The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[Vol8188]

Let's try to spell this out slowly for you. He was told there was no indication of vote fraud. That came from state election officials who investigated. That came from his AG. There was 60 courts cases---all thrown out or lost by his crazy lawyers. You're not entitled to go around for many weeks lying about something and damaging our democracy and putting lives in danger because you're a gangster who's not prepared to accept defeat.

Is he legally required to believe any of those people?

 

[Septic]

Mail in ballots were a problem and there was undoubtedly voter fraud.

Nah.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Let's spell this out for you - people can and do believe things that aren't true and the talk about them openly.

The prosecution's challenge is to show that Trump did not believe rather than whether or not he should not believe.

Are you an attorney? Apparently he admitted to a couple of people he actually lost the election. Whether or not that is damning will be decided by a jury. Not you. Not me

That's the bottom line

 

[luthervol]

If 10 people told Biden it was unconstitutional (Biden is even on record saying it’s unconstitutional) for him to forgive student loans, would you say that he “defrauded the American taxpayer”?

Or does your “he should have known policy” only apply to trump

Yes, if his closest legal advisors all assured him that it was unconstitutional, then he gave people false hope.

 

[luthervol]

He’s probably the most egotistical person on this planet. So no, idk for a fact that he knew he lost. Nor do you. And it seems all these charges are based on the idea that you can prove that

I didn't ask if you know for a fact.
I asked how likely you think it is that he knew.

I'm 100% certain. I rounded 99.93% up to 100%. Which far surpasses reasonable doubt.

 

[Vol8188]

Yes, if his closest legal advisors all assured him that it was unconstitutional, then he gave people false hope.

Yet other advisors told him it was constitutional right? Trump didn’t come up with a legal theory on his own. And are you legally obligated to believe your advisors?

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

I didn't ask if you know for a fact.
I asked how likely you think it is that he knew.

I'm 100% certain. I rounded 99.93% up to 100%.

There are people who knew. At least two of them testified before the grand jury

Edit: They didn't know what he was thinking, but they testified to what Trump said to them

 

[Vol8188]

I didn't ask if you know for a fact.
I asked how likely you think it is that he knew.

I'm 100% certain. I rounded 99.93% up to 100%. Which far surpasses reasonable doubt.

I’m not sure. I think he most likely knew, but that’s not the standard in a criminal trial

 

[lawgator1]

The lawyers on this board don’t seem to be very impressed with these charges. So I don’t think that’s your best argument right now

Let me elaborate on my own prior comments...

Both the obstruction charge In the documents case and the election interference charges in the most recent indictment are crimes that depend on intent.

It is a common misconception that there must be direct evidence of intent but there does not have to be an express statement, it can be reasonably inferred in some circumstances

For example, if you are a South Park fan, if you are standing in line at the local toy store with your Eric Cartman T-shirt on and holding a yellow mega man box, it can reasonably be inferred that you intend to buy a yellow mega man. If you are wearing your Trey Parker T-shirt and standing in line at the airport to get on a plane to Colorado Springs, it can be inferred that you intend to go to Casa Bonita.

The strength of the inference in the first is much stronger than the strength of the inference in the second. I'd say the most recent indictment falls in between those two scenarios in terms of the strength of the inference.

The question is whether the prosecutor has sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that Trump knew he lost and intended to try to stay in power. With the documents case, the evidence of intent has been placed right out there. In particular, if he ordered that the tapes be destroyed the day after getting a subpoena, that is really close in time and pretty close to direct evidence of intent. Certainly enough that a jury would likely convict him and it would hold up.

So don't let the strength of the documents case lull you into a false sense of security on the third indictment.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Let's try to spell this out slowly for you. He was told there was no indication of vote fraud. That came from state election officials who investigated. That came from his AG. There was 60 courts cases---all thrown out or lost by his crazy lawyers. You're not entitled to go around for many weeks lying about something and damaging our democracy and putting lives in danger because you're a gangster who's not prepared to accept defeat.

So precisely what is he going to be convicted of? Give us a list of misdemeanors and felonies.

 

[luthervol]

Yet other advisors told him it was constitutional right? Trump didn’t come up with a legal theory on his own. And are you legally obligated to believe your advisors?

He knew.
And of course he didn't come up with it on his own.
He had his co-conspirators working on it long before the election was even held.

 

[luthervol]

I’m not sure. I think he most likely knew, but that’s not the standard in a criminal trial

The standard is reasonable doubt, which I and the majority have none of.

 

[volinbham]

Are you an attorney? Apparently he admitted to a couple of people he actually lost the election. Whether or not that is damning will be decided by a jury. Not you. Not me

That's the bottom line

this doesn't conflict with what I said - just pointing out what must be shown; not whether or not he's guilty or innocent

I honestly don't care what the court results are so long as they are carried out properly.

 

[OrangeBoro]

Of course he knew it.
Do you believe he knew it? What's your breakdown?
ex. You're 90% sure that Trump was 80% sure he had lost.

Here's my take:
I'm 100% sure that Trump was 100% sure he had lost.

I'm also 100% sure that Trump thought he could steal the election through intimidation and lies.

Biden was 100% sure he could, he even admitted it on tape

 

[GroverCleveland]

Are you an attorney? Apparently he admitted to a couple of people he actually lost the election. Whether or not that is damning will be decided by a jury. Not you. Not me

That's the bottom line

And how is this different from 2000? Gore conceded, then hired a bunch of lawyers trying to find votes.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

I’m not sure. I think he most likely knew, but that’s not the standard in a criminal trial

True, but why did members of Congress request pardons afterwards? You can't believe that documented info isn't being used against Trump, right? The emails between them are really bad for Trump unless some of them come forward for Trump and say he had nothing to do with their plans. Do you think Jimmy Jordan is going to jail for Trump?

 

[luthervol]

Biden was 100% sure he could, he even admitted it on tape

100% sure he could do what?

 

[Vol8188]

The standard is reasonable doubt, which I and the majority have none of.

You have no doubt that the man with the biggest ego on the planet thought he won? I have doubts for sure. No one has a bigger ego than trump.

You also have mentioned all these people who told him he lost, but what about the people who told him he won? Do they not count?

 

[OrangeBoro]

100% sure he could do what?

Steal the election. Remember when he admitted having the biggest election fraud in out history?

 

[Vol8188]

True, but why did members of Congress request pardons afterwards? You can't believe that documented info isn't being used against Trump, right? The emails between them are really bad for Trump unless some of them come forward for Trump and say he had nothing to do with their plans. Do you think Jimmy Jordan is going to jail for Trump?

The same reason Trump should’ve pardoned himself from this NY “crime”. Because in our country today you don’t have to actually commit a crime to be charged with a crime. You can just be on the wrong side of the political isle.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

And how is this different from 2000? Gore conceded, then hired a bunch of lawyers trying to find votes.

Different? You spelled it out yourself. Gore conceded. What he did after that isn't remotely comparable to Trump's behavior. Trump threatened to fire his AG for not complying with his ORDER to overturn the election. Bless your heart

 

[luthervol]

You have no doubt that the man with the biggest ego on the planet thought he won? I have doubts for sure. No one has a bigger ego than trump.

You also have mentioned all these people who told him he lost, but what about the people who told him he won? Do they not count?

No. He knew what kind of people he surrounded himself with and who would bend to his will.

He's horrendously despicable, but he's not an idiot. He knew full well who had honest ethics and who did not.

 

[luthervol]

Steal the election. Remember when he admitted having the biggest election fraud in out history?

????????????????????????

 

[Vol8188]

No. He knew what kind of people he surrounded himself with and who would bend to his will.

He's horrendously despicable, but he's not an idiot. He knew full well who had honest ethics and who did not.

Lol so “the people telling him he lost count, but the people telling him he won they don’t count”

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

The same reason Trump should’ve pardoned himself from this NY “crime”. Because in our country today you don’t have to actually commit a crime to be charged with a crime. You can just be on the wrong side of the political isle.

My Goodness. Bless your heart. Trump has committed crimes and again, bless your heart, you can't/won't acknowledge it. I'm signing off. You"re a good one