The indictment says over and over that Trump did things using "knowingly false claims".
If you had any idea what the actual indictment said you wouldn't be making completely irrelevant analogies.
This case will win in DC and get laughed out of the room on appeal. Anyone who isn't a f*cking idiot knows it.
Maybe you are right Adult. It might go down like this:
Appeals court opening arguments:
Trump's defense attorney: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. The govt has the audacity to say that my client "knowingly made false claims". This is the height of absurdity. It is widely known that my client does not know his head from his Azz. How dare the govt make a claim that my client could or would know anything at all. We will demonstrate that my client is a complete imbecile and thought he won.
Judge: Defense is making a logical argument. Trump is an idiot. Go on.
Prosecution: How the hell will we fight this? WE would have to make a claim that trump is not a complete idiot. We are toast.
Idiots go to jail all the time. There is evidence he knew what he was doing was wrong and that he didn't believe the lie.
Maybe you are right Adult. It might go down like this:
Appeals court opening arguments:
Trump's defense attorney: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. The govt has the audacity to say that my client "knowingly made false claims". This is the height of absurdity. It is widely known that my client does not know his head from his Azz. How dare the govt make a claim that my client could or would know anything at all. We will demonstrate that my client is a complete imbecile and thought he won.
Judge:
How do you prove that a man who has said on social media every single day for 3 years now that he thinks the election was stolen doesn't really believe it?
Hint: You can't.
Trump defense attorney:
Your honor we object! the prosecution is attempting to paint my client as a rational intelligent human being by saying he knew. This is a gross misrepresentation of who my client is. He is an idiot that operates on a 3rd grade level. This is known the world over. Have you heard his rallies? He could never be expected to know he lost the election.
Judge: sustained. The prosecution will refrain from any future attempts to present Trump as intelligent.
Maybe you are right Adult. It might go down like this:
Appeals court opening arguments:
Trump's defense attorney: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. The govt has the audacity to say that my client "knowingly made false claims". This is the height of absurdity. It is widely known that my client does not know his head from his Azz. How dare the govt make a claim that my client could or would know anything at all. We will demonstrate that my client is a complete imbecile and thought he won.
Judge: Defense is making a logical argument. Trump is an idiot. Go on.
Prosecution: How the hell will we fight this? WE would have to make a claim that trump is not a complete idiot. We are toast.
Idiots go to jail all the time. There is evidence he knew what he was doing was wrong and that he didn't believe the lie.
AITR lives in a naive dreamworld where a defendant can just declare himself innocent, correct, ignorant, confused and/or mistaken and thus be acquitted. Wait until the other 200,000 people facing criminal charges in America learn about this new law!
It is an interesting indictment. I am not convinced that the DOJ will gain a conviction (the documents case seems stronger to me), but it is a defensible set of allegations based on the purported evidence.
The First Amendment defense that the Trump-sphere is parroting is laughable, as is the notion that 'Trump believed it so you can't convict'.
He was disseminating disinformation. Nothing more. Is that all you guys have?!?
That's as disingenuous as the "First Amendment" defense. The attempt to get Pence to stop the vote in the House and send it back to the states is not just disseminating disinformation. It is an affirmative action as part of a plan (e.g. conspiracy) to overturn an election.
Idiots go to jail all the time. There is evidence he knew what he was doing was wrong and that he didn't believe the lie.
AITR lives in a naive dreamworld where a defendant can just declare himself innocent, correct, ignorant, confused and/or mistaken and thus be acquitted. Wait until the other 200,000 people facing criminal charges in America learn about this new law!
Exactly. He is reading right wing spinsters talking points that are attempting to cry foul over the word “knowingly”. As if that is what the indictments hinge on. They don’t. Indictments often use assertive language like this. “Mr Capone knowingly lied to investigators by saying he was a choir boy and not a Mob boss”. you get the drift.
But I have to admit I am amusing myself imagining Trump’s attorneys trying to convince the jury (and the rest of the world) that Trump truly did not grasp the reality that he lost.
That would be quit the scene for a leading presidential candidate to have his lawyers making the case that he is an idiot.
Maybe you are right Adult. It might go down like this:
Appeals court opening arguments:
Trump's defense attorney: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. The govt has the audacity to say that my client "knowingly made false claims". This is the height of absurdity. It is widely known that my client does not know his head from his Azz. How dare the govt make a claim that my client could or would know anything at all. We will demonstrate that my client is a complete imbecile and thought he won.
Judge: Defense is making a logical argument. Trump is an idiot. Go on.
Prosecution: How the hell will we fight this? WE would have to make a claim that trump is not a complete idiot. We are toast.
How do you prove that a man who has said on social media every single day for 3 years now that he thinks the election was stolen doesn't really believe it?
How do you prove that a man who has said on social media every single day for 3 years now that he thinks the election was stolen doesn't really believe it?
Hint: You can't.
^^^^^
Showing yet again how naive and clueless he is of how things work.
As always your complete lack of self awareness is showing.
Idiots go to jail all the time. There is evidence he knew what he was doing was wrong and that he didn't believe the lie.
AITR lives in a naive dreamworld where a defendant can just declare himself innocent, correct, ignorant, confused and/or mistaken and thus be acquitted. Wait until the other 200,000 people facing criminal charges in America learn about this new law!
You live in a dreamworld where you not liking someone means you just have to be right.
Former President Trump posted on social media that he was indicted and was about to be arrested “for you.” As the one reading this, I thought I was safe in assuming he meant me, even if not only me. Can I reasonably hope, then, that he’ll also be convicted for me, or am I having as many difficulties with pronouns and verbs as the average American? I’m strongly hoping that he will, BTW.
AITR lives in a naive dreamworld where a defendant can just declare himself innocent, correct, ignorant, confused and/or mistaken and thus be acquitted. Wait until the other 200,000 people facing criminal charges in America learn about this new law!
You live in a dreamworld where you not liking someone means you just have to be right.
There is no crime.
Hey adult,
Do you think the defense will have Trump take the stand and testify? It could be a devastating blow to the prosecution if they are trying to prove Trump has the same intelligence as everyone else.
He was disseminating disinformation. Nothing more. Is that all you guys have?!?
That's as disingenuous as the "First Amendment" defense. The attempt to get Pence to stop the vote in the House and send it back to the states is not just disseminating disinformation. It is an affirmative action as part of a plan (e.g. conspiracy) to overturn an election.
Yep. Sally's in a cult. Trump did more than just say he won the election. He conspired with others to try to overturn the election. Sorry, you can THINK anything or say anything you want (short of yelling 'fire' in a movie theater and like things), but when you take it a step further and start doing ILLEGAL ACTIONS, that's when the law comes calling.
Maybe you are right Adult. It might go down like this:
Appeals court opening arguments:
Trump's defense attorney: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. The govt has the audacity to say that my client "knowingly made false claims". This is the height of absurdity. It is widely known that my client does not know his head from his Azz. How dare the govt make a claim that my client could or would know anything at all. We will demonstrate that my client is a complete imbecile and thought he won.
Judge: Defense is making a logical argument. Trump is an idiot. Go on.
Prosecution: How the hell will we fight this? WE would have to make a claim that trump is not a complete idiot. We are toast.
How do you prove that a man who has said on social media every single day for 3 years now that he thinks the election was stolen doesn't really believe it?
Hint: You can't.
As has been explained to you, that's not how it works and that's not what the prosecution has to prove.
But one way to prove what naive, mistaken idiots like yourself erroneously believe must be proved, is to put in evidence of Trump saying the exact opposite in private -- Trump saying that he knew he lost the election. There is undoubtedly plenty of that evidence to come (some is in the Indictment), including White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony that Trump repeatedlytold Mark Meadows (Chief of Staff) that he knew he lost the election and that Trump also told John Ratcliffe (Director of National Intelligence) that he lost the election.
Poor Cassidy is not very popular in Trump world any more. Trump called his former employee a "whackjob" and Trump world just plain hates her. I think it was her testimony that Trump threw a plate of spaghetti at the wall that really upset the faithful. Or maybe it was something else . . . .
You live in a dreamworld where you not liking someone means you just have to be right.
There is no crime.
Hey adult,
Do you think the defense will have Trump take the stand and testify? It could be a devastating blow to the prosecution if they are trying to prove Trump has the same intelligence as everyone else.
The country has been dead . How else did he become president?
Do you think the defense will have Trump take the stand and testify? It could be a devastating blow to the prosecution if they are trying to prove Trump has the same intelligence as everyone else.
The country has been dead . How else did he become president?
What the heck is that even supposed to mean?
Sure there are plenty of idiots in this country. But "dead"?!? What does that mean in this context?
It is an interesting indictment. I am not convinced that the DOJ will gain a conviction...
Thanks for bein honest.
Here's the thing. To all the people still saying rEaD tHe iNdiCtMeNt, if you have to tell people to read the indictment, you already lost. (And I think I've read enough of the indictment to make up my mind, but not most of it.) The Founding Fathers believed the law should be simple to understand so it can't be abused. Otherwise how can you expect the average person to follow the law? If person A murders person B, everyone can clearly see how that's a crime. But if it takes 47 pages of legalese to explain how someone broke the law then you don't have a case, you have a witch hunt, IMO. And I say this as a supporter of RFK, Jr. (D) who does not plan to vote for either of the major party frontronners, TBH politically I'd rather just see Trump go to prison so somebody can take his place but ethically/morally I don't believe in jailing political rivals and sleep well at night knowing I would never support a politically motivated witch hunt.
This post was edited 44 seconds after it was posted.
It is an interesting indictment. I am not convinced that the DOJ will gain a conviction...
Thanks for bein honest.
Here's the thing. To all the people still saying rEaD tHe iNdiCtMeNt, if you have to tell people to read the indictment, you already lost. (And I think I've read enough of the indictment to make up my mind, but not most of it.) The Founding Fathers believed the law should be simple to understand so it can't be abused. Otherwise how can you expect the average person to follow the law? If person A murders person B, everyone can clearly see how that's a crime. But if it takes 47 pages of legalese to explain how someone broke the law then you don't have a case, you have a witch hunt, IMO. And I say this as a supporter of RFK, Jr. (D) who does not plan to vote for either of the major party frontronners, TBH politically I'd rather just see Trump go to prison so somebody can take his place but ethically/morally I don't believe in jailing political rivals and sleep well at night knowing I would never support a politically motivated witch hunt.
That's a really, really good point. And one that I think is too often overlooked.
How the heck can we expect the average person to not try to overturn election results. To not ask election officials to find him 11,780 votes? To not demand that the VP throw out the votes of duly appointed electors? It is just too much to ask.
Here's the thing. To all the people still saying rEaD tHe iNdiCtMeNt, if you have to tell people to read the indictment, you already lost. (And I think I've read enough of the indictment to make up my mind, but not most of it.) The Founding Fathers believed the law should be simple to understand so it can't be abused. Otherwise how can you expect the average person to follow the law? If person A murders person B, everyone can clearly see how that's a crime. But if it takes 47 pages of legalese to explain how someone broke the law then you don't have a case, you have a witch hunt, IMO. And I say this as a supporter of RFK, Jr. (D) who does not plan to vote for either of the major party frontronners, TBH politically I'd rather just see Trump go to prison so somebody can take his place but ethically/morally I don't believe in jailing political rivals and sleep well at night knowing I would never support a politically motivated witch hunt.
That's a really, really good point. And one that I think is too often overlooked.
How the heck can we expect the average person to not try to overturn election results. To not ask election officials to find him 11,780 votes? To not demand that the VP throw out the votes of duly appointed electors? It is just too much to ask.
#witchhunt
No, no, no. I think his point is that if you do more than like 5-6 pages worth of criminal stuff, then they can't charge you because it just gets too complicated for the average person to figure out. Anything over ten pages of criminal stuff is tyranny.