Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

Questioning an election is one thing. Intentionally spreading disinformation, and pressuring a VP to do unlawful activities to keep you in power is a different thing.

Disinformation is a retarded word. In this context “spreading disinformation” implies a nefarious motive, which, if he believes the election was stolen, he’s “spreading” what he thinks is the truth. There isn’t a law against being delusional.

Also, claiming what he did was unlawful also implies that what he asked the VP to do was a crime. His legal advisers told him the VP had the authority to do it. I don’t think he does have that authority. But the remedy for that is to challenge it in court. And Trump would have lost. And we’d still have the senile old pedophile in the White House that we have now.

 

[jamil]

Was it intentionally spreading disinformation if Trump didn't believe it was disinformation? It's all a question of mindset. Was it an unlawful act trying to convince Pence to test an untested legal theory? The persecution has to prove that they were intentionally trying to commit an unlawful act.

Lol. “Persecution”. Intentional or not, it’s what it is.

 

[jamil]

Who on INGO has taken your money and given it to their friends?

Wait. Bug was giving out money? When was this? I didn’t get any. I just want my fair share. Is there a signup sheet I was supposed to fill out? Is it too late to sign up?

 

[jamil]

Depends on the jury.

If the jury is made up from the same people as the grand jury in NY, it’s definitely not going Trump’s way regardless of the facts.

 

[jamil]

I think people are too hung up on whether he lied or not. Proving fraud is much more than just lying.

Proving that he knew the truth and still claimed the election was stolen, which is what they’re alleging, necessarily means they have to prove that he lied. How can you say he defrauded people if he believed the election was stolen. I think he still believes it.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Proving that he knew the truth and still claimed the election was stolen, which is what they’re alleging, necessarily means they have to prove that he lied. How can you say he defrauded people if he believed the election was stolen. I think he still believes it.

Im not a lawyer, so I ask this out of genuine curiosity:

Legally speaking, is the question whether or not Trump believed the election was stolen, or whether the average “Reasonable Person” would?

It is one of those points that doesn’t seem significant at first, but could make a real difference on how the case is argued and decided.

There are going to be a bunch of witnesses testifying that they knew the election was not stolen, and that they advised Trump accordingly. Only Trump knows if he really believe he won 2020, but a compelling case can be argued that a reasonable person faced with the same information would not.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Disinformation is a retarded word. In this context “spreading disinformation” implies a nefarious motive, which, if he believes the election was stolen, he’s “spreading” what he thinks is the truth. There isn’t a law against being delusional.

Also, claiming what he did was unlawful also implies that what he asked the VP to do was a crime. His legal advisers told him the VP had the authority to do it. I don’t think he does have that authority. But the remedy for that is to challenge it in court. And Trump would have lost. And we’d still have the senile old pedophile in the White House that we have now.

Or saying it was unlawful implies it was in no way supported by the law or the constitution. Trump wanted to place himself above the law for selfish gain.

 

[KG1]

Lol. “Persecution”. Intentional or not, it’s what it is.

Intentional. That's the way I see it.

 

[Tombs]

Questioning an election is one thing. Intentionally spreading disinformation, and pressuring a VP to do unlawful activities to keep you in power is a different thing.

It wasn't unlawful.

In fact, right after the election they passed a law to make it illegal for the VP to do just that. Which is admission that it was lawful at the time.

Calling it an unlawful act is spreading disinformation.

 

[jamil]

Im not a lawyer, so I ask this out of genuine curiosity:

Legally speaking, is the question whether or not Trump believed the election was stolen, or whether the average “Reasonable Person” would?

It is one of those points that doesn’t seem significant at first, but could make a real difference on how the case is argued and decided.

There are going to be a bunch of witnesses testifying that they knew the election was not stolen, and that they advised Trump accordingly. Only Trump knows if he really believe he won 2020, but a compelling case can be argued that a reasonable person faced with the same information would not.

Well everyone in this conversation isn’t a lawyer as far as I know so we all have the same access to information about fraud. A key component of fraud is deception, the other is intending to harm for whatever purpose.

If Trump was deceiving people, to “steal” the election, probably fraud is appropriate charge. But, obviously, if Trump “deceived” people then I don’t think the standard would be what a reasonable person would believe. It’s whether Trump knew that he lost the election and lied about it in service of defrauding whoever.

But. To GFGT’s point, ain’t no jury gonna acquit Trump anyway. I don’t think Trump can get a fair trial. Everyone is too polarized. People either love him or hate him. Haters will convict regardless how weak the evidence is. Trumpers would nullify even if strong evidence existed for guilt.

Let me ask this. Say you’re on the jury. Defense provide strong evidence that puts the fed’s case in doubt. Do you acquit?

 

[indyartisan]

Wonder what evidence Trump has to prove election fraud.
He has said he has the proof many times.
Should be interesting.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Wonder what evidence Trump has to prove election fraud.
He has said he has the proof many times.
Should be interesting.

He’s got it. He’s going to unleash the kraken one day! Just keep waiting! Just keep drinking the kook aid until it does come out.

 

[indyartisan]

He’s got it. He’s going to unleash the kraken one day! Just keep waiting! Just keep drinking the kook aid until it does come out.

It’s finally coming to trial though now.
If he has the evidence I would think it will be presented.

 

[jamil]

Wonder what evidence Trump has to prove election fraud.
He has said he has the proof many times.
Should be interesting.

If there is a good time to present this evidence, I’d say at the trial would be the place.

 

[indyblue]

Federal Judge Dismisses 14A Lawsuit Attempting to Keep Trump off Ballot

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s presence on the presidential ballot under the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

www.breitbart.com

 

[jamil]

Standing.


Well. Live by the sword; die by the sword.

 

[Tombs]

Wonder what evidence Trump has to prove election fraud.
He has said he has the proof many times.
Should be interesting.

Well that was tried many, many, many times. The courts kept kicking the can down the road citing "standing" so they didn't have to get involved.

Laying out a litany of evidence outside of a trial, when the public is already polarized to this extent, wouldn't change anything. Those that believe it was a fraudulent election will believe so, and those that don't still won't.

So the ultimate question should be, why would the courts keep kicking the can down the road instead of hearing the case? If it's just bogus nonsense, then I'm sure there's plenty of things the court could do to punish bringing the case. Things will get mighty awkward if the court finds the claims legitimate.

 

[Magyars]

 

[DragonGunner]

Trump doesn’t have to prove election fraud. He only had to prove that in his mind he thought there was. I think he has proved that over and over. It’s all a bogus case against him and the American people. However the democrats have opened the door to have the court watch 12 Mules, and anything else mainstream media discarded. If they do that then all democrat jury will see and hear things they never saw or knew. But won’t be surprised when the democrat judges say they can’t use it in court.

 

[HoosierLife]

If the jury is made up from the same people as the grand jury in NY, it’s definitely not going Trump’s way regardless of the facts.

I mean come on. Trying cases in super liberal ATL, DC, and NYC were not an accident.