(08-02-2023, 09:25 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2023, 02:41 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]If anyone was wondering whether or not Trump's defense would largely be to throw his advisors and previous lawyers under the bus... Yes, that will probably be the strategy.
A recently released statement from his camp ends with:
Welp - looks like I called this one - or at least this article sees the same thing coming:
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status...88385?s=20
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status...88385?s=20
It won't work because their's too much evidence showing he knew what he was doing was illegal and not just a "controversial interpretation of the law."
It might however, get him off a little bit easier.
LOL. What did you expect him to do, release a statement saying, 'I took actions against the advice of counsel"? Of course he's going to deflect and cast blame on others, that's his style. In all fairness to him though, when has anyone else in Washington accepted responsibility for his/her actions?
(08-02-2023, 05:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2023, 05:36 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]The point is, if he had a legal right to make such statements, as the Prosecution concedes, how has he committed a crime in doing so?
"2 + 2 is 5" is free speech.
"You need to disrupt an official federal government function because 2 + 2 = 5" is not free speech.
Neither is "you need to sign an official-looking paper in the state capital on a certain Tuesday in December at noon because 2 + 2 = 5."
Why don't you provide the actual quotes of whatever public statements he made that were not free speech.
This is the weakest one yet and the other ones are weak to begin with.
This should be thrown out with a fair judge but I'm not sure Trump wants that.
Everything said was legal and protected. Trump was still speaking when the troublemakers started removing and breaching the area so not sure how Trump incited anything. The troublemakers weren't even at the speech. The indictment even says he has the right to lie if he wanted. Then it tries to say you can't do it for an election though. Then it charges him with a crime that didn't exist in 2020 as Congress passed a bill to change it.
If Trump wants to, he could now introduce every election fraud, irregularities, issues, etc from every state into the record. He could then line up every expert, whistblower, and witness. Every single court case that was dismissed because of standing can now be entered as evidence supporting his claim that his statements were his beliefs, and even though it doesn't matter, they were truthful. The judge won't be able to say a thing unless she wants it thrown out on appeal for not allowing him a defense.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Here's an article about the weakness of Trump's possible "free speech" defense.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-indicte...0a9211ea6a
“Saying a statement in isolation is one thing. But when you say it to another person and the two of you speak in a way and exchange information in a way that leads to action — that you want to take action to do something with that speech — then arguably it becomes unprotected,” said Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at George Washington University.
Those actions include enlisting slates of fake electors in seven battleground states won by Democrat Joe Biden to sign false certificates representing themselves as legitimate electors; trying to use the investigative power of the Justice Department to launch sham election fraud probes; and badgering his vice president, Mike Pence, to disrupt the ceremonial counting of electoral votes before Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump’s attorney has also suggested that his defense may at least partly focus on the idea that Trump was acting in good faith because he truly believed his bogus election fraud claims. But the indictment is careful to show how Trump was repeatedly told by people close to him that there was no truth to his claims and that his efforts to undermine the election were misguided.
And some of the comments detailed in the indictment suggest that Trump knew he had lost and that his actions were wrong. In one encounter days before the riot, Trump told Pence he was “too honest” after the vice president said he didn’t have the authority to reject electoral votes, the indictment says.
(08-02-2023, 11:22 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]This is the weakest one yet and the other ones are weak to begin with.
This should be thrown out with a fair judge but I'm not sure Trump wants that.
Everything said was legal and protected. Trump was still speaking when the troublemakers started removing and breaching the area so not sure how Trump incited anything. The troublemakers weren't even at the speech. The indictment even says he has the right to lie if he wanted. Then it tries to say you can't do it for an election though. Then it charges him with a crime that didn't exist in 2020 as Congress passed a bill to change it.
If Trump wants to, he could now introduce every election fraud, irregularities, issues, etc from every state into the record. He could then line up every expert, whistblower, and witness. Every single court case that was dismissed because of standing can now be entered as evidence supporting his claim that his statements were his beliefs, and even though it doesn't matter, they were truthful. The judge won't be able to say a thing unless she wants it thrown out on appeal for not allowing him a defense.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
The judge may or may not allow that, but it would be comical if she did. The claims had no evidence back in 2020, why would there be evidence now?
(08-02-2023, 10:41 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2023, 05:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]"2 + 2 is 5" is free speech.
"You need to disrupt an official federal government function because 2 + 2 = 5" is not free speech.
Neither is "you need to sign an official-looking paper in the state capital on a certain Tuesday in December at noon because 2 + 2 = 5."
Why don't you provide the actual quotes of whatever public statements he made that were not free speech.
You might have to wait until Mike Pence and Bill Barr are on the witness stand. They'll provide the quotes.
(08-02-2023, 09:25 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2023, 02:41 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]If anyone was wondering whether or not Trump's defense would largely be to throw his advisors and previous lawyers under the bus... Yes, that will probably be the strategy.
A recently released statement from his camp ends with:
Welp - looks like I called this one - or at least this article sees the same thing coming:
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status...88385?s=20
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status...88385?s=20
It won't work because their's too much evidence showing he knew what he was doing was illegal and not just a "controversial interpretation of the law."
It might however, get him off a little bit easier.
Just some quick reading on the "advice of counsel" defense. If this defense is invoked, then attorney-client privilege is effectively waived. The prosecutor has to be able to see if the attorney knew all relevant facts of the client's situation at the time the advice was given. Also, Trump received advice from other lawyers that his actions were actually illegal. He basically went lawyer shopping until he found an answer he liked. That's not the type of situation where the defense usually applies. The doctrine was not framed with the idea that one just has to shop for a patsy with a license to practice law and then you can do whatever you want.
(08-02-2023, 10:35 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2023, 09:25 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Welp - looks like I called this one - or at least this article sees the same thing coming:
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status...88385?s=20
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status...88385?s=20
It won't work because their's too much evidence showing he knew what he was doing was illegal and not just a "controversial interpretation of the law."
It might however, get him off a little bit easier.
LOL. What did you expect him to do, release a statement saying, 'I took actions against the advice of counsel"? Of course he's going to deflect and cast blame on others, that's his style. In all fairness to him though, when has anyone else in Washington accepted responsibility for his/her actions?
You mean every president that has conceded when they lost an election without trying to enrage the American public with lies about their votes being stolen while cooking up a scam of false electors?
Let's start with all of those politicians!
LOL
Al Gore. Hillary Clinton. Stacy Abrams (she's just for fun).
(08-03-2023, 01:13 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Al Gore. Hillary Clinton. Stacy Abrams (she's just for fun).
Stacy is the only one who didn't concede.
Al certified the electors for his loss and refused to acknowledge the members of the House protesting it.
Why isn't Kari Lake on your list?
What about Samuel Tilden?
(08-03-2023, 01:13 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Al Gore. Hillary Clinton. Stacy Abrams (she's just for fun).
LOL
Here ya go.
Here is the chart showing how many days it took before a losing candidate officially conceded the loss.
(even though cheeto-clown is still lying about his loss, he did finally set the record for the longest holdout to concede after attempting to illegally alter the outcome)
Everybody else but Gore basically took the L and went home. None of them but the orange [BLEEP] waged multiple fraudulent conspiracies to alter the count.
![[Image: concession-days.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/pr4sYsSN/concession-days.png)
(08-03-2023, 10:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2023, 10:41 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Why don't you provide the actual quotes of whatever public statements he made that were not free speech.
You might have to wait until Mike Pence and Bill Barr are on the witness stand. They'll provide the quotes.
Why are either of them required to provide quotes of public statements?
(08-03-2023, 03:00 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2023, 01:13 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Al Gore. Hillary Clinton. Stacy Abrams (she's just for fun).
LOL
Here ya go.
Here is the chart showing how many days it took before a losing candidate officially conceded the loss.
(even though cheeto-clown is still lying about his loss, he did finally set the record for the longest holdout to concede after attempting to illegally alter the outcome)
Everybody else but Gore basically took the L and went home. None of them but the orange [BLEEP] waged multiple fraudulent conspiracies to alter the count.
Ah... we're going the distance now.
(08-03-2023, 01:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2023, 01:13 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Al Gore. Hillary Clinton. Stacy Abrams (she's just for fun).
Stacy is the only one who didn't concede.
Al certified the electors for his loss and refused to acknowledge the members of the House protesting it.
Why isn't Kari Lake on your list?
What about Samuel Tilden?
Because I was pointing out this [BLEEP] isn't exclusive or one sided. It's inevitable in a broken system that doesn't have good checks and balances. It's not exclusive to Republicans. It's not unique to Trump. This was always going to escalate. Congrats. Trump whined longer than Gore. BFD. He still stepped down peacefully. I don't believe he believes he lost fair and square, and he probably didn't. If you don't want to believe that, you don't have to. You can think he's a whiner. I felt the same about Al Gore. Hillary's campaign manufactured a lie, FBI agents used that lie to open an investigation they used to intentionally try to derail Trump's campaign, and the Democratic congress wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money on an investigation that was built on a lie Hillary knew was false. All why she talked openly about the role Russia played in losing her the election.
(08-03-2023, 08:41 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2023, 10:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You might have to wait until Mike Pence and Bill Barr are on the witness stand. They'll provide the quotes.
Why are either of them required to provide quotes of public statements?
Because a prosecutor will likely call them to the witness stand?
(08-03-2023, 08:49 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2023, 03:00 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]LOL
Here ya go.
Here is the chart showing how many days it took before a losing candidate officially conceded the loss.
(even though cheeto-clown is still lying about his loss, he did finally set the record for the longest holdout to concede after attempting to illegally alter the outcome)
Everybody else but Gore basically took the L and went home. None of them but the orange [BLEEP] waged multiple fraudulent conspiracies to alter the count.
Ah... we're going the distance now.
(08-03-2023, 01:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Stacy is the only one who didn't concede.
Al certified the electors for his loss and refused to acknowledge the members of the House protesting it.
Why isn't Kari Lake on your list?
What about Samuel Tilden?
Because I was pointing out this [BLEEP] isn't exclusive or one sided. It's inevitable in a broken system that doesn't have good checks and balances. It's not exclusive to Republicans. It's not unique to Trump. This was always going to escalate. Congrats. Trump whined longer than Gore. BFD. He still stepped down peacefully. I don't believe he believes he lost fair and square, and he probably didn't. If you don't want to believe that, you don't have to. You can think he's a whiner. I felt the same about Al Gore. Hillary's campaign manufactured a lie, FBI agents used that lie to open an investigation they used to intentionally try to derail Trump's campaign, and the Democratic congress wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money on an investigation that was built on a lie Hillary knew was false. All why she talked openly about the role Russia played in losing her the election.
YouTube can show you Al Gore's conduct on January 6 2001 if you care to refresh your memory. You should, and let me know if you still think Gore is as bad as or worse than Trump afterwards.
Blah, blah, blah...
I had specific points that don't apply anymore because you guys want to move the goalposts. This is what winning looks like to you, I guess.
(08-03-2023, 11:51 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Blah, blah, blah...
I had specific points that don't apply anymore because you guys want to move the goalposts. This is what winning looks like to you, I guess.
Sam Tilden was a Democrat if that makes you feel better.
No one here ever said this was one sided, just that Trump is the most concerning example in our lifetimes.
(08-03-2023, 08:49 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2023, 03:00 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]LOL
Here ya go.
Here is the chart showing how many days it took before a losing candidate officially conceded the loss.
(even though cheeto-clown is still lying about his loss, he did finally set the record for the longest holdout to concede after attempting to illegally alter the outcome)
Everybody else but Gore basically took the L and went home. None of them but the orange [BLEEP] waged multiple fraudulent conspiracies to alter the count.
Ah... we're going the distance now.
(08-03-2023, 01:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Stacy is the only one who didn't concede.
Al certified the electors for his loss and refused to acknowledge the members of the House protesting it.
Why isn't Kari Lake on your list?
What about Samuel Tilden?
Because I was pointing out this [BLEEP] isn't exclusive or one sided. It's inevitable in a broken system that doesn't have good checks and balances. It's not exclusive to Republicans. It's not unique to Trump. This was always going to escalate. Congrats. Trump whined longer than Gore. BFD. He still stepped down peacefully. I don't believe he believes he lost fair and square, and he probably didn't. If you don't want to believe that, you don't have to. You can think he's a whiner. I felt the same about Al Gore. Hillary's campaign manufactured a lie, FBI agents used that lie to open an investigation they used to intentionally try to derail Trump's campaign, and the Democratic congress wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money on an investigation that was built on a lie Hillary knew was false. All why she talked openly about the role Russia played in losing her the election.
The bolded is yet another disingenuous assertion that makes it impossible to take you seriously.
He is literally being prosecuted for breaking multiple federal laws in an attempt to NOT step down.
And, I know we are more lax with warnings in the pol forum, but abbreviating the F bomb is going to draw warnings on my watch, so use caution please. Just a friendly reminder for now. Nothing to do with our little debates
That one is a slippery slope and I do not want any forum or thread here to turn into a litany of f this and f that form any users who disagree about anything. I've seen it elsewhere. It escalates hostility and I'm merely trying to prevent that from happening here.
(08-04-2023, 12:07 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2023, 08:49 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Ah... we're going the distance now.
Because I was pointing out this [BLEEP] isn't exclusive or one sided. It's inevitable in a broken system that doesn't have good checks and balances. It's not exclusive to Republicans. It's not unique to Trump. This was always going to escalate. Congrats. Trump whined longer than Gore. BFD. He still stepped down peacefully. I don't believe he believes he lost fair and square, and he probably didn't. If you don't want to believe that, you don't have to. You can think he's a whiner. I felt the same about Al Gore. Hillary's campaign manufactured a lie, FBI agents used that lie to open an investigation they used to intentionally try to derail Trump's campaign, and the Democratic congress wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money on an investigation that was built on a lie Hillary knew was false. All why she talked openly about the role Russia played in losing her the election.
The bolded is yet another disingenuous assertion that makes it impossible to take you seriously.
He is literally being prosecuted for breaking multiple federal laws in an attempt to NOT step down.
And, I know we are more lax with warnings in the pol forum, but abbreviating the F bomb is going to draw warnings on my watch, so use caution please. Just a friendly reminder for now. Nothing to do with our little debates
That one is a slippery slope and I do not want any forum or thread here to turn into a litany of f this and f that form any users who disagree about anything. I've seen it elsewhere. It escalates hostility and I'm merely trying to prevent that from happening here.
Contesting fraud is not the same as what you're insinuating.
(08-04-2023, 12:07 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2023, 08:49 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Ah... we're going the distance now.
Because I was pointing out this [BLEEP] isn't exclusive or one sided. It's inevitable in a broken system that doesn't have good checks and balances. It's not exclusive to Republicans. It's not unique to Trump. This was always going to escalate. Congrats. Trump whined longer than Gore. BFD. He still stepped down peacefully. I don't believe he believes he lost fair and square, and he probably didn't. If you don't want to believe that, you don't have to. You can think he's a whiner. I felt the same about Al Gore. Hillary's campaign manufactured a lie, FBI agents used that lie to open an investigation they used to intentionally try to derail Trump's campaign, and the Democratic congress wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money on an investigation that was built on a lie Hillary knew was false. All why she talked openly about the role Russia played in losing her the election.
The bolded is yet another disingenuous assertion that makes it impossible to take you seriously.
He is literally being prosecuted for breaking multiple federal laws in an attempt to NOT step down.
And, I know we are more lax with warnings in the pol forum, but abbreviating the F bomb is going to draw warnings on my watch, so use caution please. Just a friendly reminder for now. Nothing to do with our little debates
That one is a slippery slope and I do not want any forum or thread here to turn into a litany of f this and f that form any users who disagree about anything. I've seen it elsewhere. It escalates hostility and I'm merely trying to prevent that from happening here.
Yeah. Calling [BLEEP]. Was he forced out of the Whitehouse? Did he try to leverage the power of the military to stay in power? If he's calling for peaceful protests, that doesn't move the needle on authoritarian power grabs, no matter how much you want to believe it. He believed there was fraud. I believe their was fraud. Can he prove it? He certainly wasn't able to. Can I prove it, not in a manner that would overturn anything. The system needs to change, and I have no qualms with anything he said. Nor do I have any problem with the majority of people who entered the Capitol building after being let in. I am happy to see people like Ray Epps go to prison, but you and Mikey, for some strange reason, don't care. You care about what you're told to care about. Good job, free thinker.
(08-04-2023, 12:11 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2023, 12:07 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]The bolded is yet another disingenuous assertion that makes it impossible to take you seriously.
He is literally being prosecuted for breaking multiple federal laws in an attempt to NOT step down.
And, I know we are more lax with warnings in the pol forum, but abbreviating the F bomb is going to draw warnings on my watch, so use caution please. Just a friendly reminder for now. Nothing to do with our little debates
That one is a slippery slope and I do not want any forum or thread here to turn into a litany of f this and f that form any users who disagree about anything. I've seen it elsewhere. It escalates hostility and I'm merely trying to prevent that from happening here.
Contesting fraud is not the same as what you're insinuating.
There was no fraud. He invented it. It was a lie. You fell for it.