(08-29-2023, 05:05 PM)Sneakers Wrote:

(08-29-2023, 04:30 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Awww. All you got is your cute little insults I see. 

Pathetic. 

I see you are too lazy to read the indictment that spells this out for you. 

His own Attorney General informed him that investigations found no fraud, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency told him their investigation found no fraud. The state of Georgia informed him via three different agencies/officials including an additional investigation by GBI that there was no fraud. Two private agencies he paid millions to investigate fraud told him there was no fraud. This list goes on for a long time. 

You should just pull up your big boy britches and go read the pertinent section of the indictment:
https://www.jan-6.com/_files/ugd/2cf5f9_...6e7911.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 6 - No.11 heading - and read that plus pg 7 and 8. 

He was informed by a wide, wide scope of different federal and state officials , cabinet members, advisors, lawyers, staffers and legislators that his claims were false. 

This odd little fascination you have with some burden of proof that he "believed" them or not is moot. 

Doesn't matter. 

He was informed of the reality of his situation and opted criminality to alter it over acceptance of his loss.  

You can insult me - you can whine that it isn't that simple - you can flounder about to concoct some way that his criminal actions were justified. None of that matters. 

He lost.
He was told that he lost by a legion of credible officials.
He chose to act criminally in response.

I believe this point is far from moot, but is, in fact, critical to the prosecution's case and necessary to prove intent.  Paranoia is not a crime, and wouldn't you agree he certainly displays symptoms?

The federal case does not hinge on whether or not Trump believed the results were credible. 
The case asserts that notion, but does not require it to make the vast majority of its charges punishable. 

There are existing debates amongst legal experts elsewhere on which charges may or may not require that to be proven. I do not pretend to be fluent enough in legalese to disseminate the finer points of those debates, so I'll let the legal experts have that bit. It is obviously not uncommon for prosecutors to add charges that may or may not be provable to their indictments, so we'll see as it plays out which they are able to validate. I believe we'll find the vast majority of the charges will not require any semblance of proof concerning what he believed to be true concerning election results. Only that he was informed by a host of officials about the certified outcome. 

It should be relatively easy to understand that "I did this crime because I didn't believe something to be true even though it was true" is not a valid defense in a court of law. The election results were scrutinized and investigated in a dozen of the states wherein fraud accusations were levied. All of that resulted in a certification of the win for Biden. So - whether he thought it to be true or not, the ballot count was proven to be true - and he was informed in official capacity that it was true.

Yes, he displays plenty of symptoms of paranoia and other mental disorders, but that also will not exonerate him from choosing to conspire in criminal behavior. If he was deemed well enough to govern our nation for four years then he was well enough to accept the results of a free and fair election -  instead of attempting to block our nation from its rightfully elected leader.

---