Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

Fraud is a specific intent crime. It requires the intent to defraud. If you actually believe what you are saying is true, it is not and cannot be fraud.

 

Which is the key to this case, right? There is evidence of multiple people inside the White House and justice department telling Trump that what he was planning was illegal. He himself is quoted in the indictment as calling Sydney Powell's advice "crazy". Is his defense really going to be that he plugged his ears and yelled "nahnahnahnah I can't hear you" when they were speaking but that he listened raptly to, and fell under the spell of, Eastman and Giuliani?

 

Relevant...

 

So you are saying if you believe an election result was incorrect, it justifies Trump into innocently telling people to be fake electors to change the outcome? Or calling up Georgia to change results?

I don't think that's how it works. You can't do those things without being aware it's wrong, even if you believe what you are saying it's true. To claim the President doesn't know the laws is ridiculous. He does.

 

In that case then you could never prosecute anyone for fraud. If I ran a ponzi scheme I could simply claim that I actually believed it would work and all the investors would be repayed in full.

 

I reckon the "not getting special treatment" idea went by the way side. If I ever get arrested I will ask they use my old Compaq badge photo... it makes me look much younger and thinner.

 

Yet maga republicans will continue this lie to defend trump...

 

What I find amusing about the defense that lying about the outcome of the election is a free speech issue is that it implicitly concedes that he did try to disenfranchise millions of voters with his lying even if we were to say it was legal to do so. Falling back to free speech gives up a lot of political ground -- maybe it keeps him out of prison (doubtful) but you really want to vote again for a guy who tried to lie his way out of losing the last election? And of course, many in the primary do, though maybe not in the general. If he had an argument to make that his allegations about the last election were meritorious, then maybe someone would have a positive reason to vote for him again. But as it is, he's saying he lied to all of us about a rigged election last time as his First Amendment right to do, but we should vote for him this next time. Idk, I don't find that very compelling.

That is a pretty chilling part of the indictment, but it's really the only sentence in the whole thing that intimates that official repression would be used to quell civil unrest in this coup. It could be something Trump said to Jeffrey Clark, or it could be Clark's own idea. There is nothing else in the indictment that shows any preparations made to invoke the Insurrection Act. So I don't expect the prosecution to really go there. At most, I think we can surmise that Trump figured he had options if his coup succeeded and people protested.

 

It's a good number.

 

pretty much where I stand:

http://theglitteringeye.com/reminder-12/

Reminder
Dave Schuler August 3, 2023

Considering the latest arraignment perhaps it’s time to make one of my periodic disclaimers. I think that

1. I have never voted for Donald Trump and do not intend to do so if he becomes the Republican nominee in 2024 as is widely expected.
2. I will not vote for anyone, Republican or Democrat, whom I consider to be of low character.
3. President Trump should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
4. Many may be very surprised at how difficult it will be to secure a conviction.
5. Even if convicted the “extent of the law” may not be as great as some seem to hope.

Any charge that requires mens rea, intent, which I believe is all of them will be much more difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt than some seem to think.​

 

It is hard to believe that there are 86 Rs who are Never Trumpers.

But it easy to believe that that are 86 True Believer Trumpers who would rather not have an extended stint in Club Fed.

 

I hope trump does take the stand and just starts babbling about how the election was stolen.

 

And where is Mark Meadows hiding? Is he one of the 86......................hmmmmm. I would hope most rational gop members would not want to go to jail for lying, I mean they are all about law and order........until there on the wrong end of the "order" and then its discrimination.

 

Legal experts tear apart Trump’s defenses in Jan. 6 prosecution

When special counsel Jack Smith announced, on Tuesday, August 1, that Donald Trump had been indicted on four criminal charges in connection with his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, it didn't take Fox News and other right-wing media outlets long to rush to the former president's defense. Far-right pundits on Fox News and MAGA-friendly AM talk radio stations have been slamming the indictment as a partisan assault on Trump's constitutional rights, often echoing the former president's own rhetoric.

But in articles published by The Bulwark and Axios on August 3, some legal experts tear apart the talking points that Trump defenders have been reciting since the indictment was handed down.

In The Bulwark — a conservative website with a decidedly Never Trump perspective — attorney Philip Rotner notes that two of Trump's main defenses are "I really believed it" and "I relied on the advice of counsel." But Smith's prosecution, Rotner predicts, will "ultimately lay waste to those defenses."

"Most of the political arguments made by Trump's supporters in response to the indictment are just that: political, not legal, defenses," Rotner explains. "The claim that the indictment was designed to distract from 'ongoing legal troubles' of President Joe Biden's son Hunter, for instance, may have ramifications for the 2024 presidential election, but it won't mean anything in a criminal trial. The case will rise or fall on its merits, and Hunter Biden will have no role in it."

The attorney continues, "But Trump's two stock legal defenses — that he sincerely believed he had won the 2020 election and that he relied on the advice of counsel in his post-election activities — will be very much in play."

Rotner notes that the "I really believed it" defense would involve convincing jurors that he genuinely believed the 2020 election was stolen.

"If he could convince a jury that he truly believed he had won the election," the attorney argues, "some of the overt acts alleged against him, standing alone, might look less sinister. But those acts do not stand alone. Rather, they are powerful evidence of the criminal conspiracy alleged in the indictment. And while some of the overt acts alleged against Trump might look less damning if Trump could show he truly believed he won the election, others would not. Even a sincere, deeply held belief that the election had been stolen would not, for instance, give Trump license to participate in a fake-electors scheme."

According to Rotner, the problem with Trump's "I relied on the advice of counsel" defense is that "the attorneys on whom he might claim to have relied — Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell — are unlikely to testify because they are either named or unnamed co-conspirators with potential criminal liability of their own."

"If any of them do testify," Rotner points out, "they risk being exposed as liars and frauds who can be torn to shreds on the witness stand. The attorneys who will testify, on the other hand, are credible professionals — many of whom, like Bill Barr and Pat Cipollone, were appointed by Trump himself — who will establish that Trump did not rely on the advice of counsel."

John Lauro, an attorney representing Trump, is claiming that the former president was merely exercising his 1st Amendment rights when he questioned the 2020 election results — not attempting a coup. But Axios' Sam Baker, in his August 1 article, stresses that Trump "is not being indicted for what he said" but because Smith alleges that his "actions amounted to a criminal conspiracy."

University of Minnesota law professor Alan Rozenshtein told Axios, " There's no First Amendment right to participate in a conspiracy…. I don't expect there to be any serious First Amendment issues here."

Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, during an August 2 appearance on CNN, emphasized that Trump's 1st Amendment rights are not being questioned in Smith's case.

The conservative Barr told CNN's Kaitlin Collins, "He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen, when he knew better. But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech, and all fraud involves speech. So, free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy."​

 

Trump indictment: Here’s how prosecutors will try to prove he knowingly lied and intended to break the law

https://theconversation.com/trump-i...gly-lied-and-intended-to-break-the-law-210533

excerpt:

What was Donald Trump thinking when he set about trying to maintain the presidency after losing it to Joe Biden?

That’s the key question a jury will need to consider in Trump’s federal trial on charges announced Aug. 1, 2023, stemming from Trump’s attempts to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The latest indictment charges Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States; to obstruct an official government proceeding; and to deprive U.S. citizens of a civil right – namely, to have their vote count.

In a fourth count, Trump is charged with obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, an official proceeding of Congress.

As a criminal law scholar, it’s my belief that the key to a conviction or acquittal on these counts will be what jurors believe to be Trump’s state of mind at the time of these alleged events.

***
As the country contemplates these indictments, it’s important to remember that federal prosecutors will dissect everything Trump did, said or heard to argue that his behavior indicates that he intended to commit the crimes for which he is charged.
​

more

 

A recent report from the Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Policy and Research on who exactly the Jan. 6 defendants are adds further context. Like a majority of the 716 who were charged in the first year after the attack, Trump has been charged with felonies. Like a plurality of those charged, he’s a business owner. And like the vast majority, he is white and male. There are, of course, a few differences.

But one other point in the Seton Hall report should make Trump and his lawyers nervous: “As of June 12, 2023, of the 716 defendants profiled by the Center for Policy and Research, only one has been fully acquitted with two cases dismissed voluntarily by the prosecution. In fact, more defendants have died (5) or fled (4) since January 6 than have prevailed in court (3).”​

 

We’re lucky that Biden hasn’t been able to kill more than 5 and disappear 4. Very lucky.