Third Arrest for Trump
-
Departing the White House is possible while not accepting your election loss. It's like someone who gets evicted but is screaming that their fake rent check was valid the whole way out.
As I've said many times. Imagine if Obama lost in 2012 and acted the way Trump did. You would be singing quite a different tune whereas my tune wouldn't change. I'm a Conservative but Trump's antics after he lost is 100% unacceptable and unnecessarily created the mess he's in now. But I guess it's all about ratings, baby.
@89th said in Third Arrest?:
Departing the White House is possible while not accepting your election loss. It's like someone who gets evicted but is screaming that their fake rent check was valid the whole way out.
As I've said many times. Imagine if Obama lost in 2012 and acted the way Trump did. You would be singing quite a different tune whereas my tune wouldn't change. I'm a Conservative but Trump's antics after he lost is 100% unacceptable and unnecessarily created the mess he's in now. But I guess it's all about ratings, baby.
What's the difference between you and people who wish to use the power of the state to throttle any opinion you do not agree with?
That's not conservatism. That's fascism.
-
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.
-
@Jon said in Third Arrest?:
From Google:
18 U.S.C. § 242
This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."Cage the Fat Man?"
Wrong:
18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
The judge in this case has a history of sentencing above guidelines.
There's hope for you Jon!
Hang him!
-
BTW, for 89:
2000 Presidential Election
Joe Biden, 2013: Al Gore “was elected president of the United States of America.”
Joe Biden, 2016: “I think [Gore] won.”
Hillary Clinton, 2016: The Supreme Court “took away a presidency.”
Barack Obama, 2005: “Not every vote” was counted.
Bill Clinton, 2001: “The only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida.”
Jimmy Carter, 2005: “There’s no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president.”
Al Gore, 2017: “Actually I think I carried Florida.”
Jamie Raskin, 2003: George W. Bush was the “first court-appointed president.”
Terry McAuliffe, 2004: “We won that election!”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, 2016: “The Supreme Court elected the president. Al Gore won the state of Florida in 2000.”
2004 Presidential Election
Hillary Clinton, 2005: “It’s fair to say that there are many legitimate questions about” the “accuracy” and “integrity” of America’s election system, “and they’re not confined to the state of Ohio.”
Howard Dean, 2006: “I’m not confident” the election “was fairly decided” because “the machines were not reliable.”
Jerry Nadler, 2005: “The right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters.”
Sheila Jackson Lee, 2004: “We cannot declare that the election of November 2, 2004 was free and clear and transparent and real.”
Maxine Waters, 2005: “Problems in the Ohio election” could have been “outcome determinative.”
2016 Presidential Election
Joe Biden, 2019: “I absolutely” agree that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”
Hillary Clinton, 2019: The election was “stolen.”
Jimmy Carter, 2019: “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interference on his behalf.”
Kamala Harris, 2019: “Absolutely right” that Trump “didn’t really win.”
Karine Jean-Pierre, 2016: It was a “stolen election.”
Jerry Nadler, 2017: It was a “tainted” and “illegitimate” election. -
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.
@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.
-
@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?:
(defrauding the US
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/this-trump-indictment-shouldnt-stand/
The indictment relates in detail Trump’s deceptions, but that doesn’t mean they constitute criminal fraud. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed just a few weeks ago, fraud in federal criminal law is a scheme to swindle victims out of money or tangible property. Mendacious rhetoric in seeking to retain political office is damnable — and, again, impeachable — but it’s not criminal fraud, although that is what Smith has charged. Indeed, assuming a prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump hadn’t actually convinced himself that the election was stolen from him (good luck with that), hyperbole and even worse are protected political speech.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1170_b97d.pdf
We have held, however, that the federal fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests. Cleveland v. United States, 531 U. S. 12, 24 (2000). Because “potentially valuable economic information” “necessary to make discretionary economic deci- sions” is not a traditional property interest, we now hold that the right-to-control theory is not a valid basis for liability under §1343. Accordingly, we reverse the Second Circuit’s judgment.
@89th also said:
It's when a sitting President refuses to accept his re-election loss
Hinderaker:
The indictment repeatedly alleges that Trump “knowingly” made false claims about the election being stolen in various states. It supports these assertions with evidence that someone had told Trump that his claims were untrue. But other people were telling Trump that the allegations of a stolen election were accurate. I think it is highly probable that Trump sincerely believed that voter fraud occurred on a massive scale and cost him the election.
The fact that he was "sitting" at the time of his denial should be irrelevant to the indictment.
"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.
-
OTOH - Barr says the indictment is fair.
"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.
-
On the bright side, this indictment is a rare political win/win. I'm not sure anybody with some emotional skin in the game is truly upset over this meal of partisan red meat. Detached people who would prefer functional American politics may be upset, but they don't do much of the talking.
-
@George-K said in Third Arrest?:
OTOH - Barr says the indictment is fair.
“At first I wasn’t sure, but I have come to believe that he knew well that he had lost the election,” Barr said.
“The government has assumed the burden of proving that. The government in their indictment takes the position that he had actual knowledge that he had lost the election and the election wasn’t stolen through fraud. And they’re going to have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I hope the government's job is more specific than to prove Trump believed in the absence of voting fraud. Maybe they can prove he didn't believe specific allegations, but I doubt he thought the election was free and clear of any voting fraud.
-
@89th said in Third Arrest?:
(defrauding the US
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/this-trump-indictment-shouldnt-stand/
The indictment relates in detail Trump’s deceptions, but that doesn’t mean they constitute criminal fraud. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed just a few weeks ago, fraud in federal criminal law is a scheme to swindle victims out of money or tangible property. Mendacious rhetoric in seeking to retain political office is damnable — and, again, impeachable — but it’s not criminal fraud, although that is what Smith has charged. Indeed, assuming a prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump hadn’t actually convinced himself that the election was stolen from him (good luck with that), hyperbole and even worse are protected political speech.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1170_b97d.pdf
We have held, however, that the federal fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests. Cleveland v. United States, 531 U. S. 12, 24 (2000). Because “potentially valuable economic information” “necessary to make discretionary economic deci- sions” is not a traditional property interest, we now hold that the right-to-control theory is not a valid basis for liability under §1343. Accordingly, we reverse the Second Circuit’s judgment.
@89th also said:
It's when a sitting President refuses to accept his re-election loss
Hinderaker:
The indictment repeatedly alleges that Trump “knowingly” made false claims about the election being stolen in various states. It supports these assertions with evidence that someone had told Trump that his claims were untrue. But other people were telling Trump that the allegations of a stolen election were accurate. I think it is highly probable that Trump sincerely believed that voter fraud occurred on a massive scale and cost him the election.
The fact that he was "sitting" at the time of his denial should be irrelevant to the indictment.
-
@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.
