The Trump Card...

[muttly]

Once again, you raise a single point that exists among many and unconvincingly argue that your point alone should carry the day. Also, there were few if any illegal votes to be counted.

Smith has Trump cold. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear and we have not even seen the trump-card evidence (pun intended) he will reveal later. Trump is going to lose this case.

That's not what he believed at the time. The call was extensive and he talked about all the potential illegal votes to find. It's very clear. His lawyers wanted and were requesting additional data from the Georgia officials as well.

 

[ATeam]

That's not what he believed at the time.

This "what Trump believed at the time" is another defense the Trump legal team and spokespeople are throwing against the wall to see if it sticks. What these people miss, and what the people who accept these comments miss, is that it does not matter what Trump believed at the time.

It does not matter if Trump truly believed he won the election. It does not matter if Trump truly believed he lost the election. What matters is not what Trump believed, what matters is what Trump did.

In this case, Trump committed the crimes charged in the indictment. One of them was the fake electors scheme. It is against the law to present fraudulent election documents to the government. Whether Trump believed he won or did not win the election is immaterial. The material act was his participation with other co-conspirators to commit this crime. (There is a more elegant and accurate way to state this, but you get the gist.)

Here's another illustration. When my wife and I were expediters running emergency freight to the devastated area after Hurricane Katrina hit, the entire nation was electrified by this news story. Some idiots from up north took it upon themselves to travel to New Orleans to break into flooded homes to rescue any pets that may have been left behind by their owners. Overdosing on self-righteousness and convinced of their good intent, they thought it was perfectly fine to break into people's homes after the people evacuated.

The crime is called breaking and entering. Whether they believed themselves to be good people of good intent, or whether they were breaking in for nefarious purposes is irrelevant. What's relevant is what they did, which was illegally break into other people's homes.

Another example. If you rob a bank out of desperation to feed your family, or if you rob it to enrich yourself, it does not matter what you believed. You still committed the crime of bank robbery. You might have even believed it was legal to rob the bank because you heard from attorneys that bank robbery is allowed on Tuesday afternoons. That changes nothing. You are still guilty of the crime you committed.

One final example. If you are pulled over and the officer cites you for doing 55 in a 35 MPH zone, and you tell the officer you believed the speed limit was 55, you will still be cited. You don't get a free pass because you believed one thing or another.

 

[Pilgrim]

I have read the indictment (skimming the highly detailed parts of it). I posted a link to it here in this thread soon after it became available. The indictment anticipated Trump's free speech defense and effectively neutralized it.

Pertinent excerpts are below (emphasis mine). Notice how the indictment itself carefully upholds Trump's free speech rights while also highlighting his illegal acts.

No, it doesn't. See additional reference to the indictment below.

From the Indictment Page 2

3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the
election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the
election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election
through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote
in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the
Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the
outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of
discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant
perpetrated three criminal conspiracies: ...

Skipping the conspiracies and continuing with paragraph 4: (emphasis mine)

"Each of these conspiracies—which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating
through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud—targeted a bedrock function of the
United States federal government: the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the
results of the presidential election ("the federal government function")."

So it appears that the indictment "carefully upholds Trump's free speech rights" in paragraph 3 until his "free speech" is determined by Smith to be "pervasive and destabilizing lies" which constitute illegal deeds. Talk about blurring a distinction.

In addition to the indictment, I also read the Turley piece to which you provided a link. Contrary to what you said, Turley is not right. He is wrong. He is wrong because he blurs the distinction between words and deeds that the indictment makes clear. While he cites a number of cases in support of his view, they are off point because he blurs the distinction.

Turley is a highly educated and experienced legal expert, and the basis for his opinion is not hard to understand. It's highly likely his take on this issue will be upheld in the appellate courts, even in the event Trump should be found guilty in this DC venue where 95% of the jury pool voted for Biden and the judge is an Obama appointed liberal zealot. There are numerous legal experts who think this case is a flimsy example of "indicting a ham sandwich" , and another overreach for which Jack Smith is well known.

 

[Pilgrim]

Here's another take by Alan Dershowitz on this seriously flawed Trump indictment from the Biden DOJ and Jack Smith. If they don't win this case Smith might be in trouble himself. (bold emphasis mine)

“Jack Smith … deliberately, willfully and maliciously leaves out the words that President Trump spoke on Jan. 6 in his terrible speech. which I disagree with, but what he said was, ‘I want you to assemble peacefully and patriotically,’” Dershowitz added. “Jack [Smith] leaves that out. That is a lie, a lie, an omission lie and if you’re going to indict somebody for telling lies, don’t tell lies in the indictment. If you’re going to indict somebody for denying people their constitutional rights, don’t deny them their constitutional rights by indicting them for free speech. That’s how hypocritical this is....
So you’re absolutely right, this is a very, very dangerous indictment, dangerous to the First Amendment and also dangerous to the Sixth Amendment because it directly goes after Trump’s lawyers, names them as unindicted coconspirators without giving their names, but basically says they’re criminals for giving him advice on how to challenge the election.”

‘That’s How Serious This Is’: Alan Dershowitz Says Jack Smith May Be Indicted If Trump Wins Case

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said that Special Counsel Jack Smith could be indicted if the indictment of former President Donald Trump is thrown out.

dailycaller.com

 

[muttly]

This "what Trump believed at the time" is another defense the Trump legal team and spokespeople are throwing against the wall to see if it sticks. What these people miss, and what the people who accept these comments miss, is that it does not matter what Trump believed at the time.

It does not matter if Trump truly believed he won the election. It does not matter if Trump truly believed he lost the election. What matters is not what Trump believed, what matters is what Trump did.

In this case, Trump committed the crimes charged in the indictment. One of them was the fake electors scheme. It is against the law to present fraudulent election documents to the government. Whether Trump believed he won or did not win the election is immaterial. The material act was his participation with other co-conspirators to commit this crime. (There is a more elegant and accurate way to state this, but you get the gist.)

Here's another illustration. When my wife and I were expediters running emergency freight to the devastated area after Hurricane Katrina hit, the entire nation was electrified by this news story. Some idiots from up north took it upon themselves to travel to New Orleans to break into flooded homes to rescue any pets that may have been left behind by their owners. Overdosing on self-righteousness and convinced of their good intent, they thought it was perfectly fine to break into people's homes after the people evacuated.

The crime is called breaking and entering. Whether they believed themselves to be good people of good intent, or whether they were breaking in for nefarious purposes is irrelevant. What's relevant is what they did, which was illegally break into other people's homes.

Another example. If you rob a bank out of desperation to feed your family, or if you rob it to enrich yourself, it does not matter what you believed. You still committed the crime of bank robbery. You might have even believed it was legal to rob the bank because you heard from attorneys that bank robbery is allowed on Tuesday afternoons. That changes nothing. You are still guilty of the crime you committed.

One final example. If you are pulled over and the officer cites you for doing 55 in a 35 MPH zone, and you tell the officer you believed the speed limit was 55, you will still be cited. You don't get a free pass because you believed one thing or another.

Your premise is wrong.

 

[ATeam]

Your premise is wrong.

Stay tuned. You'll find out differently when this is argued in court.

 

[muttly]

Trump’s lawyers needs go to the Florida Court and file an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court so they can make a ruling to halt all trials until after the election. This should be the remedy for political persecutions from unhinged Leftists.

 

[coalminer]

Trump’s lawyers needs go to the Florida Court and file an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court so they can make a ruling to halt all trials until after the election. This should be the remedy for political persecutions from unhinged Leftists.

Do you understand the difference between prosecution and persecution?

 

[muttly]

Do you understand the difference between prosecution and persecution?

Yes. Do you?

 

[muttly]

Stay tuned. You'll find out differently when this is argued in court.

Where is the constitutional language in the indictment that disputes what Trump was accused of doing?

 

[coalminer]

Yes. Do you?

I ask because you keep saying persecution, and Trump is being prosecuted for criminal acts.

But then again, I get where you are coming from, he is your president and you dont care what he has done, right?

 

[ATeam]

Here's another take by Alan Dershowitz

That's not enough to get Trump off the hook. The absence or presence of three words will make no difference for Smith or Trump. The indictment includes a litany of illegal acts for which Trump must answer. The indictment was carefully drafted and Smith is no rookie. Trump is not going to get off on a technicality.

I'm looking forward to the GA indictment coming out soon. That is the last one expected. Curiosity about its contents will be satisfied. The conversation after that will be driven by a continuous stream of motions in six courts (GA, Manhattan, Florida, Washington, E. Jean Carroll, and NY AG). Once the GA indictment is public a new normal will develop. For years, we'll watch the developments and eventually learn how each of these trials turn out.

Trump is in deep, deep trouble. As a defendant in four (counting GA) criminal cases, he's in trouble in ways he has never been before. That suits me fine. He has skirted the law and evaded accountability for far too long.

 

[danthewolf00]

That's not enough to get Trump off the hook. The absence or presence of three words will make no difference for Smith or Trump. The indictment includes a litany of illegal acts for which Trump must answer. The indictment was carefully drafted and Smith is no rookie. Trump is not going to get off on a technicality.

I'm looking forward to the GA indictment coming out soon. That is the last one expected. Curiosity about its contents will be satisfied. The conversation after that will be driven by a continuous stream of motions in six courts (GA, Manhattan, Florida, Washington, E. Jean Carroll, and NY AG). Once the GA indictment is public a new normal will develop. For years, we'll watch the developments and eventually learn how each of these trials turn out.

Trump is in deep, deep trouble. As a defendant in four (counting GA) criminal cases, he's in trouble in ways he has never been before. That suits me fine. He has skirted the law and evaded accountability for far too long.

No it will matter to the lawyers.

 

[danthewolf00]

I ask because you keep saying persecution, and Trump is being prosecuted for criminal acts.

But then again, I get where you are coming from, he is your president and you dont care what he has done, right?

Yet no Republican district attorney has gone after trump.....its ALL Democrat district attorneys....that's persecution. Each charge is very vague in wording to make it harder to defend against. Also they are leaving out key information like trump saying "peacefully protest"

 

[muttly]

I ask because you keep saying persecution, and Trump is being prosecuted for criminal acts.

But then again, I get where you are coming from, he is your president and you dont care what he has done, right?

It has something to do with unhinged Leftists charging Trump using an untested legal theory, criminalizing the PRA, misapplying the 1918 Espionage Act, misapplying an Enron statute, and dusting off a 150 year old klan law. If that doesn’t look like a desperate attempt to persecute by prosecuting a political adversary before an election then what is? Hmmm?

 

[muttly]

Persecution:

 

[ATeam]

Questions Answered in Court; Week of 7/29/23

Running Total
Trump-Favorable Answers: 1
Trump-Adverse Answers: 26

Answered This Week:

Yes, Trump is protected by presidential immunity regarding two defamatory statements he made against a PA voting machine supervisor when Trump was president. 7/31/23
No, Trump is not protected by presidential immunity regarding one defamatory statement he made against a PA voting machine supervisor after Trump left office. 7/31/23
Yes, the GA Special Grand Jury report can be used against Trump. 7/31
No, Fani Willis will not be barred from prosecuting Trump. 7/31
Yes, Trump will be deposed under oath regarding the $500 million lawsuit he filed against Cohen. 7/31/23
Yes, Trump will be indicted on charges concerning the 2020 election. 8/3/23
Yes, the Trump deposition transcript from the Carroll trial will be given to DA Bragg. 8/3/23
No, Trump's request for a delayed response to DOJ's protective order motion will not be granted. 8/5/23

Answered in Previous Weeks:

No, a special master will not be used.
No, the documents trial will not be postponed until after the election.
No, Trump is not immune from defamation charges because he was president.
No, the falsified records case will not be moved to federal court.
No, the falsified records case will not be dismissed.
No, the falsified records case judge will not recuse.
Yes, the Trump Organization is guilty of tax fraud.
No, executive privilege cannot be used to keep Trump aids from testifying.
No, Fani Willis will not be disqualified from working on the GA election interference case.
No, the GA Special Grand Jury report will not be thrown out.
Yes, a former president of the United States who is again a candidate for president can be indicted, arrested and arraigned.
Yes, the $5 million in damages the jury said Trump must pay Carroll is reasonable.
Yes, the other Carroll case can be amended to include Trump's recent statements and more damages can be sought.
No, the NY AG lawsuit will not be dismissed.
Yes, certain Trump attorney's can be compelled to testify because attorney client privilege does not apply (furtherance of a crime).
Yes, Trump is a rapist.
Yes, Cohen and Trump will settle Cohen's unpaid legal fees lawsuit "in a manner satisfactory to all parties," and this case will not go to trial.
Yes, the Miami grand jury will continue its investigation and produce additional indictments, even after it first indicted Trump.
Yes, the defamation lawsuit Trump filed against CNN is dismissed because the judge rules it is "not actionable."

Disclaimer: The above compilation is done by me on a best-efforts basis. I monitor the news daily to produce the list. The list is shared weekly, here on EO. If I miss something or get something wrong, kindly advise me and I'll correct the list.

 

[muttly]

The statists are A ok with this though.

 

[muttly]

 

[Pilgrim]

That's not enough to get Trump off the hook. The absence or presence of three words will make no difference for Smith or Trump. The indictment includes a litany of illegal acts for which Trump must answer. The indictment was carefully drafted and Smith is no rookie. Trump is not going to get off on a technicality.

The denial of Trump’s 1st and 6th amendment rights is hardly a technicality. Just because Smith's indictment was "carefully drafted" doesn't mean it's legally sound. There are parts pointed out by Dershowitz that border on being legally absurd, such as accusing Trump’s lawyers as being co- conspirators for providing legal counsel. That would be laughable if it weren't so devious.