Trump's Troubles

No doubt he Will send out the subpoenas. His primary defense is that he really believed the election was stolen. A mens rea defense. The judge will rule that whether there was election fraud is immaterial to the fake elector scheme. Which it is. They weren’t ever electors. For that, he will asset an advice of counsel defense. He had conflicting opinions and followed one set of advice. The advice may be wrong, but it bears on mens rea.

 

Again, all. Read the January 6 Committee Report. It has the meat of much of this.

 

First, I think one of his defenses will be immunity as he was acting squarely within the confines of his office.

As for the mitigation of intent by relying in counsel, I think the indictment does a great job of pointing out he was told, BY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, that he cannot do what he tried to do, that even his own corrupt lawyers told him it could not be lawfully done but he should do it anyway to buy time. I’ve read he intends to throw his lawyers under the bus (shocker, right?), but ultimately the document trail dispels any bona fide reliance on counsel. He absolutely knew he had no lawful right to do what he did.

 

Question. Your Florida public school teacher was reasonable suspicion that you're being monitored by Moma for Liberty, a/k/a Klanned Karenhood types. One of your students honestly ask you the first week back to explain what happened in terms of these indictments? You would prefer to keep your job.

Do you think you can get away with just touching the question, or do you have to go full attack on the FBI and the double standard on Hunter Biden type of stuff, to avoid being removed by the local school board, or Manny Diaz? How soon till Hillsdale/Prager come out with explainers

 

FWIW, 6 is almost certainly Mike Roman.

 

The Select Committee Report discussed this weasel who, if he had gotten away with his plan, would be a name you know. Clark was trying to use DOJ’s resistance (post-Barr) to Trump to his advantage. Clark had private meetings with Trump to try to get named Acting AG by doing what DOJ refused to do, say there was something amiss with the election. Clark was trying to get Trump to fire his superiors and install him as Acting AG.

The Select Committee Report discusses one Oval Office meeting (going off memory, so apologies if I get the details wrong) where the AG and DAG were telling Trump no and Clark interjected. The DAG said something to the effect of “Why are you even here? Aren’t you an environmental lawyer? Go back to your office and we will call you if there’s an oil spill.”

I believe it was a threat of mass resignations that brought Trump off it, but there’s reference to a WH visitor log that refers to Clark as Acting AG in the report.

 

Great to see you!

 

The NYT is for sheep.

 

Yeah, they allege Trump called the theories "crazy," that he mentioned in a meeting with military officials that he'd let the next president make that call. Maybe he thought they were spying on him and he didn't want them to know about the scheme? I think at least one allegation is that he expressly conceded to someone that he knew he lost. And no way do I think he ever believed all those dead people voted or that there were more votes than people allowed to vote. They could have established that fact and Trump would have just cited any actual evidence instead of personally calling and threatening officials. The list goes on. He may be able to create reasonable doubt as to the charges, but if the allegations are true, it seems pretty clear that he knew he was lying when it came to the details. We're talking about a guy that simply cannot accept a loss.

 

Right?!?!

We need Tucker for some rock hard reliable journalism.

 

Adding the caveat that they may be biased a number of supposedly knowledgeable commentators (former US attorneys, Assistant US attorneys, law professors, etc) have suggested that in order for Trump to raise the defense that he really believed that the election was stolen he would have to testify himself. Never going to happen.

 

Is it really a viable defense if you attorney shop to get the answer you want? What if 99 attorneys tell you no and 1 tells you yes, is that a viable defense? How about if that one attorney has no actual expertise in the area in which they're providing advice?

Doesn't seem like it would hold up that well - "Ladies and gentlemen. This is a self professed billionaire and successful businessman, who became the President of the United States, and yet he's claiming he's unable to determine who was giving him good advice or bad advice."

 

The link to the NY Times included a link to the indictment. Seems that the real sheep are those that condemn a source without even bothering to read it. My guess is that your perception of the indictment against Trump is based entirely on what Fox News or other right-wing media sources told you what was included in it.

 

21 Donald Trump election lies listed in his new indictment | CNN Politics

 

All of these nonsense defenses fall apart when you see that Stop the Steal and the associated plot all began before Election Day.

 

We agree on practically nothing, but I can't agree more with you here. If you want to undue the "Orange God Cult" this is the only way to show that everything is a lie. On the other hand, if not done fairly and appearance of Trump being railroaded it will cause the Trump side to be even more set in their thoughts. I truly believe it would be enlightening for both sides and mainly the 30-40% that is in middle and not totally set on their belief the election was 100% legitimate or the opposite that there was some fraud. I definitely am on the right and truly believe there was some oddities to the election but not willing to admit all out fraud. An open trial could help clear a lot for a lot of people open to hearing the truth.