Isn't it a "fraught topic" for Democrats too?! This is the sharpest example of concern trolling I've ever seen. It's going to "hurt Republicans" if Trump uses the opportunity of the criminal trial to break open the question of the legitimacy of the 2020 election?
Let's keep reading:
Trump’s defense team has signaled that they’ll focus on rebutting prosecutors’ allegations that Trump knew his fraud claims were false.... Trump has said that he wanted to subpoena people about the 2020 election and argue that he won, as prosecutors allege that he knew he lost and that his claims were false, according to people close to the former president, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
But the prospect of revisiting the validity of the last election has delighted Democrats....
Oh?! How nice for them to be having such a lovely time persecuting their political enemy. But maybe their manifestations of delight — if indeed there were any — were covering up for the dread of what might be behind the door the prosecutors have opened. Prosecutors have powers, but they have given up control to the judge (and jury). Trump has a constitutional right to counter their evidence with cross-examination and witnesses of his own.
There are mountains of evidence — provided by top leaders in his campaign and government — that the election was not stolen from Trump....
These "top leaders" will be subject to cross-examination. Are the "delighted Democrats" not afraid?
पोस्ट्स
८६ टिप्पण्या:
They probably read Legal Insurrection
rhhardin in reply to jhkrischel. | August 2, 2023 at 4:20 pm
It does give Trump standing to offer evidence of endless hundreds of examples of fraud in the election, if anybody’s been compiling them, against the prosecution claim that the election was clean. Just as a campaign benefit.
He has never had standing before on the issue.
I don't think you understand how show trials work, Ann.
Will the judge not allow Trump to present a defense that the 2020 election really was stolen?
The judge isn't required to allow that, and I predict, will NOT ALLOW Trump or his attorney's to present that defense for argument before the jury.
Judges all the time prevent people from presenting certain defenses.
Anyway, as I said, this is a show trial. Expecting anything other than a conviction is juvenile.
---Are the "delighted Democrats" not afraid?
Apparently not. But I agree 100% with your point. The Democrats' hubris and recklessness offer a lot of potential for an equally dizzying fall.
Looking forward to it. Hoping, crossing fingers; something has to give at some point and maybe this will be that point! Donald crucified on a cross of pixels. And then resurrected?
And the trial court judge absolutely must allow that evidence. Otherwise, reversible error.
They have been banging the drum hard on MSNBC for Chief Justice Robert to allow the DC trial to be televised. By all means! The People can then see what a weak and political case the Dems have.
And I stand by my prediction that the MAGA crowd will surround the DC courthouse. It happened in Hennepin County during the Derek Chauvin trial. Peaceable assembly and all that. First Amendment, baby!
I keep reading that “Trump knew these stolen election statements were lies because he had attorneys and advisors tell him he lost.”
Experts agree I guess, and the President of the US cannot have a different opinion.
Or do the democrats just always have advisors that parrot whatever the master says and does. Never any dissension?
In a regular trial with a regular jury (not a political trial with a DC jury) this would go nowhere. How the hell can you prove he “knew” his statements were false? You can’t. Unless he’s on tape saying “I know it’s bullshit but say it anyway to stir people up”
Or maybe that Cassidy Hutchison chick can testify that “he said something to the effect of…[made up BS inserted here]”
I'll explain it for you, Althouse.
In 2022, a large number of Republicans ran as "Trump" Republicans, winning their primaries by aligning themselves closely with Trump, gaining his approval and endorsement, and in so doing, they all claimed that Trump's 2020 election had been stolen.
With few exceptions, those Republicans all lost in the general election. In places where mainstream Republicans had succeeded previously. In an election cycle (a midterm election for a Democratic-incumbent President; one with low approval ratings) where one would think that Republicans would have the upper hand.
In short, a terrible election performance for Republicans who subscribed to the Big Lie.
Kari Lake
Blake Masters
Doug Mastriano
Mehmet Oz
Tudor Dixon
Matt DePerno
Kristina Karamo
Et cetera, et cetera.
Election deniers did, as mentioned, succeed in GOP primaries, and in places that are functionally GOP primaries. Like many gerrymandered House races; like statewide races in states such as Alabama or Wyoming. But in the main, in seriously contested statewide elections and swing Congressional Districts -- where the balance of the US Senate and the Presidential Electoral College and perhaps the House majority are won -- I always like the idea of pushing TrumpWing Republicans into their extremist corners.
So when we Trump opponents see "The Relitigation of the 2020 Election, in a Federal Court with a Judge Operating Under the Federal Rules of Evidence," we see it as likely to be personally and politically satisfying. I actually don't think it is going to happen. I don't think it is relevant to the charged crimes. But if it did happen, I'd be delighted.
Haven't there been several state supreme court decisions saying that their laws were broken? I believe there are multiple decisions from Wisconsin, the Michigan supreme court said the blanket mailing of mail-in ballots to every registered voter was against the law. But in each case the remedy was, there is no remedy, the election is over. With the right litigation team, this could be a brilliant expose on what we have learned in the past three years. If the judge will permit it - big if - because it could get ugly. Imagine calling that Michigan Sec of state as a defense witness. 'Sir you are a democrat, correct? You voted for Biden, correct? Show me where in the Michigan code you are authorized to send mail-in ballots to every voter in the state?' Every time they fudge you hit him over the nose with the supreme court opinion.
They may have really stepped in it here.
It’s called discovery, is it not?
"This is the sharpest example of concern trolling I've ever seen. It's going to "hurt Republicans"..."
They're concerned about potential harm to Democrats who currently identify as Republicans, no doubt.
This post will not age well
If Trump tries to relitigate 2020 on the campaign trail, I think that would turn people off and hurt Republicans.
But in court, as defendant in a trial that may turn on whether he believes (and, therefore, the reasonableness of believing has significant value), Trump has a forum nobody can complain about. He can relitigate to his heart's content and it will be totally appropriate.
Buckwheat:
Hack Smith has made the legitimacy of the 2020 election an issue. Trump's state of mind - and whether it was reasonable to believe the election was stolen- is an issue. If the judge doesn't allow it, it is reversible error. Or it really is a political show trial.
BTW, what if the MAGA crowd started picketing her house. AG Garland let the Left picket the houses of Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett et al. First Amendment, baby!
Look, when you've got folks like Alvin Bragg, Fanni Willis, Leticia James and Jack Smith running your railroad, it doesn't matter what the schedule says. These are the best and the brightest, they know what they're doing, and Trump is toast.
If he really had evidence, he could have presented it in the lawsuit he voluntarily dismissed in Georgia. 🤣😅🤣
https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-legal-team-dismisses-remaining-georgia-lawsuits
When it was put up or shut up time, Trump shut up. If he would have proved his case when he had the chance, he probably wouldn't be facing the legal problems he now faces. Instead, maybe all those "election stealers" would be facing the music. But, he ran away either because he is giant, blowhard coward, or because this is all a load of bullshit. 🤣
If he really had evidence, he could have presented it in the lawsuit he voluntarily dismissed in Georgia. ������
https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-legal-team-dismisses-remaining-georgia-lawsuits
When it was put up or shut up time, Trump shut up. If he would have proved his case when he had the chance, he probably wouldn't be facing the legal problems he now faces. Instead, maybe all those "election stealers" would be facing the music. But, he ran away either because he is giant, blowhard coward, or because this is all a load of bullshit. ��
R. Duke said...
...Imagine calling that Michigan Sec of state as a defense witness. 'Sir you are a democrat, correct? You voted for Biden, correct? Show me where in the Michigan code you are authorized to send mail-in ballots to every voter in the state?' Every time they fudge you hit him over the nose with the supreme court opinion.
That didn't happen in Michigan. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (Former Dean of the Wayne State University Law School, Professor of Law specializing in election law, author of the leading national text on the offices of state secretaries of state) did direct her office to mail out absentee ballot APPLICATIONS to all persons on the state's qualified voter list. It was during COVID. The Secretary used federal CARES Act funding (signed into law by Trump) to fund the operation.
Secretary Benson was sued for having done so, and eventually a Michigan appeals court ruled that her doing so was a technical violation of statute law applying to the functioning of local election clerks. But at the same time, it was universally recognized by legal authorities (courts, clerks, the state board of canvassers, a state senate committee tasked with review of the 2020 election) that the mailing of absentee ballot applications had no deleterious effect on the election. Michigan had approved, in a statewide vote in 2018, universal no-excuse absentee voting.
So when you call Secretary Benson as a witness in your trial, counsel, and you start by calling her, "Sir," I can promise you it is going to go downhill from there and I think I have shown you why.
"Former president Donald Trump and some of his legal advisers see an upside to the latest criminal case against him: He can use his upcoming trial to further argue his false claims of a stolen 2020 election...."
When I started seeing this technique a couple years ago, of characterizing the other side’s claims as false in the headline, I immediately adopted it. So, I will precede any talk about my snoring as “false allegations of snoring”. I probably use this technique several times a day with my partner, and often with my daughter. Works great, at least from my point of view. Maybe not theirs, but they have a hill to climb when discussing these subjects.
First, I would imagine this DC judge is instructed to fully thwart any effort Trump might make to show the election was fraudulent. This is a coordinated attack, and I'm positive this judge is not independent.
It doesn't matter if it "hurts" Republicans. Without confronting voter fraud we hurt The Republic. What matters is the fraud is exposed, and perhaps we can get back to a voting system that can be trusted and audited. Currently that does not exist.
If America's college educated white women want to turn the franchise of voting into a game of make believe, than that is where we are, and we will have to live with it.
Readering: "This post will not age well"
Its not a readering post, thus it has an extremely good chance to age marvelously.
Blogger Buckwheathikes said...
....I predict, will NOT ALLOW Trump or his attorney's to present that defense for argument before the jury...Judges all the time prevent people from presenting certain defenses.
This judge isn't going to allow ANY of this. She will be coached.
Even though the reality of the election fraud is the crux of the entire matter, our courts are corrupt, and so are many judges. They need to protect their own interests and personal / professional lives.
The behavior of the new liberal WI Supreme court out of the gate is appalling.
Readering whistles past the graveyard.
- Rafe
“Trump knew these stolen election statements were lies because he had attorneys and advisors tell him he lost.”
Goodness…. I’ve heard for years and from boatloads of people that Trump lost and I still don’t believe he lost. It’s called spidey sense, perhaps. Or maybe just plain old common sense, given the extra-ordinary goings on with mail in ballots.
If the judge would allow it, which she probaly won't I'd play a video collage of John Kerry and Hillary and their flaks in the media whining about stolen elections. Ask the prosecutors why John Fucking Kerry and Hillary Clinton aren't doing hard time for the same things.
I’d like to see key parts of the J6 videos in his defense. He could show the Ray Epps types were the ones instigating the breach, as well as other segments that Chuck Schumer wants squashed for some reason.
Well, for one thing, in spite of the much better known settlement by Fox Corp with Dominion Voting Systems, Trump's legal team can point to the report by a cybersecurity expert that yes, the Dominion systems were easily hackable & the results were in any case unauditable.
It doesn't mean cheating necessarily happened, but it certainly was possible, and impossible to unravel if it did. That means that the defense of Georgia officials of the integrity of their vote tallies boils down to "Trust us -- We're good people".
Trump will not be allowed to present such a defense. This trial would be a show trial only.
The plan is pretty obvious- they want this trial before the election, and they want Trump in jail before the election. Pence let the cat out of the bag the other day- the GOP want him in jail, too, so that they can disqualify him from the primaries or the nomination, whichever comes next in the timeline.
"Blogger Dave Begley said...
And the trial court judge absolutely must allow that evidence. Otherwise, reversible error.
They have been banging the drum hard on MSNBC for Chief Justice Robert to allow the DC trial to be televised. By all means! The People can then see what a weak and political case the Dems have.
And I stand by my prediction that the MAGA crowd will surround the DC courthouse. It happened in Hennepin County during the Derek Chauvin trial. Peaceable assembly and all that. First Amendment, baby!"
Oh heck yes, put the showman Trump on the stand and let him light the place up. Just recall a couple of months ago when CNN made the mistake of giving him the spotlight. BY the end of the townhall he had the audience eating out of his hand.
8/4/23, 9:30 AM
“These "top leaders" will be subject to cross-examination. Are the "delighted Democrats" not afraid?”
No.
"They say President Trump knew he did not win, he just wanted to cause trouble. We will stipulate the ballot totals resulted in Mr. Biden being elected. Mr. Trump's believed that the deciding ballots in several states were ill-gotten."
If there is ever a case that called for a change of venue, this is it. They are figuratively trying Hitler in Jerusalem. It at least calls for a change in judge, a former law partner with Biden.
"Blogger Buckwheathikes said...
I don't think you understand how show trials work, Ann."
You are aware that our esteemed host is a law professor. Right?
I’m looking but am unable so far to find even one instance of the WaPo or any major media that described Hillary or Stacy Abrams or John Kerry (2004) statements as being “false claims of a stolen election...." as in this article. Time to reanimate the clause, “claims without evidence,” for everything that the allegedly mainstream media says about Trump.
"There are mountains of evidence — provided by top leaders in his campaign and government — that the election was not stolen from Trump"
There aren't. The way it was "stolen" left few traces.
"These "top leaders" will be subject to cross-examination"
Even assuming the judge is going to allow it, so what?
Fighting over 2020 turns off everyone but the Trumpists. At the same time, the entire spectacle prevents any Trump rival from getting attention. Advantage: Dems.
It's lazy and tendentious to call them "false claims of a stolen 2020 election."
First of all, "stolen" is a pretty imprecise term that can refer to a lot of things. To this day, there are huge numbers of leftists who contend that the GOP stole the Supreme Court seat that opened up when Antonin Scalia died. That claim of "theft" is based on nothing more than the claim that the Senate was constitutionally required to vote on Merrick Garland's nomination prior to the beginning of the next presidential return -- which "rule" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or elsewhere.
Therefore, by the dems' own example, it's legitimate to consider a public office "stolen" based on any supposed deviation from accepted or traditional practice in filling the office.
Applying that standard here, there is absolutely no question the 2020 election was stolen based on the sudden imposition of a de facto "card-check" system of nationwide mail-in voting. Without the fraud and ballot-harvesters this reckless system facilitated, there is simply no way Biden would have amassed so many votes.
Of course, unconstitutional government involvement in social media censorship also played a role, as did Zuckbucks.
I could go on, but it's not necessary. The claim that the 2020 election was stolen is completely legitimate and mainstream. As the defeated candidate, as the president, and as a citizen, Trump was fully within his rights to yell and scream about it.
(They say he did more than yell and scream -- they say he also took "action" based on his "false" claims. But that's ridiculous. When January 20 arrived, he moved out of the WH and became a private citizen. He didn't call in the military to take over the government. And he didn't continue to issue presidential orders after January 20 as if he were still the president. Once it was clear that he had lost at the Electoral College and the courts weren't going to do anything about the stolen election, he departed Washington and decided to run again in 2024. Where's the crime in any of this?)
It’s a good strategy in that Trump can drag out this trial for a decade.
He’ll be dead before a jury is impaneled
If the government shuts the door on election fraud evidence, it will signal that they found out or told the election was indeed stolen. If the gov chooses to allow evidence that the election was/was not stolen, then everybody will get to hear what the media has not allowed so far to be heard.
No matter what the gov decides, Trump can use it to his advantage.
Bring it on.
It’s a DC jury. Conviction guaranteed. Democrats know this.
It’s a DC jury. Conviction guaranteed. Democrats know this.
Would he have to prove the election was stolen? Or just show that it was not unreasonable to suspect it could have been? If so much is unauditable, I don't see how they can say he had no reason to suspect any of it.
Couldn't Trump just show videos of all the Dems who have gone on TV to declare their mistrust in previous elections (2016, for example) to show that it's reasonable to have doubts?
I saw the enormous crowds turning out for Trump and the handful of people showing up for Biden's few events and I have a hard time believing that Trump didn't win bigly.
Does anybody believe Obama appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan was "randomly" chosen. Bullshit. She's a J6 hangman.
The judge may not care whether she commits reversible error by limiting Trump's defense, if she is reversed after the election. A show trial without due process, or even just hearings, may provide all that the prosecution (Biden democrats) really need to defeat Trump in the 2024 election. Subsequent reversal after the election is just an "Oh, my bad" coming way too late. Aced civil procedure in law school but that was 50 years. Never stepped into a courtroom (which I now deeply regret) so just conjecture on my part that her rulings won't be appealable until after the media has sucked every allegation dry.
Those bastards and always adding "false" in front of "claims of stolen election".
According to them, 2016 was the most unsecure, dishonest and fraudulent "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA" election ever, but just 4 years later, we enjoyed the most secure, honest and honorable election of all time! You have to be a conspiracy theorist to think otherwise!
"Trump’s campaign team was miffed by a lack of traffic support from local police after he arrived in Washington, forcing the motorcade to weave through rush-hour traffic. Other motorists attempted to change lanes between the motorcade, showing less deference than typical for an average funeral procession."
As a former President he's entitled to full Secret Service protection. They exposed him to risk on the street for the New York indictment and now they are exposing him to risk again.
Deliberately.
"I believed it then, I still believe it now, and here's why". If you're going to have a show trial, there's going to be two shows.
Democrats, thanks to the errant mediaswine, seem to believe that Trump knows the altogether "copacetic election" wasn't "stolen." The term Trump uses most often is "rigged" for which there seems to be a plethora of evidence, not that it will matter to a DC jury, but it is likely that he believes that along with a majority of the voting public.
Far better to litigate the issue in a cesspool masquerading as a DC courtroom than on the campaign trail. Who knows, an appellate court may finally take a look at the election when reviewing his conviction - which is certain given a DC jury, an Obot judge and a crooked prosecutor.
If Trump is likely guilty and that is clear enough by the evidence to gain an indictment; then why would anyone worry about Trump's defense. But then, when your evidence is a crime of using protected speech; well right there is your problem. I'll be interested in seeing the Brady disclosure.
The most healing thing the Democrats could do would be to transparently and openly provide all of the evidence that the election was as clean as they say. Obviously it would easily withstand scrutiny.
Of course that’s what people running clean elections who cared about America would do, election riggers would fight tooth and nail to prevent any scrutiny, and even go so far as to use their ill-gotten power to prosecute anybody looking into them.
Right now the above logic creates the strong inference that the Democrats cheated massively. Hell, lying about the laptop being Russian disinformation and using the power of the government to suppress its publication was cheating right there. All of the evidence that that happened is now in the open after the Twitter files.
The Biden Administration has criticized elections abroad for suppression of news, calling those elections illegitimate.
I'll take a run at that football. Tempting and juicy.
It seems that Interested Bystander doesn't understand how show trials work either. Here's a hint: They have nothing at all to do with the law.
"Fighting over 2020 turns off everyone but the Trumpists."
Bullshit.
I am not a Trumpist. Not even close. I have not voted in 20 years. But guess what? The way this his last election was managed sure begs a shit-ton of questions. And as an American citizen, who does not yet know the answers, I want to know what the hell happened. On this I am not alone.
I tend to agree with Sebastian. But the fraudulent act of manipulating mailing ballot rules without going through appropriate measures is worth emphasizing.
"Those bastards and always adding "false" in front of "claims of stolen election"."
Then just put "allegedly" before "false".
Instead of releasing the Kracken, MAGAt nation been smoking the crack-en then making posts about why Trump really won the 2020 election. Or maybe it’s from eating horse deworming paste.
Am I right?
I have to agree with Yancy at 10:51.
The GOPe wants Trump convicted so that hey can force him off the primary ballots.
It does not matter if all the charges are BS. He is a threat to the Deep State and they cannot afford to have him re-elected.
We have become a Banana Republic that is run by the Uniparty.
"There are mountains of evidence — provided by top leaders in his campaign and government..."
Top leaders as opposed to what? Bottom leaders? Loss leaders? Or is the term simply a mashup of Top Men and Dear Leader?
dwshelf said...
"If you're going to have a show trial, there's going to be two shows."
So who's the dog and who's the pony?
Fighting over 2020 turns off everyone but the Trumpists. At the same time, the entire spectacle prevents any Trump rival from getting attention. Advantage: Dems.
Good point. The Democrats are doing this in part to work out their murderous rage but also to keep Trump from campaigning like Reagan did against Carter in 1980. Biden most resembles Carter except for Carter's honesty but that campaign is not one the Democrats want to deal with. I fear that Trump will let them do that to him. The other candidates are mostly GOPe types to divert attention.
Some Brady material: CBS News:
The documents were submitted to Smith on July 23, according to emails reviewed by CBS News. A source close to Kerik's legal team said at the time that they believed the records, which include sworn affidavits from people raising concerns about the integrity of the 2020 presidential contest, show there was a genuine effort to investigate claims of voter fraud in the last election.
In an Aug. 2 email to Parlatore, reviewed by CBS News, a special counsel's office prosecutor requested "responsive documents as to which the Trump campaign is no longer asserting a privilege," referring to the Kerik records Parlatore said he previously provided.
Parlatore said he was "stunned" when, after the indictment came down, the prosecutor contacted him asking for the records he said he had already provided. Parlatore said the "records are absolutely exculpatory."
Meanwhile, Alan Dershowitz is noting that Jack Smith is doing exactly what he is accusing Trump of doing; conspiring to interfere with a person civil rights and fraud.
Blogger hombre said...
"Democrats, thanks to the errant mediaswine, seem to believe that Trump knows the altogether "copacetic election" wasn't "stolen." The term Trump uses most often is "rigged" for which there seems to be a plethora of evidence, not that it will matter to a DC jury, but it is likely that he believes that along with a majority of the voting public."
Mr Trump: " Daaa your Honor, there's an absolute plethora of evidence. Daaa I went to bed and I was ahead and when I woke up I was behind. Its a plethora I tell you."
I’m still waiting for Trump to offer proof to support his November 2020 tweet that “millions” of votes were “altered.” I guess this trial will be his big opportunity to do so.
"“These "top leaders" will be subject to cross-examination. Are the "delighted Democrats" not afraid?”
No."
If they have any brains, they ought to be afraid. I'm willing to agree that they're not afraid.
Per the Constitution, the President is elected by the Electoral College. There ae 538 of them, and their votes after the 2020 general election are known precisely.At any time after the electors voted, it was consistent for Trump to admit that the electoral college had elected Biden, while maintaining the the selection of the particular electors was improper. Before the electors cast their votes, no one could say who had won the election.
“The judge may not care whether she commits reversible error by limiting Trump's defense, if she is reversed after the election. A show trial without due process, or even just hearings, may provide all that the prosecution (Biden democrats) really need to defeat Trump in the 2024 election. Subsequent reversal after the election is just an "Oh, my bad" coming way too late. Aced civil procedure in law school but that was 50 years. Never stepped into a courtroom (which I now deeply regret) so just conjecture on my part that her rulings won't be appealable until after the media has sucked every allegation dry.”
I was a patent attorney, and am the only one of them whom I know who has tried a couple of jury cases. It was a gas. Last one was a week long, and I set a trap, maybe 4 months earlier by amending our pleadings, that got in some critical evidence that the other side was deathly afraid of. It was fun because your mind is going 90 miles an hour when you are standing up. Then, at the end of the plaintiff’s case, I moved for a directed verdict. Wrong terminology, but right idea. That’s where the jury instructions came in - there was no evidence in the record supporting several of the elements in the plaintiffs’ case. And the other attorney was Order of the Coif, Law Review, etc from a “National” law school. That’s what you get when the profs teach obtuse legal minutia, instead of the basics. That’s why I preferred adjuncts - who knew what was really important, in practice, and what isn’t. Turns out, that I would have won anyway - one of the jurors later told my client that they knew when one of the plaintiffs was was lying - when his mouth was moving.
Sometimes, I wish I had gone into litigation. But the reality is that I was a better patent attorney. And I found myself almost constantly challenged intellectually.
But back to your point. Yes, I have little doubt that the judge will be more than willing to take one for the team, and get reversed on appeal. Ditto, of course, for the Special Prosecutor - he has already done that, and survived quite well. They both know that the consequences for their actions will be after the election.
But this is Trump, and not one of the GOPe candidates who just take it. As I said, 4 bogus, politically motivated, BS criminal suits filed against him the year before the election. He will make it the center point of his campaign speeches. And if they can do this to him, a billionaire ex President, what are they going to do to you? Of course we know the answer to that - with the BS J6 prosecutions. Two justices in this country - one for Joe, Jim, and Hunter Biden, and another for Trump and the rest of us. Is that fair? Of course not. Is it American? Ditto. Voting for the Democrat means approving of a two tier Justice system, and we are all on the second tier. Then throw in the failures and excesses of the Biden years. Are you better off today, or when Trump was in office? Do you really want the DOJ suing to force functing males into female prisons, locker rooms, etc? Why have we shipped so much of our strategic reserves in armaments to a country that made the Bidens so much money? I think that it could work.
The problem is that DJT just doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to allegations of widespread fraud that cost him the election. He's had a very long time to show the American people the evidence of his allegations but he's disclosed nothing. And anyone who thinks he's sitting on a bunch of secret evidence that's going to come out at the trial is simply delusional. He'll blame his old lawyers for giving him bad advice and plead the 1st Amendment. That's all he's got, and it may not be enough.
The problem is that DJT just doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to allegations of widespread fraud that cost him the election. He's had a very long time to show the American people the evidence of his allegations but he's disclosed nothing. And anyone who thinks he's sitting on a bunch of secret evidence that's going to come out at the trial is simply delusional. He'll blame his old lawyers for giving him bad advice and plead the 1st Amendment. That's all he's got, and it may not be enough.
“We will re-litigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation,” Trump attorney John Lauro said Tuesday during an interview with Fox News. “It gives President Trump an opportunity that he has never had before, which is to have subpoena power since Jan. 6 in a way that can be exercised in federal court.”
But last night Trump's new lawyer threw in the towel.
What President Trump said is, ‘Let’s go with option D,'” Lauro said on The Ingraham Angle. “Let’s just halt, let’s just pause the voting and allow the state legislatures to take one last look and make a determination as to whether or not the elections were handled fairly. That’s constitutional law. That’s not an issue of criminal activity.”
That is a Trump criminal defense lawyer quoting Donald Trump committing a crime. Donald Trump’s criminal defense lawyer tonight added information to Jack Smith’s 42-page description of Donald Trump’s crimes. The conversation that John Lauro just described appears on page 34 of the indictment against his client.
The indictment alleges there that during a Jan. 4 meeting, “The Defendant [Trump] and Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] then asked the Vice President to either unilaterally reject the legitimate electors from the seven targeted states, or send the question of which slate was legitimate to the targeted states’ legislatures.”
Additionally, the indictment states that on the evening of Jan. 6, [Co-Conspirator 2] emailed Pence’s counsel suggesting that the vice president violate the Electoral Count Act. “I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation of the ETC and adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full forensic audit of the massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here.”
If this trial drags out towards the election, it will bring greater scrutiny to that election and how it's held. Essentially, you can't prove there's fraud and you can't prove there is no fraud, so lets see what happens here.
Any push-back against an attempt to audit the voting will tend to sway the public that there is fraud going on.
When I started seeing this technique a couple years ago, of characterizing the other side’s claims as false in the headline, I immediately adopted it. So, I will precede any talk about my snoring as “false allegations of snoring”. I probably use this technique several times a day with my partner, and often with my daughter. Works great, at least from my point of view. Maybe not theirs, but they have a hill to climb when discussing these subjects.
A typical conversation at my house:
Wife: Honey, did you drink the rest of the milk?
Me: These false allegations will not stand! Can't we all just move on?
It still tickles me that so many still believe in the rule of law they grew up, and still exists.
Dave Begley said...
And the trial court judge absolutely must allow that evidence. Otherwise, reversible error.
Dave, you're the lawyer, not me, but exactly what evidence is Trump going to present? Hell, his own lawyers know better than to suggest that he testify before the classified documents and January 6 juries - because he will perjure himself.
His best strategy is to negotiate a "Spiro Agnew" deal with Special Counsel Jack Smith, pay a moderate fine of $100 million or so, and live in the comforts of his golf resorts without his paid security detail. Washing laundry at an FCI prison for the rest of his life just isn't going to fit his grifter lifestyle.
I think the best one can hope for in this trial is that Trump's lawyers channel their inner Atticus Finches and show the complete bankruptcy of the prosecution's case, before the inevitable verdict of guilty.
"The problem is that DJT just doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to allegations of widespread fraud …"
Ah, the widespread fraud canard.
There are mountains of evidence — provided by top leaders in his campaign and government — that the election was not stolen from Trump
The Fulton County Democrats running "vote counting" shut down the counting place on election night with the story that they were done counting for the night, kicked out all poll watchers and press, and then immediately starting "counting ballots" once everyone was gone.
I know this because I watched teh video of them doing it, on 60 Minutes.
That, right there, is all the evidence you need that the vote count there was fraudulent.
Because "we violated teh rules for how you legally count the ballots" == "the ballots were counted illegally" == "vote fraud"
Now, trump's lawyers were utterly incompetent in their handling of the 2020 election, so it's quite possible they will bungle this, too.
But there's a hell of a lot of unimpeachable data that the results of the 2020 election were trash
"I’m still waiting for Trump to offer proof to support his November 2020 tweet that “millions” of votes were “altered.” I guess this trial will be his big opportunity to do so."
Trump doesn't have to prove anything, only to keep the prosecution from proving everything beyond a reasonable doubt.
And the prosecution needs to prove not just that there wasn't election fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election but that the absence of this degree of fraud was so plain at the time that Trump couldn't have believed that there was. Prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump only has to cause jurors to reasonably doubt that he knew he was wrong.
"And the prosecution needs to prove not just that there wasn't election fraud but that the absence of fraud was so plain at the time that Trump couldn't have believed that there was. Prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump only has to cause jurors to reasonably doubt that he knew he was wrong."
I don't understand this reasoning at all. No matter how earnestly I might believe the bank stole my money, I don't get to rob it.
The Trump people have had three years, sixty lawsuits and several hundred audits and investigations to prove the election was stolen. Everything has turned out to either be a complete fabrication (e.g., PA counted more ballots than were sent out) or have an innocuous explanation (e.g., the "suitcases"of ballots). I had a grandstand seat here in PA and watched every claim crumble, every bit of evidence vanish and every case end not just on standing but on merit. I don't think the judge should be obligated to let Trump re-litigate issues that the Courts have already ruled on.
How many politicians have lied causing concerns re public reactions and zero legal retribution? See Michael Brown, see St. Floyd.
How long has Stacy Adams been an election denier?
Remember Dems like Klobuchar questioning election machines?
Considering that there are people that actually still believe the earth is flat, and that the moon landing was faked, it's impossible to prove that Trump didn't believe he lost the election. DC jury and adversarial judge though...
Trump WILL prove definitively beyond the shadow of a doubt and with geometric logic that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox where the strawberries were DID exist!
“ And the prosecution needs to prove not just that there wasn't election fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election but that the absence of this degree of fraud was so plain at the time that Trump couldn't have believed that there was. Prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump only has to cause jurors to reasonably doubt that he knew he was wrong.”
This is exactly the point I was making before on a different side.
If indeed the prosecution claims that Trump broke the law by falsely claiming that the elections were stolen, then they must prove behind reasonable doubt that the elections were not stolen. And that includes providing to the defense the plethora of data, including envelopes signed by voters, with their names, ss numbers, addresses, etc.
No evidence - no case.
But I think the judge will not allow it. She does not care if she is later reversed.
US legal/judicial system is termed 'adversarial' with judge as referee. how is that different from US political election system with candidates debate and moderators.
He has never had standing before on the issue.
=========
is 'no standing' judicialese for sit down and shut up? and permanent gag order?
BTW, what if the MAGA crowd started picketing her house. AG Garland let the Left picket the houses of Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett et al. First Amendment, baby!
=======
mmmmm ... who will fund MAGA picket and signs and snacks?
did election 2020 need to be rigged in all 50+ states?
why not do 'moot juries' in as many states in parellel with DC trial?
50+ shows better than just one!!
I’m still waiting for Trump to offer proof to support his November 2020 tweet that “millions” of votes were “altered.” I guess this trial will be his big opportunity to do so.
===========
what if illegal-non-votes were ?trans'ed! into votes?
Ann Althouse @ 7:41
Well, Ms Ann. I'm from Chicago. The most corrupt city. In the most corrupt county. In the most corrupt state in the whole country. But, of course, there is no vote fraud.
Mike said...
"And the prosecution needs to prove not just that there wasn't election fraud but that the absence of fraud was so plain at the time that Trump couldn't have believed that there was. Prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump only has to cause jurors to reasonably doubt that he knew he was wrong."
I don't understand this reasoning at all. No matter how earnestly I might believe the bank stole my money, I don't get to rob it.
8/4/23, 7:43 PM
So, did you rob it? Saying that you should rob it, and robbing it are two different things.
Trying to convince others, getting a lawyer and going to court to argue that they stole your money is not a crime, regardless of the outcome. Indeed, by your own arguments, here, he has lost in court. Is it a crime to lose those cases?
'Unknown conspirators' have said he said things.
The inability to convince a significant number of Americans that the elections are secure and immune to fraud, and instead go after - criminally - someone who is trying (regardless of the success) to demonstrate fraud is, itself, suspicious. Some would say that doing so is an indication that there is fraud going on in our election system.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा