US Politics: Felon-in-Chief

[Martell Spy]

What is really hard is getting a conviction if  you never indict in the first place because it's too hard. Not indicting, or stopping at what's already been done is the 100 percent chance that Trump completely walks with a slap on the wrist (barring some crazy result on the douments cases)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

What is really hard is getting a conviction if  you never indict in the first place because it's too hard. Not indicting, or stopping at what's already been done is the 100 percent chance that Trump completely walks with a slap on the wrist (barring some crazy result on the douments cases)

Yes.  

That said if you indict without carefully building a case.  Lining up witnesses and planning strategy… you end up losing.

I, for one, would prefer to see the case against Trump go well rather than assuming “everyone” wants Trump convicted and moving on that assumption.

[Tywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

So even though I basically agree with Ty here that Trump committed crimes,  I'm pretty sure I recall Trump insisting throughout the tape he won Georgia by a lot and finding the additional votes should be easy.  

There is a problem of Trump's false consciousness or willful delusion here, I think you still have intent.  The other part of this is Trump's personal involvement in the effort to get false or alternate electors sent from Georgia.  We don't have to guess about the potential crimes here: the Jan.6 committee already laid out a roadmap.  

My understanding is this has never been a credible defense unless you can really prove the person is insane, which Trump likely will never do and no rational person could believe (even if he is legit off his rocker). 

6 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Except it's not like that because he didn't actually do the equivalent of killing a guy. If you have the actual evidence of that crime I think that'd be pretty neat! But he is on tape requesting something and not getting it. 

People go to jail all the time for trying to hire a hitman. The act is enough regardless if they ever try to kill the person.

Quote

So now you have to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence you're allowed to introduce - that he actively was soliciting election fraud (which means you have to prove that he understood that what he was asking for was fraud, among other things), and you have to prove that he conspired with someone - IE, actually planned to carry something out - in order to go forward.

He doesn't actually have to know it was fraud, at least from my reading of the laws I've seen (and neither of us are lawyers). The intent was clear and again it was caught on a recording so it's not like it can be explained away. He directly asked for a crime to be committed several times, so it's not a slip of the tongue. He then defend his actions which is enough to establish that he knew what he was doing. No other politician would ever get away with what Trump did.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

@Kal -- If election fraud isn't a crime, why is he being investigated about it?  Including the collusion with Putin/Russia. Just like he's being investigated for all sorts of financial frauds.  And sedition.  Also, why are you hysterical that these aren't provable crimes (yes they can be proven)?  At least your tone coming through sounds/feel hysterical over here.  Just curious.

I didn't say election fraud isn't a crime. I said that Trump is not being charged with @Tywin et al.'s fictitious idea of the crime 'actively trying to falsify an election', which doesn't exist as a crime in the Georgia caselaw. And he isn't being investigated in that crime!

Sorry that I sound hysterical to you. I don't feel that way. I am not saying that these aren't provable crimes; I'm saying that proving them beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence they have is very difficult, and it is far more difficult than you and Tywin believe it to be, because y'all don't understand the legal burden of guilt or the actual laws that he potentially violated.

7 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Urm... what?  That sounds just about as right as that "VPOTUS can overrule the result of the election and pick any president-elect he likes" pitch, which once upon a time gained some popularity as the solution of the problem "what if Trump lost the election, but really doesn't want to leave?". 

Again, there is no crime of 'actively trying to falsify an election' any more than there's a crime to cheat someone at calvinball. 

He is being investigated - not indicted yet - on solicitation to commit election fraud and conspiracy to commit election fraud. Both of these require a few parts (and other actual lawyers can jump in if I get this wrong, mind you!) - they require that there is an act of solicitation/conspiracy, they require a specific crime to be solicited/planned, and they require a fair amount of intent. 

• For solicitation the soliciting is fairly simple to prove as we have it on tape. What we don't have is the specific crime. Trump didn't ask for any number of the things that are illegal in Georgia that are spelled out by law - he didn't ask specifically for things like votes to be destroyed, or people to perjure themselves, or falsify ballots, or falsify the count. Those are all laws that exist on the books in Georgia. Can you prove that he meant those things? That's really tough. 
• For conspiracy we don't have a conspiracy on tape. We need to have some record of Trump planning to call the SoS of Georgia with the plan to commit fraud. Does that exist? I don't actually know, but in general conspiracies are pretty hard to prove without one of the conspirators flipping and playing witness.
• And then in both cases we have the intent issue. Was Trump's intent to actually commit a crime? Given his future explanations of it being a perfectly beautiful call that is very much in doubt. 

Again, not saying that this means he isn't a shady fucker or even that it can't be proven - only saying that it is not remotely the cut and dried case that y'all are making it out to be.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  

That said if you indict without carefully building a case.  Lining up witnesses and planning strategy… you end up losing.

I, for one, would prefer to see the case against Trump go well rather than assuming “everyone” wants Trump convicted and moving on that assumption.

I would too! That said, prosecutors will often not push cases that don't have a good shot of conviction and I'm attempting to point out why it may be very difficult to convict, and why a prosecutor may be unwilling.

By comparison the classified documents? That's much easier to get a conviction on as far as that goes, and it STILL is going to be hard. 

[Tywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  

That said if you indict without carefully building a case.  Lining up witnesses and planning strategy… you end up losing.

I, for one, would prefer to see the case against Trump go well rather than assuming “everyone” wants Trump convicted and moving on that assumption.

I think this is usually the problem with the judicial system. So many lawyers, DAs and prosecutors are afraid to lose. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My understanding is this has never been a credible defense unless you can really prove the person is insane, which Trump likely will never do and no rational person could believe (even if he is legit off his rocker). 

It's a very reasonable defense and is very easy to make a juror think that he wasn't trying to commit a crime. 

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

People go to jail all the time for trying to hire a hitman. The act is enough regardless if they ever try to kill the person. 

Sure! So? 

Do they go to jail because they were just asking for someone to not be around as much? Or maybe that they tell a hitman that they don't like a guy? Because there's a difference between me contacting someone and saying 'I want you to kill someone' and 'I want you to find votes'. The latter is not specifically a crime. Heck, depending on the interpretation he could be just as easily chiding him for not doing his job as secretary of state!

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He doesn't actually have to know it was fraud, at least from my reading of the laws I've seen (and neither of us are lawyers). The intent was clear and again it was caught on a recording so it's not like it can be explained away. He directly asked for a crime to be committed several times, so it's not a slip of the tongue. He then defend his actions which is enough to establish that he knew what he was doing. No other politician would ever get away with what Trump did.

If you don't have clear evidence of the crime he's asking to commit - ballot destruction or ballot forgery or something - then you absolutely need to show that Trump was intending for the SoS to commit fraud, or that the SoS would naturally believe that he was doing that.

And again I ask - what crime did he ask to be committed? Find me the Georgia law that shows what crime he is asking for to be done. Because no where will you find 'find the votes' to be a crime. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

I would too! That said, prosecutors will often not push cases that don't have a good shot of conviction and I'm attempting to point out why it may be very difficult to convict, and why a prosecutor may be unwilling.

By comparison the classified documents? That's much easier to get a conviction on as far as that goes, and it STILL is going to be hard. 

Yes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think this is usually the problem with the judicial system. So many lawyers, DAs and prosecutors are afraid to lose. 

Politically… what would the impact of Trump beating a DOJ criminal case be?

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-possible-charges-crimes-georgia-1781705#:~:text=Trump could face a total,) Act%2C according to CREW.

Clearly there are laws he could have violated and should be found guilty of in a rational world. Do I need to play the clip from Scarface where his lawyer explains to Tony they've got him and he can't make it seem like TM found all that money in a taxi?

It's absolutely nothing like that Scarface scene or he'd be charged on all those counts already.  The article you quoted is a   "Could be charged with" -we've been hearing that since 2016, the same dumb ass breathless coverage that's kept Trump in the spotlight.  

You know better than to assume because a nonprofit can list ten statutes Trump could have violated that it means he's going to be, or that there's even a decent case.  If that phone call was so incriminating how come he isn't in jail or holed up over a big ol' cocaine pile at Mar-a-lago waiting for the goon squad to show up guns blazing?

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think this is usually the problem with the judicial system. So many lawyers, DAs and prosecutors are afraid to lose. 

Well anyone else would be bullied into a plea bargain.  They aren't afraid to lose, they're afraid to go after powerful people.  They have zero issue charging regular people on shoddy evidence.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Well anyone else would be bullied into a plea bargain.  They aren't afraid to lose, they're afraid to go after powerful people.  They have zero issue charging regular people on shoddy evidence.  

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Tywin.  If the DOJ loses its criminal cases against Trump… how will it impact politics in the US?

[Kalbear]

I keep thinking of this clip, because that's the thing with Trump too - he's very good like all organized criminals are in understanding a lot of the specific limitations that he needs to skate by. 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Tywin.  If the DOJ loses its criminal cases against Trump… how will it impact politics in the US?

I think the GA phone call is a particularly weak thing to go after him on.

To your question- I don't know- worst case scenario we end up with a situation where all past presidents are charged with crimes upon leaving office.  Which might not be that bad! I think all of the POTUS's in my lifetime have been criminals but that's neither here nor there.  

[Tywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

It's a very reasonable defense and is very easy to make a juror think that he wasn't trying to commit a crime. 

How so? In the world of politics he's basically asking if someone would kill his wife. Again, he's not demanding it, but he's asking if they will do it. That to me should be enough.

Quote

And again I ask - what crime did he ask to be committed? Find me the Georgia law that shows what crime he is asking for to be done. Because no where will you find 'find the votes' to be a crime. 

I'm not a lawyer from GA, don't ask me to be one, but I've heard a number of them say he clearly broke several laws.

Why Are you defending Trump? This should be as open and shut as things come and like I said before, if it isn't, the entire legal field is completely fucked. We had multiple very obvious attempts at a coup. 

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Politically… what would the impact of Trump beating a DOJ criminal case be?

What would be the impact of them being too scared to even try? For me that's been the problem, they're afraid despite having the evidence. And has it earned them anything? Republicans hate them even more now and Democrats are largely asking WTF they're waiting for. 

12 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

It's absolutely nothing like that Scarface scene or he'd be charged on all those counts already.  The article you quoted is a   "Could be charged with" -we've been hearing that since 2016, the same dumb ass breathless coverage that's kept Trump in the spotlight.  

See above. We've seen over and over that people with the power to act simply are not willing. Just look at Garland. He's a coward through and through. Mueller had enough evidence to really try, but he didn't either. Thankfully Jack Smith seems to be different.

13 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Well anyone else would be bullied into a plea bargain.  They aren't afraid to lose, they're afraid to go after powerful people.  They have zero issue charging regular people on shoddy evidence.  

WHICH IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM AND WE NEED TO SCREAM IT FROM EVERY ROOF.

[Martell Spy]

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think this is usually the problem with the judicial system. So many lawyers, DAs and prosecutors are afraid to lose. 

I suspect Garland is much more afraid of actually getting a former President convicted of anything more than a documents case. And that's also why he was hired.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What would be the impact of them being too scared to even try? For me that's been the problem, they're afraid despite having the evidence. And has it earned them anything? Republicans hate them even more now and Democrats are largely asking WTF they're waiting for. 

There aren’t two criminal indictments pending against Donald J. Trump?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Do you really believe that Kal is defending Trump, or is he explaining to you why he's probably not going to be charged on anything related to that phone call?

[Tywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

I keep thinking of this clip, because that's the thing with Trump too - he's very good like all organized criminals are in understanding a lot of the specific limitations that he needs to skate by. 

 

Spoiler, Leo lost because the FBI agent went after him. He wasn't worried about if he might lose. 

[Zorral]

33 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Trump was intending for the SoS to commit fraud, or that the SoS would naturally believe that he was doing that.

 

He told Pence to stop the certification.  The phony electors scheme.  The NSA document that was Russia and Trump's colluding re the 2016 election that Reality winner went to prison for trying to expose to the public, these are all very serious wrong doings.