(08-31-2023, 08:47 AM)Sneakers Wrote:

(08-30-2023, 09:31 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Yeah, yeah I get it. 
I understand how the legal system works. 

I'm also a human with enough life experience to have seen the legal system operate for a long time.
Folks with this kind of clear evidence against them don't weasel out of it most the time. 
But they aren't usually former presidents either. 

If you guys want to continually harp on the innocent until proven guilty song and dance - go right ahead. 
Personally, I don't have the slightest issue with stating that a cursory perusal of the evidence already known to the general public in these cases makes this clown look guilty as all hell.  And it isn't going to help that most of these cases (records case in FL, federal fraud case, and the NY hush money bit) are also going to feature at least one person inside Trump's circle of trust or communication flipping on him and testifying with likely damaging information. 

You can pretend that the evidence mounting against him isn't already damning if you want to. I'm not.

We're in uncharted territory in so many ways.  The trial of someone under SS protection, especially at the ex-President level, is unprecedented.  As this develops, I'm expecting a flurry of motions over venue, appearance, etc.


This is the critical point I've been emphasizing, much of the "proof" you believe exists is not yet of record.  These individuals represent potential evidence that could flip the decision either way.  Public statements and emails cannot be retracted, but I don't believe he will be convicted on the strength of those alone.  Testimony of private conversations is what may or may not establish criminal intent.

So you haven't read the Chesebro memos and the Eastman emails

OK

They lay out the illegal scheme in detail
They attempt to use context/precedent from the writings of a Harvard law professor (Tribe) who later called the citing a "misrepresentation of my scholarship."

They also tried to pull Clarence Thomas into this thing and memos/emails lay that out as well.

Trump was advised this would fail - but insisted on doing it anyway.

The facts they have in front of them as evidence are:
* The scheme was conspired, and it was illegal
*Trump urged its continuance (testimony already gathered)
*It lead too illegal/fraudulent filings on the state level and federal level
*it lead to an attempt at coercing the VP into illegal participation

Now, you all can continue to pretend that this is a special circumstance and we don't know what proof exists and all the crimes are "alleged" if you'd like.

But - it is insanely obvious that they have everything they need to hold his feet to the fire on the false electors scheme.

---