Trump Indicted for Jan 6th Crimes

[myata]

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Just a question whether these charges make him look terrible or as even more of a revolutionary, one who has the whole system after him. And now if you are the type of person who despises the system...

Indeed this is a result of the explosive combination: totalitarian cult, transition times which somehow very often if not always engender totalitarian cults and extreme political polarization. It can destroy democracy and take the society with it, and it has. FPTP in no way helps in this conundrum. Where majority of population may retain basic sanity and stop authoritarians, in a majority system it may only take once to tip the balance. If somehow Trump would get to power again, he would save no effort to control it with his appointed cronies forever. And that would be a recipe for the scenario you mentioned; not ignoring his acts and attics because he's such a special kind of a ...

[impartialobserver]

Often the facts are 1. links to subjective, biased opinions who do not have the full set of information  or 2. Filling in the blanks.. well x happened and y happened so therefore there is only ONE possible way that they are connected or 3. lack of context.. viewing an event in isolation can let you interpret it in seemingly infinite number of ways.

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Rebound said:

Donald Trump never conned me. I’ve been into him all along. When the people he’s conned finally realize they’ve been conned, they will be furious.

 

Donald is being tried:

For breaking a law Trump signed;

Investigated by a Republican FBI leader who Trump appointed;

Whose key witnesses are all Trump employees and loyalists;

By a Republican judge Trump appointed;

In front of a jury that voted for Trump by over 60%;

I think by now they would be EX-LOYALISTS because Trump has thrown them under the bus. LMAO

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

Often the facts are 1. links to subjective, biased opinions who do not have the full set of information  or 2. Filling in the blanks.. well x happened and y happened so therefore there is only ONE possible way that they are connected or 3. lack of context.. viewing an event in isolation can let you interpret it in seemingly infinite number of ways.

To what "facts" do you refer? The facts alleged in the indictment for Jan 6th crimes?

Many of them were from sworn testimony which was most likely confirmed before the Grand Jury.

 

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

To what "facts" do you refer? The facts alleged in the indictment for Jan 6th crimes?

Many of them were from sworn testimony which was most likely confirmed before the Grand Jury.

 

no.. just in general. In my world.. when I make a claim, I have voluminous amounts of data. If I say X caused Y... I have a mountain of data, where it came from, who entered it, every single detail. No filling in the blanks. I know that this is not how trials such as this work. 

[robosmith]

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

no.. just in general. In my world.. when I make a claim, I have voluminous amounts of data. If I say X caused Y... I have a mountain of data, where it came from, who entered it, every single detail. No filling in the blanks. I know that this is not how trials such as this work. 

There IS voluminous data which verifies the INTENT and ACTIONS TAKEN on Jan 6th.

Have you read the Select Committee on Jan 6th final report? It's very long.

[impartialobserver]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

There IS voluminous data which verifies the INTENT and ACTIONS TAKEN on Jan 6th.

Have you read the Select Committee on Jan 6th final report? It's very long.

Yes.... a lot of circumstantial stuff. 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Yes.... a lot of circumstantial stuff. 

A lot of crimes are proven beyond a reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence ALONE.

[robosmith]

Civil War-era rights law key in Trump election interference charges

Quote

Federal prosecutors base one charge, conspiring to deprive citizens of constitutional or legal rights, on a law enacted during post-Civil War Reconstruction in 1870, when federal lawmakers sought to integrate into society enslaved people who had been freed.

Prosecutors have long used the deprivation of rights statute, known as Section 241, to fight disenfranchisement of Black voters, and a string of landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases have affirmed the law’s use for that purpose. 

For example, Trump DEMANDING that GA SoS change the vote count ON TAPE to give him enough additional votes to "win." AKA, NOT discarding fraudulent votes.

And threatening legal consequences if he doesn't do it. ?

[robosmith]

Trump's "delusion" defense

Quote

Trump's legal team is teasing a risky defense to his historic third indictment, the idea that the former president genuinely believed his own lies about election fraud — despite being told by dozens of his closest advisers, allies and agencies that they were baseless.

If they proceed to trial, Trump's lawyers effectively could be asking a jury to believe that the former president was delusional — undermining special counsel Jack Smith's core thesis that Trump "knowingly" sought to defraud the country.

The gambit could prove successful in court, where an already unfurling debate over the First Amendment is expected to play a starring role.

Politically, however, the "delusion defense" would force Republicans into the uncomfortable position of defending a candidate who can't be trusted to distinguish reality from conspiracy — and who now wants to be president again. 

 

[robosmith]

Trump has been charged by the Department of Justice with the following four counts:

Quote

    A conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election," according to the special counsel's office. This count carries a 5-year maximum sentence.
    A conspiracy to impede the Jan. 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified. This count carries a 20-year maximum sentence.
    A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have that vote counted. This count carries a 10-year maximum sentence.
    Obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct and impede, the certification of the electoral vote. This count carries a 20-year maximum sentence. 

 

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

no.. just in general. In my world.. when I make a claim, I have voluminous amounts of data. If I say X caused Y... I have a mountain of data, where it came from, who entered it, every single detail. No filling in the blanks. I know that this is not how trials such as this work. 

Why don’t you just read the indictment then? Why is that so hard? 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Rebound

[robosmith]

The indictment is stunning. Will Trump supporters care?

Quote

Georgia prosecutors investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state are preparing a sprawling racketeering indictment, according to press reports. If they move ahead, charges might come as early as this month.

There was a time when even a fraction of Donald Trump’s record of lawlessness and depravity would have shattered a person’s political career, rendered his party ashamed of its association with him, and left him humiliated and seeking forgiveness. But that day is long gone, at least if you’re a Republican.

The GOP made its Faustian bargain years ago. Early in Trump’s presidency there was a transmutation; his brutal style of politics, his lies and conspiracy theories, and his corruption, which were once tolerated, became celebrated.

The base of the Republican Party fell in love with the Trump Show—with his owning the libs and willingness to validate conservatives’ grievances and resentments, his chaos-creating ways, and his capacity to shatter norms and channel hatreds. To his supporters, Trump is entertaining and cathartic, a fighter, a middle finger to an establishment they revile. Every criticism of him, every legal action taken against him, provides them with one more reason to rally around him. The stronger the evidence against him, the deeper their devotion to him and the more intense their rage at those who call him out. (After Trump was found liable for sexual assault, Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville said that the verdict makes me want to vote for him twice.)

For years, many people, including normie Republican lawmakers who privately wanted to rid the party of Trump, wondered when Trump would finally cross a line that the base of the party could not accept, when he would commit an act too sickening to defend.

That moment never came.

It never came, because most Republicans—some cynical, some too afraid to speak out, some cultlike in their devotion to Trump—decided early on to reject any evidence that would discomfort them, that would call into question their partisan loyalties, that would cause them to have serious second thoughts. Most of all, they decided to reject any evidence showing that their opponents were right about Trump and they were wrong. They decided that the awful things Trump has done can’t be true because they don’t want them to be true. This is their political a priori.

But it went beyond that, as inevitably it had to. Trump’s enemies became his base’s, and so did his pathologies. To every dark and ugly place he has gone, his MAGA supporters have followed, and they have dragged the Republican Party along with them.

Here’s something we should prepare for: If Donald Trump thinks he’s going down, he’s going to try to burn down our institutions. He will mobilize his MAGA base, his Republican enablers, and the right-wing media to unleash yet more lies and conspiracy theories. He will portray himself as a martyr who is being persecuted for the sake of his supporters. He will claim that his legal troubles prove that the system is corrupt, and not him. Trump and his supporters will try to tamper with witnesses, intimidate jurors, and threaten public officials. And he will try to cause enough confusion, disorientation, discord, fear, and even violence to escape accountability yet again.

Donald Trump has already deeply wounded our nation. He’s perfectly willing to break it. It’s up to us to keep him from succeeding. 

The answer is no. MAGA CULT is divorced from reality. Just look at FOS LIES:

Quote

NYT's banner headline: "JAN. 6 RIOT 'FUELED BY LIES,' INDICTMENT SAYS."
CNN’s T1 headline: "Trump indicted over efforts to overturn 2020 election."
HuffPost: "TRUMP CHARGED FOR COUP ATTEMPT."
Drudge Report: "MAGA NIGHTMARE"; "JACK SMITH CIRCLES DON."
The New York Post's front page: "CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES.” https://view.newsletters.cnn.com/messages/1690942429923fe1e8160b247/raw

VERSUS

Meanwhile, at Fox News, via its lower-thirds banners:
"THE DOJ HAS BECOME BIDEN CAMPAIGN HQ AT THIS POINT";
"THE DOJ HAS CRIMINALIZED POLITICS";
"IS JACK SMITH PRESIDENT BIDEN’S NEW UNOFFICIAL CAMPAIGN MANAGER?";
"SMITH'S INDICTMENT IS A LEGAL EMBARRASSMENT.” https://view.newsletters.cnn.com/messages/1690942429923fe1e8160b247/raw

They will never get the truth from FOS LIES.

[myata]

I cannot understand the position of Republicans who do not necessarily support Trump (or so they claim) but see this indictment as "a bad day for America". The country has independent attorneys who weigh the possibility of the evidence leading to the conviction, and independent legal courts.

Is sacking of the country's seat of power not enough to at least hear a fair examination of the charges in the court? Can anybody who expressed intent to enter the race claim immunity from prosecution on any matter? Or "witchhunt" otherwise?

This is sheer nonsense. You will see criminals registering to run for president only to delay prosecution. Or is this privilege assigned only to some loudmouth populists? On which democratic principle, by which democratic law and by which democratically legitimate office? No good answers. Cannot be. It looks to me as a beginning of a slippery slope, justification and rationalization for joining the mob, at least tacitly. There's something wrong with the system, so have to go with the mob to correct it (will it work? you know it never does).

No: it's very simple, really. The price for accepting insanity is letting go of one's principles, integrity and reason. Nothing less, and the history has shown it over and again. There aren't excuses, nor rationalizations. Only a trade, free choice and free will.

[robosmith]

The Big One: Trump is Indicted for Jan. 6

Quote

The charges laid out in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 45-page, four-count indictment will be the ones forever attached to Trump’s name. They will appear in the first line of his obituary. They will be the facts school children learn about him as long as school children learn facts about American presidents. Among the many extraordinary features of his most extraordinary presidency, the facts alleged here—and which the government must now prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury—are singularly defining.

Trump will always be the president charged by the government he led with pursuing, as the indictment puts it, unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the results of the presidential election that he lost. 

 

[robosmith]

Fox Pundits Are Trying to Get Back on Trump's Good Side After Third Indictment

Quote

History was made Tuesday evening, when former president Donald Trump was indicted for the third time this year as result of a federal investigation into his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. But that wasn't entirely apparent last night on Fox News, whose pundit, Greg Gutfeld, was doodling while his fellow panelists on The Five reacted to the unprecedented news. “It's just not as fun as the other topics we were going to do,” he claimed of the new charges, which, according to the Daily Beast, Gutfeld found less interesting than allegations that a bear in a Chinese zoo is actually a human in disguise.

Gutfeld said that “any sensible American” should “take what’s happening very seriously, adding that “it should anger them.” But “the actual charges,” he continued, "you can’t take seriously. They are feelings masquerading as facts. They’re opinions trying to be passed off as crimes. It’s garbage dressed up with a legal thesaurus.” While Gutfeld told viewers that the charges against Trump are effectively “criminalizing thoughts” and “criminalizing speech,” the indictment, as the New York Times notes, makes clear that Trump’s “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results”—not Trump’s false claims about the election, which he has a First Amendment right to make—are the focus of the criminal case.

The network's defense of Trump continued into primetime, with Jesse Watters declaring that the charges were akin to “political war crimes” and “overkill,” per Media Matters. Watters also claimed that “this is the establishment terrified of Donald Trump’s reelection,” warning that if Trump is reelected, “Payback is going to be a you know what. And you guys started it.” 

FOS LIES is still at it; and even an $800M penalty hasn't stopped them. ?

[robosmith]

U.S. v. Trump Will Be the Most Important Case in Our Nation’s History

Quote

It is hard to overstate the stakes riding on this indictment and prosecution. New polling from the New York Times shows that Trump not only has a commanding lead among those Republicans seeking the party’s presidential nomination in 2024; he remains very competitive in a race against Joe Biden.

After nearly a decade of Trump convincing many in the public that all charges against him are politically motivated, he’s virtually inoculated himself against political repercussions for deadly serious criminal counts. He’s miraculously seen a boost in support and fundraising after each indictment (though recent signs are that the indictments are beginning to take a small toll). One should not underestimate the chances that Donald Trump could be elected President in 2024 against Joe Biden—especially if Biden suffers any kind of health setback in the period up to the election—even if Trump is put on trial and convicted of crimes.

A trial is the best chance to educate the American public, as the January 6 House committee hearings did to some extent, about the actions Trump allegedly took to undermine American democracy and the rule of law. Constant publicity from the trial would give the American people in the middle of the election season a close look at the actions Trump took for his own personal benefit while putting lives and the country at risk.

It, of course, also serves the goals of justice and of deterring Trump, or any future likeminded would-be authoritarian, from attempting any similar attack on American democracy ever again. 

AKA, certainly NOT FRIVOLOUS. Duh

[myata]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

It, of course, also serves the goals of justice and of deterring Trump, or any future likeminded would-be authoritarian, from attempting any similar attack on American democracy ever again. 

As the history tells us, a society on an authoritarian swing can be in for many, many difficult problems. Something in it, this process is like a one-way tunnel; once a new low is accepted at least as innocuous if not normal, the new one is sought and so on. This is not as simple as lets push this button and see what happens in normal times. This is an erosion and degradation of democracy, live and in full swing. And extreme polarization that is naturally engendered by a duopoly had a big, possibly, the defining role in this.

[OftenWrong]

On 8/3/2023 at 7:05 AM, myata said:

Indeed this is a result of the explosive combination: totalitarian cult, transition times which somehow very often if not always engender totalitarian cults and extreme political polarization. It can destroy democracy and take the society with it, and it has. FPTP in no way helps in this conundrum. Where majority of population may retain basic sanity and stop authoritarians, in a majority system it may only take once to tip the balance. If somehow Trump would get to power again, he would save no effort to control it with his appointed cronies forever. And that would be a recipe for the scenario you mentioned; not ignoring his acts and attics because he's such a special kind of a ...

Let's say then it doesn't matter who wins, just changes the names of the cronies involved. We are surrounded on all sides. Biden is also corrupt. So the choice is to pick the kind of corrupt government you want to rule over you. 

[OftenWrong]

On 8/3/2023 at 5:48 AM, Rebound said:

Donald Trump never conned me. I’ve been into him all along.

That's cause he's not your type of president. You seem more of a war-mongering, mexican border crossing, little girl fondling president kind of guy.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

That's cause he's not your type of president. You seem more of a war-mongering, mexican border crossing, little girl fondling president kind of guy.

Joe withdrew from the war and caught a lot of grief for it.

He's reduced the number of border crossers dramatically with new policies.

And he never fondled a little girl, LIAR.

Why do you have to post BULLSHIT HERE? Desperate much.

[Rebound]

On 8/3/2023 at 1:27 PM, impartialobserver said:

Yes.... a lot of circumstantial stuff. 

Circumstantial? The January 6 insurrection was not circumstantial at all.  The fake electors were not circumstantial. Read the indictment for yourself. 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Rebound

[myata]

11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Biden is also corrupt.

Except not indicted by a legitimate democratic institution and not proven in the court of law. So no, not the same. Yes, there is objective difference, unless you want to let go of democracy and equate with any dictator regime. That is by the way an unmistakable trait of authoritarian mentality, mob-style: if it does not serve our, tribal ends something has to be wrong with it, "corrupt". And then it chooses itself an idol that does just that. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

[robosmith]

There Is No First Amendment Right to Organize a Coup

Quote

Former President Donald Trump never stops talking. He has an unusual habit of saying whatever is on his mind, no matter how factually inaccurate, off-color, or otherwise counterproductive. This has endeared him to a certain portion of Americans and largely alienated everyone else. Now Trumpworld is still claiming that the Justice Department is somehow violating Trump’s First Amendment rights by indicting him this week for conspiring to overthrow the 2020 election.

“This is an attack on free speech and political advocacy,” John Lauro, one of Trump’s lawyers, told CNN earlier this week. “And there’s nothing that’s more protected under the First Amendment than political speech.” Rudy Giuliani waved around a copy of the indictment on Newsmax and said that “this one will be your legacy, violating the right of free speech of an American citizen,” referring to special counsel Jack Smith. “President Trump had every right under the First Amendment to correctly raise concerns about election integrity in 2020,” claimed New York Representative Elise Stefanik, a leading House Republican.

In the indictment on Tuesday, federal prosecutors made clear that they were distinguishing between protected First Amendment activities and criminal conduct. “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,” the indictment said in its third paragraph. “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,” the indictment continued. “His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.” These latter actions are what have earned Trump four charges for conspiring to defraud the United States and prevent people’s votes from counting.

To call the president’s defenders’ legal theories spurious would be an understatement.

Trumpworld’s unbounded view of free speech, if applied consistently, would eliminate most state and federal crimes. After all, perjury is speech. (That did not stop independent counsel Ken Starr from investigating Bill Clinton for it or the House for impeaching him over it.) Bribery is speech. Many types of fraud are speech. Insider trading is speech. Identity theft is speech. Forging checks is speech. Telling state secrets to foreign governments is speech. The First Amendment makes it impossible for prosecutors to charge Americans with things like lèse-majesté, blasphemy, heresy, and making bomb threats. It also narrows the government’s ability to prosecute speech unless in direct furtherance of a crime. It is not a license for anarchy. 

Trump was indicted for HIS ACTIONS, NOT his LIES.

[WestCanMan]

On 8/3/2023 at 4:05 AM, myata said:

Indeed this is a result of the explosive combination: totalitarian cult, transition times which somehow very often if not always engender totalitarian cults and extreme political polarization. It can destroy democracy and take the society with it, and it has.

Your sudden burst of honesty about the Dems is to be commended ?