Third Arrest for Trump
-
@Horace said in Third Arrest?:
Anyway, this discussion should be about whether Trump broke laws and whether, if there is a grey area, it is good for the country to prosecute those grey areas. The stench of the real motivation here - to smack Trump - is unmistakeable. It would be good to think beyond that.
Agreed. I think there's a pretty clear case that the charges against Trump (defrauding the US, disenfranchising voters, obstructing official proceedings) are valid. It's more than just a sound bite or an opinion, it was Trump doing these things while knowing they were false.
@Jolly the list of politicians on both sides complaining about an election loss isn't new. It's when a sitting President refuses to accept his re-election loss, and the statements and actions he took to prevent the winner from proceeding, that's where this is different than just a statement by a politician about an election loss.
@89th said in Third Arrest for Trump:
@Horace said in Third Arrest?:
Anyway, this discussion should be about whether Trump broke laws and whether, if there is a grey area, it is good for the country to prosecute those grey areas. The stench of the real motivation here - to smack Trump - is unmistakeable. It would be good to think beyond that.
Agreed. I think there's a pretty clear case that the charges against Trump (defrauding the US, disenfranchising voters, obstructing official proceedings) are valid. It's more than just a sound bite or an opinion, it was Trump doing these things while knowing they were false.
@Jolly the list of politicians on both sides complaining about an election loss isn't new. It's when a sitting President refuses to accept his re-election loss, and the statements and actions he took to prevent the winner from proceeding, that's where this is different than just a statement by a politician about an election loss.
In all 73 charges, the only ones that are debatable are the document charges. The rest is pretty much politically motivated horseshit.
And I would consider the document charges as being very serious, if there wasn't a long history of document problems and ex-Presidents.
-
@89th said in Third Arrest for Trump:
@Horace said in Third Arrest?:
Anyway, this discussion should be about whether Trump broke laws and whether, if there is a grey area, it is good for the country to prosecute those grey areas. The stench of the real motivation here - to smack Trump - is unmistakeable. It would be good to think beyond that.
Agreed. I think there's a pretty clear case that the charges against Trump (defrauding the US, disenfranchising voters, obstructing official proceedings) are valid. It's more than just a sound bite or an opinion, it was Trump doing these things while knowing they were false.
@Jolly the list of politicians on both sides complaining about an election loss isn't new. It's when a sitting President refuses to accept his re-election loss, and the statements and actions he took to prevent the winner from proceeding, that's where this is different than just a statement by a politician about an election loss.
In all 73 charges, the only ones that are debatable are the document charges. The rest is pretty much politically motivated horseshit.
And I would consider the document charges as being very serious, if there wasn't a long history of document problems and ex-Presidents.
-
@George-K said in Third Arrest for Trump:
OTOH - Barr says the indictment is fair.
Former Attorney General Bill Barr said Wednesday he believes Donald Trump “knew well he lost the election” and suggested the indictment against the former president in connection with the special counsel’s January 6 investigation is fair.
“At first I wasn’t sure, but I have come to believe he knew well he had lost the election,” Barr said during an appearance on CNN.
On Thursday, Trump is slated to have his first court appearance in the case, which centers on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his actions leading up to the January 6 Capitol riot.
The former president has been charged with four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
The 45-page indictment alleges that Trump “pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”
Whether Trump truly believed the election was rigged is central to the prosecution’s case. In order to secure a conviction, Smith will have to demonstrate that Trump understood he had lost the election and was asking his co-conspirators to engage in criminal activity.
While Trump’s lawyers have said Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election are protected under the First Amendment, Barr dismissed that defense.
“As the indictment says, they are not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants, he can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better,” Barr said. “But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy.”
He also dismissed another potential Trump defense: that he was just following the advice of advisers.
“It would not come out very well for him” if Trump made that defense in court, Barr said. “I think he’d be subject to very skilled cross examination, and I doubt he remembers all the different versions of events he has given over the last few years.”
While Trump and other Republicans have suggested the indictment is politically motivated, Barr offered a defense of Smith and his work.
“He is the kind of prosecutor, in my view, that if he thinks someone has committed a crime, he, you know, hones in on it and really goes to try to make that case,” Barr said. “There’s no question he’s aggressive but I do not think he’s a partisan actor.”
He went on to suggest that more evidence is likely coming that will prove Trump knew the election was not stolen.
“We’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg on this,” the former attorney general said. “I think there is a lot more to come, and I think they have a lot more evidence as to President Trump’s state of mind.”
Barr has become a vocal critic of his former boss since he resigned from the Trump administration in December 2020, shortly after he noted the Justice Department had not found substantial evidence of widespread voter fraud.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Obama’s or other President’s over reaches - and there are many - are different. They understood the puts and takes.
Trump doesn’t understand the constitution or the ideas behind it. He probably loves this country and you may even get some good policies out of him. But he’d rather rule the country like it was a business he owned - not as an administrative steward of a public office.
-
Obama’s or other President’s over reaches - and there are many - are different. They understood the puts and takes.
Trump doesn’t understand the constitution or the ideas behind it. He probably loves this country and you may even get some good policies out of him. But he’d rather rule the country like it was a business he owned - not as an administrative steward of a public office.
@xenon said in Third Arrest for Trump:
Obama’s or other President’s over reaches - and there are many - are different. They understood the puts and takes.
I talked about this just a bit the other day, but I'd just like to point out a little something...Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in 1862 and continued to do so, even after SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional.
Do you think Lincoln - who has a pretty nice monument in D.C. - understood the puts and takes of the office?
-
@Mik said in Third Arrest for Trump:
I do.
Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration of a politician on false claims made during and after an election.
This indictment is reminiscent of the case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. His conviction on 11 corruption-related counts was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing that federal prosecutors relied on a “boundless” definition of actions that could trigger criminal charges against political leaders.
Smith is now showing the same abandon in pursuing Trump, including detailing his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, before the riot while omitting the line where Trump told his supporters to go to the U.S. Capitol to “peacefully” protest the certification.
While the indictment acknowledges that candidates are allowed to make false statements, Smith proceeded to charge Trump for making “knowingly false statements.”
On the election claims, Smith declares that Trump “knew that they were false” because he was “notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue.”
The problem is that Trump had lawyers and others telling him that the claims were true. Smith is indicting Trump for believing his lawyers over his other advisers.
Let’s acknowledge that Trump was wrong. The election wasn’t stolen. He lost, and Joe Biden won.
But how do you prove legally that Trump truly didn’t believe his false claims? And even if you can prove that Trump lied, how do you legally distinguish his falsehoods from the lies other political leaders have told over the years? When, in politics, does making a false statement cross the line into criminal behavior? Those are questions Smith and his team must answer in court, and ones that Trump’s defense team is likely to raise.
-
@Mik said in Third Arrest for Trump:
I do.
Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration of a politician on false claims made during and after an election.
This indictment is reminiscent of the case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. His conviction on 11 corruption-related counts was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing that federal prosecutors relied on a “boundless” definition of actions that could trigger criminal charges against political leaders.
Smith is now showing the same abandon in pursuing Trump, including detailing his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, before the riot while omitting the line where Trump told his supporters to go to the U.S. Capitol to “peacefully” protest the certification.
While the indictment acknowledges that candidates are allowed to make false statements, Smith proceeded to charge Trump for making “knowingly false statements.”
On the election claims, Smith declares that Trump “knew that they were false” because he was “notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue.”
The problem is that Trump had lawyers and others telling him that the claims were true. Smith is indicting Trump for believing his lawyers over his other advisers.
Let’s acknowledge that Trump was wrong. The election wasn’t stolen. He lost, and Joe Biden won.
But how do you prove legally that Trump truly didn’t believe his false claims? And even if you can prove that Trump lied, how do you legally distinguish his falsehoods from the lies other political leaders have told over the years? When, in politics, does making a false statement cross the line into criminal behavior? Those are questions Smith and his team must answer in court, and ones that Trump’s defense team is likely to raise.
@George-K said in Third Arrest for Trump:
But how do you prove legally that Trump truly didn’t believe his false claims?
Speaking hypothetically ... would an authenticated video, audio, or textual record of Trump admitting to knowing that his claims were false do it?
And even if you can prove that Trump lied, how do you legally distinguish his falsehoods from the lies other political leaders have told over the years?
That those other politicians don't have authenticated records of them admitting to knowing that their claims were false?
When, in politics, does making a false statement cross the line into criminal behavior? Those are questions Smith and his team must answer in court, and ones that Trump’s defense team is likely to raise.
When in politics? Why make an exception for politics? Is the law or we the people suppose to let politicians lie more or lie more severely than other walks of life without commensurate accountability?
-
@George-K said in Third Arrest for Trump:
But how do you prove legally that Trump truly didn’t believe his false claims?
Speaking hypothetically ... would an authenticated video, audio, or textual record of Trump admitting to knowing that his claims were false do it?
And even if you can prove that Trump lied, how do you legally distinguish his falsehoods from the lies other political leaders have told over the years?
That those other politicians don't have authenticated records of them admitting to knowing that their claims were false?
When, in politics, does making a false statement cross the line into criminal behavior? Those are questions Smith and his team must answer in court, and ones that Trump’s defense team is likely to raise.
When in politics? Why make an exception for politics? Is the law or we the people suppose to let politicians lie more or lie more severely than other walks of life without commensurate accountability?
@Axtremus said in Third Arrest for Trump:
When in politics? Why make an exception for politics? Is the law or we the people suppose to let politicians lie more or lie more severely than other walks of life without commensurate accountability?
Good question and a good point. The police are under no obligation to be truthful during an interrogation.
That those other politicians don't have authenticated records of them admitting to knowing that their claims were false?
Biden admitted he didn't have the authority to relieve student debt, and then he promised to do it. Sounds like fraud to me.
