I think the only defense they will attempt is to claim that he reasonably relied on his lawyers to explore the available options, which included illegal schemes... with that they can at least try to spread some of the blame to his counsel. It will be a very hard sell to the jurors, but one of them might end up agreeing that he was too stupid to think of any of those options and wouldn't have been able to crime much on his own. Still, the judge will remind them that they must take the facts and evidence into account, and with that it becomes too difficult to not find him guilty. He was literally out there strong arming his lawyers, aides, and state election officials to help him break laws. He really doesn't have cover here.
-
20
-
Christ was hung on a cross for his crimes yet millions and millions of people still worship him.
07 -
Read the indictment wrote:
Aren’t you getting bored telling Trumpers repeatedly that Trump was not indicted for lying? it is irrelevant
They have bought the Fox News spin hook line and sinker and keep repeating it here thinking we are as dumb as they are.
But if they repeat if enough times it means trump won't be found guilty... right? Am I right???
20 -
Trollminator wrote:
RossiCheated wrote:
Gladly.
Turley based his argument on the claim that Trump was charged with "knowingly making false statements."
Trump was not charged with that. That is not a single one of the four charges in the indictment.
Turley knows this.
He banked, correctly, that you would not.
Correct, Turley knows they don't read.
Says the idiot who literally didn't read the indictment.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and
unknown to the Grand Jury, to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government.Purpose of the Conspiracy
7. The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020
presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.Turley has flushed things smarter than you. Stop pretending you have any idea wtf you're talking about.
07 -
Heyjoe! wrote:
Christ was hung on a cross for his crimes yet millions and millions of people still worship him.
Trump worshippers will remain, but there are only enough of them to keep the GQP from winning elections against Ds. Sure, it's at least a couple of completely lost R generations, but they'll die out eventually. The GQP is totally fkd with these folks.
20 -
RossiCheated wrote:
Gladly.
Turley based his argument on the claim that Trump was charged with "knowingly making false statements."
Trump was not charged with that. That is not a single one of the four charges in the indictment.
Turley knows this.
He banked, correctly, that you would not.
There’s a risk of oversimplifying the point.
As with so many subjects, yes, I lack the expertise of Turley. But there are numerous scholars at least as capable as Turley who consider the indictment sound.
As for the charge that this will have a chilling effect on free speech and it being an assault on 1st Am. rights, the indictment itself notes, “The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results ….”
So the point — so far as it pertains to speech — would seem to be in light of Brandenburg v. Ohio (broadly speaking, speech that incites lawless action is not protected). I don’t see Turley reflecting on that, but other columnists have.
50 -
You know what is beautiful? To see theadult's posts blocked on every page. It's like watching the putin loving trumpt@rd talking to a wall.
40 -
Trollminator wrote:
You know what is beautiful? To see theadult's posts blocked on every page. It's like watching the putin loving trumpt@rd talking to a wall.
Putin loves to silence all the opinions he doesn't like too.
Idiots like Putin and Trollminator are cut from the same cloth.
06 -
I respond to the pronoun YOU wrote:
RossiCheated wrote:
Gladly.
Turley based his argument on the claim that Trump was charged with "knowingly making false statements."
Trump was not charged with that. That is not a single one of the four charges in the indictment.
Turley knows this.
He banked, correctly, that you would not.
There’s a risk of oversimplifying the point.
As with so many subjects, yes, I lack the expertise of Turley. But there are numerous scholars at least as capable as Turley who consider the indictment sound.
As for the charge that this will have a chilling effect on free speech and it being an assault on 1st Am. rights, the indictment itself notes, “The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results ….”
So the point — so far as it pertains to speech — would seem to be in light of Brandenburg v. Ohio (broadly speaking, speech that incites lawless action is not protected). I don’t see Turley reflecting on that, but other columnists have.
None of it matters really. What's relevant is that the indictment is going to stick and will disable the orange menace. They are not even arguing any of its substance.. tells you everything.
11 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
i dont understand words wrote:
I'm not the one that doesn't understand.
The term knowingly, refers to his knowledge of his own actions. It indicates that he was acting consciously, of sound mind. In other words he knew what he was doing.
He knowingly put forth the idea that the election was rigged after being told it wasn't. He knowingly conspired to put forth fake electors.
His personal beliefs are irrelevant.
The only way to argue that he didn't "knowingly" do these things, is to argue insanity on his behalf. Are you saying Trump isn't culpable because he is mentally ill?
"after being told it wasn't" LOL!
They weren't "fake electors" they were electors who disagreed with the outcome.
Democrats made the same objections to the outcome of the 2016 election in January 2017.
Your lack of understanding aside.
Was Trump conscious of his actions or is he mentally incompetent?
You won't answer. Because, you'd have to admit he knowingly did what he did or you would have to admit he is mentally incompetent.
40 -
Heyjoe! wrote:
Christ was hung on a cross for his crimes yet millions and millions of people still worship him.
Have you even read the new testament?
Here's another thing to, historically what Jesus Christ preached isn't all that different from what other Jewish "fire and brimstone" prophets would, and he wasn't the first to be martyred. Donald J. Trump. A lying con man hoarding wealth at the top of society, is exactly the kind of man such a prophet would condemn, and possibly get themselves killed doing so.
It's incredible how false so many Americans faith is
60 -
read the indictment wrote:
...Interesting piece about how none of the family members have supported Trump by being along side him for his indictment. Where is Melania? You don't join your husband for moral support?
She is being paid off to keep quiet. Trump's pay paid her $155,000 to pick tableware, flowers and linens for an event. She got $250,000 for speaking to a WOKE republican LGBTQ+ group. Voting for Trump means supporting his wife's pro-LGBTQ wokeness. In other words, Trump is WOKE!
00 -
I found it interesting that the judge told Mr Trump regarding his release conditions 'do not commit any crimes' and 'do not try to intimidate any witnesses' (paraphrased). Mr Trump's track record is that of a mob boss.
30 -
I respond to the pronoun YOU wrote:
RossiCheated wrote:
Gladly.
Turley based his argument on the claim that Trump was charged with "knowingly making false statements."
Trump was not charged with that. That is not a single one of the four charges in the indictment.
Turley knows this.
He banked, correctly, that you would not.
There’s a risk of oversimplifying the point.
As with so many subjects, yes, I lack the expertise of Turley. But there are numerous scholars at least as capable as Turley who consider the indictment sound.
As for the charge that this will have a chilling effect on free speech and it being an assault on 1st Am. rights, the indictment itself notes, “The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results ….”
So the point — so far as it pertains to speech — would seem to be in light of Brandenburg v. Ohio (broadly speaking, speech that incites lawless action is not protected). I don’t see Turley reflecting on that, but other columnists have.
Turley - is driving a fully loaded short bus off a cliff. His opinion piece has absolutely nothing to do with the actual charges in the indictment.
The indictment outlines 2 conspiracy charges and 2 obstruction charges. It has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. Turley knows this. Turley isn't a scholar. Turley is a hack.
10 -
i dont understand words wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
"after being told it wasn't" LOL!
They weren't "fake electors" they were electors who disagreed with the outcome.
Democrats made the same objections to the outcome of the 2016 election in January 2017.
Your lack of understanding aside.
Was Trump conscious of his actions or is he mentally incompetent?
You won't answer. Because, you'd have to admit he knowingly did what he did or you would have to admit he is mentally incompetent.
He thought the election was fraudulent.
He was told by his lawyers that Pence could refuse to certify fraudulent elections and kick it back to the individual states' legislators.
You're conveniently ignoring that the entire indictment is built on the false assumption that Trump doesn't really think the election was rigged.
04 -
All of this irrelevant discussion about whether President Trump truly believed, or didn't, that he had really won the election . . . reminds me of the earlier irrelevant discussion, in the documents case, of whether documents had been declassified.
In the documents case, the statutes that Donald Trump is charged with violating do not involve documents' being classified, declassified, or never classified; in the Jan. 6 case, the relevant statutes involve his (alleged) actions and not his motivations.
As other posters have said, if you think you've been wronged in an election there are legal paths to seek redress. He is charged with having taken illegal paths to get the result he wanted.
50 -
i dont understand words wrote:
I respond to the pronoun YOU wrote:
There’s a risk of oversimplifying the point.
As with so many subjects, yes, I lack the expertise of Turley. But there are numerous scholars at least as capable as Turley who consider the indictment sound.
As for the charge that this will have a chilling effect on free speech and it being an assault on 1st Am. rights, the indictment itself notes, “The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results ….”
So the point — so far as it pertains to speech — would seem to be in light of Brandenburg v. Ohio (broadly speaking, speech that incites lawless action is not protected). I don’t see Turley reflecting on that, but other columnists have.
Turley - is driving a fully loaded short bus off a cliff. His opinion piece has absolutely nothing to do with the actual charges in the indictment.
The indictment outlines 2 conspiracy charges and 2 obstruction charges. It has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. Turley knows this. Turley isn't a scholar. Turley is a hack.
DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government.
Purpose of the Conspiracy
7. The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020
presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.Turley understands the law better than you do you arrogant fool.
06 -
present, esquire wrote:
All of this irrelevant discussion about whether President Trump truly believed, or didn't, that he had really won the election . . . reminds me of the earlier irrelevant discussion, in the documents case, of whether documents had been declassified.
In the documents case, the statutes that Donald Trump is charged with violating do not involve documents' being classified, declassified, or never classified; in the Jan. 6 case, the relevant statutes involve his (alleged) actions and not his motivations.
As other posters have said, if you think you've been wronged in an election there are legal paths to seek redress. He is charged with having taken illegal paths to get the result he wanted.
The legal path is objecting to the certification which is exactly what he tried to do.
04 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
RossiCheated wrote:
Can you show me where in the indictment he was charged with that?
The prosecution is miles ahead of you on this issue.
Count 2... Why do you continue to pretend you have any idea what's in the indictment?
Except it doesn't say that in Count 2. You didn't read it. Count 2 is an obstruction charge. It's on page 43.
30 -
i dont understand words wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Count 2... Why do you continue to pretend you have any idea what's in the indictment?
Except it doesn't say that in Count 2. You didn't read it. Count 2 is an obstruction charge. It's on page 43.
Conspiracy is included in all of the counts. The foundation of the conspiracy claim is the knowingly making false statements...
03
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun