose of bail/pretrial detention was to insure the appearance of the defendant at trial.  Later on, it became a means of protecting the public from as yet unconvicted, but potentially dangerous defendants.  The latter purpose has seemed to come to dominate the question of pretrial detention, at least where violent crimes are in question.

As a result of "tough on crime" pandering by Congress, the federal system has become biased toward the public protection justification for pretrial detention where there is the slightest hint of violence implicated in the crime.  But I think it pretty unlikely that Trump or most of his cohorts in this would be detained pretrial.  Most of the 1/6 defendants were not detained pretrial unless they repeatedly violated their conditions of bail, or were apprehended sitting on a cache of weapons, etc. despite the implication of violence in their crimes.

[Satchel 6,938]

56 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well that's how reasonable doubt works.  Trump or someone testifies or argues that "find me" just means recount or something, not "create out of thin air" or something insidious.  The jury doesn't have to believe that that is true, just that there's a reasonable chance that it might be true, and just one juror at that.  And when you have a dipshit like Trump that speaks insincerely and imprecisely about 90% of the time, it's not that far-fetched.  So the government is going to need to marshal other evidence that corroborates that the possibility that it was innocent or some kind of misstatement of intention is unlikely or untrue.

To use your own language, it doesn't have to be "purely innocent," just possibly innocent.

Was he just turning a phrase when he said in the same conversation, “ tell them you recalculated [the vote]  or something”?

[BevoAbyss 2,059]

At the end of the day, the January 6 televised hearings will amount to very little. I hope I am wrong.

How can we expect TV screens, the very media system that destroyed any notions of objective reality, to provide a serious corrective for January 6? After all, it is TV that converted daily existence into an accumulation of spectacles, endless performances commodified into corporate profits and converted into platforms for endless idiocy, narcissism, and entertainment. All of this been amplified via the screens of social media by a factor of 100. 

 

It is TV that, for decades, has flouted facts—trivialized truth—encouraged tribalism—degraded public discourse—spread conspiracy theory—celebrated pseudoscience and superstition—trumpeted American war propaganda—worshipped celebrities, athletes, billionaires, and Mafia gangs while championing militarized police and badass cops—let fact-free televangelists endlessly exploit believers with donation scams and faith-healing—bombarded our consciousness with endless ads for junk—conflated endless consumption with utopian salvation—and fostered the overall ideology of what’s true is what sells, what's good is what people will accept. No matter what the facts are, no matter what the science says, no matter what's good for our collective species. Narcissism and entertainment TRUMP knowledge and enlightenment. 

 

Aside from a few exceptions (Sagan’s Cosmos, Tyson’s Cosmos, Attenborough docs), TV has powered a nonstop assault on a rational, reasonable, and sane shared worldview. All this is central to the idiotic, fact-denying, violent fascist culture that produced January 6. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by BevoAbyss

[Red Five 40,862]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Was he just turning a phrase when he said in the same conversation, “ tell them you recalculated [the vote]  or something”?

This. There is no ambiguity in that phone call. He was trying to pressure a state into falsifying their election results. 

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

1 hour ago, BevoAbyss said:

At the end of the day, the January 6 televised hearings will amount to very little. I hope I am wrong.

How can we expect TV screens, the very media system that destroyed any notions of objective reality, to provide a serious corrective for January 6? After all, it is TV that converted daily existence into an accumulation of spectacles, endless performances commodified into corporate profits and converted into platforms for endless idiocy, narcissism, and entertainment. All of this been amplified via the screens of social media by a factor of 100. 

 

It is TV that, for decades, has flouted facts—trivialized truth—encouraged tribalism—degraded public discourse—spread conspiracy theory—celebrated pseudoscience and superstition—trumpeted American war propaganda—worshipped celebrities, athletes, billionaires, and Mafia gangs while championing militarized police and badass cops—let fact-free televangelists endlessly exploit believers with donation scams and faith-healing—bombarded our consciousness with endless ads for junk—conflated endless consumption with utopian salvation—and fostered the overall ideology of what’s true is what sells, what's good is what people will accept. No matter what the facts are, no matter what the science says, no matter what's good for our collective species. Narcissism and entertainment TRUMP knowledge and enlightenment. 

 

Aside from a few exceptions (Sagan’s Cosmos, Tyson’s Cosmos, Attenborough docs), TV has powered a nonstop assault on a rational, reasonable, and sane shared worldview. All this is central to the idiotic, fact-denying, violent fascist culture that produced January 6. 

Well, social media has proven that TV is a flat-out piker when it comes to disinformation and dumbing down of the public.  Unless you want to count various online videos and "channels" as TV.

But, I agree with your general premise.  Nevertheless, it told the story of 1/6 in a way that we wouldn't get out of a criminal trial and that probably needs to be there for the historical record, if nothing else.

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

Was he just turning a phrase when he said in the same conversation, “ tell them you recalculated [the vote]  or something”?

The bottom line is neither you nor I can answer that question, only a jury can.  And unless you nail down corroborating evidence, there's a risk that the jury (remember, just one juror really), decides that that statement does not, alone, prove the necessary intent.

It occurs to me, though, that the best way to defend on intent is to put Trump on the stand and have him say "that's not what I meant" and then attempt to corroborate that with other evidence. Otherwise, the inferences get pretty muddled.  And then, look at this Georgia statute that seems to be a prime candidate for indictment of Trump:

(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.

Cripes that's a crummy statute.

[atomheartbevo 89,702]

7 hours ago, YGIFS said:

But I read the insane ramblings of Ginni Thomas starting in the 2020 election aftermath up until now.  And all I can think of is, "You got all that sick shit bouncing around in your brain and then you go home and blow Clarence 'asshat' Thomas?"  Like one person does all that crazy shit, and it's the wife of a longest-tenured Justice.  That is so fucking weird to me.  

Correction: Based on her ramblings, she probably only gives him 3/5 of a blowjob.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,793]

23 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

she probably only gives him 3/5 of a blowjob.

[Brisketexan 105,154]

It's not that it's not illegal, it's just that it's not as plainly illegal as people want to think it is.
I've said it many times, but we don't have a real robust set of criminal laws relating to offenses against the government by government officials.
We haven't needed them./

The law can only go so far - it can’t be drafted for every eventuality.
Especially when there are well-known existing remedies for the misconduct. In the case of a leader violently rebelling against the state, the longstanding remedy is the gallows.
That’s ultimately how every functioning society has dealt with their Trump. Eventually, they hang him at an Esso station.

[Sbbruin 21,858]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The bottom line is neither you nor I can answer that question, only a jury can.  And unless you nail down corroborating evidence, there's a risk that the jury (remember, just one juror really), decides that that statement does not, alone, prove the necessary intent.

It occurs to me, though, that the best way to defend on intent is to put Trump on the stand and have him say "that's not what I meant" and then attempt to corroborate that with other evidence. Otherwise, the inferences get pretty muddled.  And then, look at this Georgia statute that seems to be a prime candidate for indictment of Trump:

(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.

Cripes that's a crummy statute.

BTW, it’s “statue”.   And it reads pretty clear that what he did was exactly what the law describes.

[atomheartbevo 89,702]

 

[YGIFS 19,450]

Insurrection Protection? 

Is that anything like this???" 

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/popiel/2869153

[Captainant 27,680]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Poor analogy, but addressing it, assuming there were witnesses to the gunning down, the prosecution could be assured of securing some homicide conviction, because the intent only applies to the "level" of offense, murder, manslaughter, etc. depending on the particular homicide statutes involved.  And it's easy enough to charge him with all or most of the homicide offenses and let the jury sort it out.

The prior statement of "intention" could be construed by a jury a number of ways, just by itself, short of "premeditation."  But if he told Meadows behind closed doors that he really believed that, so much so that he thinks he might even test it out, then you have a whole nother ball game.

You can be sure that the government doesn't want to indict and go to trial until they've pretty much nailed down all the corroboration of intent they can reasonably get.  There's not going to be a range of "lesser included offenses" the jury can convict on in these.

Man it's fortunate you weren't at the Hague after WWII, otherwise we'd have a shitload more fascists rolling around simply because we couldn't 10000000000000% pin them down. The same techniques used by trumpco were how the Nazis did so many horrors without anyone in particular ordering it. Same shit that you're equivocating on here is exactly the same defense the Nazis presented

[Sbbruin 21,858]

34 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

So they want to protect one’s right of insurrection?

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Man it's fortunate you weren't at the Hague after WWII, otherwise we'd have a shitload more fascists rolling around simply because we couldn't 10000000000000% pin them down. The same techniques used by trumpco were how the Nazis did so many horrors without anyone in particular ordering it. Same shit that you're equivocating on here is exactly the same defense the Nazis presented

Jesus fucking Christ dude.

Explaining why trying a criminal case to conviction is not as simple as playing an audio clip to a jury and saying, see, he's gulity is NOT FUCKING EQUIVOCATING.

Show me one time where I am equivocating over Trump's guilt or general purpose shittiness.  

Specifically, Roma said "well we have the phone call on tape," should be pretty straightforward.  Understandable, but wrong.

And, the Nuremburg trials actually didn't rely on criminal statutes, they relied on "international customary law" and relatively vague notions of "crimes against humanity" and "wars of aggression."  They actually made it up pretty much as they went along.

So, that's a shit analogy.  And it wasn't The Hague, it was Nuremburg.  The International Court of Justice wasn't formed yet or was formed contemporaneously and had nothing to do with the International Military Tribunal created and convened for those trials.

In this country, for better or worse, we have to indict and try people for crimes written into statute law before they occur and meet burdens of proof and generally follow the due process of law.  No matter how much you hate Trump.

You want Trump to pay.  I get it, so do I.  

But as alluded to earlier, a half-baked indictment virtually guarantees that he'll skate.  A meticulously prepared criminal case substantially reduces that possibility, but not entirely.  That's what I want and that's what the government is doing.

Edited January 12, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[henrygandorf 29,191]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trump that speaks insincerely and imprecisely about 90% of the time

you keep using that number and it seems awfully low.

[elfenix 34,273]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's the general standard, yes.  But these statutes layer on a "specific intent" as well.  For example, 18 USC 1512(c)(2), which I believe is the 1/6 statute "of choice," provides the following:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1)

alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2)

otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 

The word "corruptly" adds the specific intention to be corrupt or unlawful.  It is a matter of some subtlety, but it exists and is a fruitful ground for acquittal if you can convince a jury that it was at least possible that no corrupt intention existed.

 

Also worth noting that the dispute over the applicability of that section to the 1/6 crimes ties into whether sub (1) limits, by use of the term "document or other object" to obstruction by use of a document or object, under sub (2), which initially seems to be much broader in application.

that seems to ignore the word 'or' at the end of (1)

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

that seems to ignore the word 'or' at the end of (1)

I think it's a bad argument, but it's not a laugher apparently.  Ejusdem generis and all that shit.  Trumper Carl Nichols bought it and dismissed some charges; but Trumper Dabney Friedrich did not buy it and neither have any of the other trial judges.  Currently at DC Circuit and I think a significant reason there have been no indictments of the higher-level inciters/conspirators.

Edited January 12, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[elfenix 34,273]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think it's a bad argument, but it's not a laugher apparently.  Ejusdem generis and all that shit.

gesundheit

[Captainant 27,680]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Jesus fucking Christ dude.

Explaining why trying a criminal case to conviction is not as simple as playing an audio clip to a jury and saying, see, he's gulity is NOT FUCKING EQUIVOCATING.

Show me one time where I am equivocating over Trump's guilt or general purpose shittiness.  

Specifically, Roma said "well we have the phone call on tape," should be pretty straightforward.  Understandable, but wrong.

And, the Nuremburg trials actually didn't rely on criminal statutes, they relied on "international customary law" and relatively vague notions of "crimes against humanity" and "wars of aggression."  They actually made it up pretty much as they went along.

So, that's a shit analogy.  And it wasn't The Hague, it was Nuremburg.  The International Court of Justice wasn't formed yet or was formed contemporaneously and had nothing to do with the International Military Tribunal created and convened for those trials.

In this country, for better or worse, we have to indict and try people for crimes written into statute law before they occur and meet burdens of proof and generally follow the due process of law.  No matter how much you hate Trump.

You want Trump to pay.  I get it, so do I.  

But as alluded to earlier, a half-baked indictment virtually guarantees that he'll skate.  A meticulously prepared criminal case substantially reduces that possibility, but not entirely.  That's what I want and that's what the government is doing.

I guess it's just funny to see someone so stringently clinging to the illusion that our legal system is built on laws. Roberts court out front shoulda told ya, it's fucking calvinball dude. Any conviction will be appealed ad infinitum anyways. It won't fucking matter and trump won't personally face consequences, but it's patently fucking ridiculous to wait TWO FUCKING YEARS AND COUNTING to make any criminal referral when it's not exactly a mystery what fucking happened.

We have eyes. Why are you assuming that a .0001% chance that trump skates is a reasonable justification to continue to excuse his treasonous behavior? Your argument is exactly what enables his malfeasance. 

If trump can sufficiently complicate things, folks like you will be too busy trying to perfectly frame shit for a perfect trial, while he is doing his damage and further complicating things. Which of course means we have to wait even LONGER because if we don't get it 10000000000000% correct then his holy orangitude will OBVIOUSLY get away with it. 

But yeah, you'll get him one day with that tack. Just like everyone else has for the last five fucking decades lmfao. 

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

Just now, Captainant said:

I guess it's just funny to see someone so stringently clinging to the illusion that our legal system is built on laws. Roberts court out front shoulda told ya, it's fucking calvinball dude. Any conviction will be appealed ad infinitum anyways. It won't fucking matter and trump won't personally face consequences, but it's patently fucking ridiculous to wait TWO FUCKING YEARS AND COUNTING to make any criminal referral when it's not exactly a mystery what fucking happened.

We have eyes. Why are you assuming that a .0001% chance that trump skates is a reasonable justification to continue to excuse his treasonous behavior? Your argument is exactly what enables his malfeasance. 

If trump can sufficiently complicate things, folks like you will be too busy trying to perfectly frame shit for a perfect trial, while he is doing his damage and further complicating things. Which of course means we have to wait even LONGER because if we don't get it 10000000000000% correct then his holy orangitude will OBVIOUSLY get away with it. 

But yeah, you'll get him one day with that tack. Just like everyone else has for the last five fucking decades lmfao. 

This post is just nonsense spleen venting.

You're obviously a smart dude, but you're a blithering emotional idiot when it comes to stuff like this.

[Captainant 27,680]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

This post is just nonsense spleen venting.

You're obviously a smart dude, but you're a blithering emotional idiot when it comes to stuff like this.

Watching your democracy die and seeing officers of the court defending it's death will do that do you. 

[henrygandorf 29,191]

i don't even care if he "gets away with it" anymore.  i just want 3-5 years of his life to be completely miserable and involve him having to pay a shitload of money he doesn't have to sit in court and have to answer questions and have to watch a bunch of other people ask and answer questions about him and people he knows.  i want him to be paranoid and uncomfortable.

and i would like that period of time to start in the next 12 months.

i ask for so little.

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Watching your democracy die and seeing officers of the court defending it's death will do that do you. 

Feel free to organize a mob and string him up at the Esso station.  I might even join up, depending on how I feel about my law license that particular day.

 

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't even care if he "gets away with it" anymore.  i just want 3-5 years of his life to be completely miserable and involve him having to pay a shitload of money he doesn't have to sit in court and have to answer questions and have to watch a bunch of other people ask and answer questions about him and people he knows.  i want him to be paranoid and uncomfortable.

and i would like that period of time to start in the next 12 months.

i ask for so little.

The ride should be sufficiently awful for him if he is indicted in a good clean fashion that can't be easily dismissed.  He's never faced anything like this before, and the stakes are infinitely higher for him.  He should be filling his Depends even more regularly and copiously than he does already.

Edited January 12, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27,680]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Feel free to organize a mob and string him up at the Esso station.  I might even join up, depending on how I feel about my law license that particular day.

 

I'd rather things not get to that point we fully succumb to fascism before the fever breaks, but yeah sure whatever. We HAVE to let the fascists do their damage before we can protect against it amirite??

[safe sex 11,735]

The law seems pretty flexible when it comes to prosecuting/fucking over minorities and making life worse for the 99%, so maybe it should be a little more flexible when it comes to the crimes that we have all plainly seen and heard with our own fucking senses for the past two thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight days since Trump first announced he was running for President (I am counting crimes against fashion, women, decency, etc. in addition to conspiracy and insurrection).

Edited January 12, 2023 by safe sex
better comparison

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

Just now, Captainant said:

I'd rather things not get to that point we fully succumb to fascism before the fever breaks, but yeah sure whatever. We HAVE to let the fascists do their damage before we can protect against it amirite??

Who said that?  Brisket was arguing about extrajudicial executions because the law only goes so far.  

You seem to be arguing that the rules of evidence and procedure that generally apply to everyone ought to be somehow dispensed with in the case of Trump because criminal law and procedure is now "calvinball" because of completely unrelated Supreme Court decisions.

So fuck it, let the wild rumpus start.

[henrygandorf 29,191]

45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The ride should be sufficiently awful for him if he is indicted in a good clean fashion that can't be easily dismissed.  He's never faced anything like this before, and the stakes are infinitely higher for him.  He should be filling his Depends even more regularly and copiously than he does already.

and btw, if he does skate, or endlessly appeal everything, he'll be what, 80-something and giving speeches at...mar-a-lago?  and dropping rants on...truth social?  he'll be pretty easy to ignore as long as he's not the president.  shit, he's pretty easy to ignore right now.

you have to bring this to trial.  i'm ok with that ^ ending.  

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

30 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

and btw, if he does skate, or endlessly appeal everything, he'll be what, 80-something and giving speeches at...mar-a-lago?  and dropping rants on...truth social?  he'll be pretty easy to ignore as long as he's not the president.  shit, he's pretty easy to ignore right now.

you have to bring this to trial.  i'm ok with that ^ ending.  

I really want to see a conviction and a bunch of futile appeals, but I would take some solace in this.

[Satchel 6,938]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The bottom line is neither you nor I can answer that question, only a jury can.  And unless you nail down corroborating evidence, there's a risk that the jury (remember, just one juror really), decides that that statement does not, alone, prove the necessary intent.

It occurs to me, though, that the best way to defend on intent is to put Trump on the stand and have him say "that's not what I meant" and then attempt to corroborate that with other evidence. Otherwise, the inferences get pretty muddled.  And then, look at this Georgia statute that seems to be a prime candidate for indictment of Trump:

(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.

Cripes that's a crummy statute.

Yeah. The message received is the message, makes more sense.

[jimmyjazz 45,971]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Watching your democracy die and seeing officers of the court defending it's death will do that do you. 

He's not "defending its death", he's trying to tell you how high the burden is.  I appreciate it.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,202]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The bottom line is neither you nor I can answer that question, only a jury can.  And unless you nail down corroborating evidence, there's a risk that the jury (remember, just one juror really), decides that that statement does not, alone, prove the necessary intent.

It occurs to me, though, that the best way to defend on intent is to put Trump on the stand and have him say "that's not what I meant" and then attempt to corroborate that with other evidence. Otherwise, the inferences get pretty muddled.  And then, look at this Georgia statute that seems to be a prime candidate for indictment of Trump:

(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.

Cripes that's a crummy statute.

So trump has to actually say "I'm attempting to overthrow a legal election; I'm doing sedition and treason right now" directly into a microphone and camera to be charged?  

JFC, why can't the feds somehow do a RICO-type prosecution?  I mean trump runs everything like a mafioso, anyway.  Use the same shit on that orange fuck. 

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

9 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

So trump has to actually say "I'm attempting to overthrow a legal election; I'm doing sedition and treason right now" directly into a microphone and camera to be charged?  

JFC, why can't the feds somehow do a RICO-type prosecution?  I mean trump runs everything like a mafioso, anyway.  Use the same shit on that orange fuck. 

Well there's two different questions here, relating to Georgia and to 1/6.

The original blurb was in response to the assertion that his recorded phone call to Raffensperger made the case a slam dunk.  And I don't think it's going to be that simple or easy.

There is something of a similar problem with 1/6 in that his speech on that day, must be shown to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding.  And that is probably even harder, if we're left with just the speech itself.

Thankfully, I think the proof of the whole scheme, to include the fake electors and all that, if it can be shown that Trump knew of and approved of that course of action, is the kind of evidence that shows that his intention with his speech on 1/6, consistent with the scheme, was to send the rioters to the Capitol for the express purpose of interfering with and delaying the electoral count so that a fake controversy could be created to potentially throw the election outcome to the House.

With respect to the Raffensperger phone call, I think there is possibly just enough wiggle room to avoid conviction on the statement alone because a juror who takes the burden of proof seriously and is neither pro- nor anti-Trump could say, well there is a reasonable doubt about whether he wanted Raffensperger to commit a felony prohibited by Georgia law.  Hopefully, there are enough non-public conversations with others that help corroborate that that was, in fact, his intention.

This isn't a matter of law, per se, it's a matter of persuasion and satisfying the burden of proof.  The jury is told that they have to find the evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt, but they are not instructed as to what that means.  Some jurors don't give a fuck or are incapable of that level of nuance, but most juries have at least a couple that are awed by the responsibility and try to take that burden very seriously and hold the state to it.

We all highly suspect, and most likely correctly, that Trump's motives all around were corrupt and self-interested to a degree that should satisfy any criminal statute and jury.

We are all also unusually well-informed and therefore biased and probably shouldn't serve on a Trump jury.  So we aren't the "target audience."

There's also been some strategerizing about venue that I have seen.  The two choices are Florida and DC.  DC obviously vastly increases the odds of conviction and Florida the opposite.  And it's not just a matter of where to file, it's how to keep it where they file it in the face of an inevitable motion to transfer venue.

[Beau Vine 54,246]

34 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

So trump has to actually say "I'm attempting to overthrow a legal election; I'm doing sedition and treason right now" directly into a microphone and camera to be charged?  

No, that's not admissible because Trump speaks insincerely and imprecisely about 90% of the time.

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

15 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

No, that's not admissible because Trump speaks insincerely and imprecisely about 90% of the time.

We're not talking about admissibility.

We're talking about persuading a juror, who is to the extent possible, not informed about the events and is neither pro- or anti-Trump.

We, who are the opposite of those people, all verily know that he wanted Raffy to fucking burn ballots or create new ones or do whatever sinister shit he needed to to "find" the requisite number of votes.

A more neutral person, given evidence of the statement alone and argument that Trump runs his mouth all the time without really meaning or even understanding what he says, could pretty easily find doubt there. 

So, if you are a federal prosecutor, in an organization with an 85+^% conviction rate, contemplating the biggest criminal indictment and trial in US history, you are not going to go at that without turning over every stone you can get to and carefully evaluating what can be done with all of the evidence, both by you and by the defense.

From the rule of law standpoint, and we love to bark about the rule of law, bringing an indictment against Trump that results in an acquittal, while always a possibility, would be a gigantic disaster for the DOJ.  I might expect this to be the most carefully and meticulously developed criminal case ever, and for good reason.

This notion that "we've got the call on tape," easy-peasy conviction city is facile.

Edited January 12, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Pato del Muerto 52,510]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i ask for so little.

You earned a living for a period of years by having young women show their tits to you. 
 

You may have used your meted allotment of nice things at an early age. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Pato del Muerto
To sum up, GGW existing is why we have trump now. The universe requires balance.

[henrygandorf 29,191]

3 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

You earned a living for a period of years by having young women show their tits to you. 

technically they showed their tits to people i supervised.

[WhatTheBuck 28,786]

18 hours ago, Satchel said:

Was he just turning a phrase when he said in the same conversation, “ tell them you recalculated [the vote]  or something”?

And he threatened legal consequences for the Secretary of State and his lawyer if they didn’t cooperate. 

[Beau Vine 54,246]

6 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

technically they showed their tits to people i supervised.

You need to work on your supervision skills.  

[GenXer 2,882]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

We're not talking about admissibility.

We're talking about persuading a juror, who is to the extent possible, not informed about the events and is neither pro- or anti-Trump.

We, who are the opposite of those people, all verily know that he wanted Raffy to fucking burn ballots or create new ones or do whatever sinister shit he needed to to "find" the requisite number of votes.

A more neutral person, given evidence of the statement alone and argument that Trump runs his mouth all the time without really meaning or even understanding what he says, could pretty easily find doubt there. 

So, if you are a federal prosecutor, in an organization with an 85+^% conviction rate, contemplating the biggest criminal indictment and trial in US history, you are not going to go at that without turning over every stone you can get to and carefully evaluating what can be done with all of the evidence, both by you and by the defense.

From the rule of law standpoint, and we love to bark about the rule of law, bringing an indictment against Trump that results in an acquittal, while always a possibility, would be a gigantic disaster for the DOJ.  I might expect this to be the most carefully and meticulously developed criminal case ever, and for good reason.

This notion that "we've got the call on tape," easy-peasy conviction city is facile.

This is a good point, and I hope is the key reason why no charges have been filed against Trump.

I’ve served on a jury where the defendant had two counts of aggravated assault. Jury deliberations were very interesting as you see the cross section of the pool of your community and their perspectives on life.

I suspect the prosecution is going to know they will have foxnews viewers in their pool, and these prospective jurors will come to the party with alternative facts.

[Captainant 27,680]

This thread is giving me flashbacks to my dumb ass in 2010 just watching GG and GDGD shit the bed for an entire season and then idiotically think everything is gonna just magically fix itself. 

America is gonna be going down a worse path than Texas Football has for the last decade-plus. Rudderless, feckless, and incapable of fixing it's shit because there's ALWAYS a reason why it won't work. 

DOJ is just scared to death of the opponents this week, maybe we should give out some orange slices and cookies to get em over the hump! We surely won't look like dickless fucking idiots for a generation 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Captainant
Doubledoublepost

[Pescado_Rojo 19,421]

11 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

technically they showed their tits to people i supervised.

Are you looking to hire an assistant to the Regional Manager? As a lifelong connoisseur of tits I feel I am uniquely qualified for the role.  

[wildcat09 29,355]

15 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

So trump has to actually say "I'm attempting to overthrow a legal election; I'm doing sedition and treason right now" directly into a microphone and camera to be charged?  

 

Basically, yes. The guys who write laws that might one day be used against people like them tend to make sure that the requisite level of intent for criminal liability is much higher than for laws that are enforced primarily against poor people.

Edited January 12, 2023 by wildcat09

[henrygandorf 29,191]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

This thread is giving me flashbacks to my dumb ass in 2010 just watching GG and GDGD shit the bed for an entire season and then idiotically think everything is gonna just magically fix itself. 

America is gonna be going down a worse path than Texas Football has for the last decade-plus. Rudderless, feckless, and incapable of fixing it's shit because there's ALWAYS a reason why it won't work. 

DOJ is just scared to death of the opponents this week, maybe we should give out some orange slices and cookies to get em over the hump! We surely won't look like dickless fucking idiots for a generation 

the doj is killing themselves in florida?