I don’t care if God himself told him the election was legit. You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. You’re guessing, making it up, or being told what to believe, and I’m not sure which is worse.

Every statement and action he has made during and since that election says that he believes the election was a sham. You haven’t quoted him saying otherwise; you have not provided the results of a lie detector test; nothing.

Now we’re on the road to criminalizing political speech because a man dared to doubt the results of an election.

Not only that but they’ll have to prove the statements were false. Maybe we’ll finally get some thorough and unbiased investigations into the matter.

Jack Smith admits he lied. He failed to turn over all evidence to Trump's legal team as required by law and falsely claimed that he had. Ouch.

Included in Production 3 is additional CCTV footage from The Mar-a-Lago Club that the Government obtained from the Trump Organization on May 9 and May 12, 2023, in response to a grand jury subpoena served on April 27. On July 27, as part of the preparation for the superseding indictment coming later that day and the discovery production for Defendant De Oliveira, the Government learned that this footage had not been processed and uploaded to the platform established for the defense to view the subpoenaed footage. The Government’s representation at the July 18 hearing that all surveillance footage the Government had obtained pre-indictment had been produced was therefore incorrect.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.92.0_1.pdf

Not only that but they’ll have to prove the statements were false. — NOS4A2

That will be trivially easy. The election was legit. His own people told him that - Pence, Barr, Wray, Krebs, etc, etc. They will testify as such in court. And there are 1000s of election officials all across the country who have stated that the election was fair - I'm sure they would be willing to testify if called upon.

It's now been over 2 & 1/2 years and yet there is no evidence of any fraud that would have altered the outcome. All Trump's lawyers have is just hand waving.

But if you have any evidence of a specific person or persons who committed a specific illegal act that would have altered the outcome of the election then you should pass this information to Trump's legal team.

Trump's only hope is to delay and hope that he (or a sympathetic Republican) wins in 2024.

That will be trivially easy. The election was legit. His own people told him that - Pence, Barr, Wray, Krebs, etc, etc. They will testify as such in court. And there are 1000s of election officials all across the country who have stated that the election was fair - I'm sure they would be willing to testify if called upon.

It's now been over 2 & 1/2 years and yet there is no evidence of any fraud that would have altered the outcome. All Trump's lawyers have is just hand waving. — EricH

And dozens of court cases, where the lawyers were laughed out of court. Also, look no further than Arizona -- where the Arizona senate-commissioned "Cyber Ninjas" conducted their 9 million dollar "audit" and found ugatz: https://www.americanoversight.org/records-reveal-high-cost-of-security-contractors-for-arizona-election-audit

Trump was saying the election was going to be stolen if he lost long before the election, and so any thinking person knew he was going to say it was stolen if he lost. I was calling it long beforehand -- as anyone would. It wasn't going to matter if it was the cleanest election in history -- which it turned out to be -- or if there were massive glitches.

(We knew, for example, that mail-in votes, which are counted later, would swing democratic because Trump was screaming about voter fraud and telling his followers to go in person. So his numbers spiked at the beginning, and gradually tapered off...which was expected--again-- by anyone with a thinking mind. He seized on this, of course, pretended he didn't know it, and made out like the election was someone being stolen from him.)

What's sad about all this is that we even have to talk about the predictable tantrum-ramblings of a man-child. It's so very obvious it's all bullshit -- it didn't need to go to the courts, or have million-dollar audits, or anything else. It was all fabricated, predictably, by a man who psychologically cannot lose. In his mind, he cannot be a loser. What did we think he would do, concede graciously?

If our country was rational, a person like this would be relegated to the fringes of society, easily ignored. But we have to go on about it because 30% of the country actually believes this stuff. Sad indeed.

I don’t care if God himself told him the election was legit. You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. You’re guessing, making it up, or being told what to believe, and I’m not sure which is worse — NOS4A2

Prosecution doesn't require the certainty of mind-reading, it merely requires establishing corrupt intent based on evidence. I presented some of the evidence, and you ignored it - labeling all of it "political speech". Perpetrating a fraud is not protected political speech. Asking the acting AG (who clearly knew the election wasn't stolen) to lie entails fraud. If Trump truly believed the election was stolen, it reflects a truly reckless disregard for the truth. The 2 counts of conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding do not depend on Trump's knowing there was no fraud. By Jan 6, there was no legal recourse even if there actually had been fraud.

I wish you fucking foreigners would leave the US politics to we Americans. — T Clark

Oh, look! Here's something in a foreign country, right next door, that we can obsess about: Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau are separating after 18 years of marriage. What effect will this have on Canadian-Australian relations? Did King Charles have anything to do with this? Were one or both of the Trudeaus untrue to the other? How will this affect the war in Ukraine? Will the firefighters in BC and Quebec be less efficient with a DIVORCED Prime Minister at the helm? Will Justin resign? How will this affect the trade balance between the US and Canada? Will global heating get worse with the first family of the frosty north breaking up?

There's something in a foreign country, right next door, that we can obsess about — BC

Yes, I share your concern.

I do have to wonder how you think a criminal trial works. According to you, the only way to convict someone would be to get a confession.

Judges "read minds" every day.

I didn’t fail the test mom — the teacher is out to get me.

Trump supporter defense. Airtight.

:100: @NOS4A2

A former, 30 year veteran, Federal Prosecutor reads the latest indictment of Seditionist-Traitor1...


https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/826109

The sad fact is that you now have a dominant faction of one of the two American political parties actively scheming to overturn democracy in support of a criminal defendant.

Trump remains the party’s central figure. Each time GOP voters and leaders have had the opportunity to move away from him—whether in the shock immediately after January 6, or the widespread disappointment over the poor performance of his handpicked candidates during the 2022 election—the party has sped past the off-ramp. ...

Polls now show Trump leading in the 2024 GOP presidential race by one of the biggest margins ever recorded for a primary candidate in either party. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has been exploring ways to expunge his two impeachments and/or block the investigations he faces. Even the other candidates ostensibly running against him for the 2024 GOP nomination have almost uniformly condemned the indictments against him, rather than his underlying behavior. Prominent conservatives have argued that Trump cannot receive a fair trial in any Democratic-leaning jurisdiction. ...

All of these actions measure how much of the GOP is now willing to accept Trump’s repeated assaults on the basic structures of American democracy. — The Atlantic

We can only hope that these conspiracists are resoundingly beaten at the next election. The legal system is holding up its end, now it's up to the electorate.

Any chance this Jan 6 trial is over before the next election? I assume trump has the resources to delay it for an unreasonable amount of time.

You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. — NOS4A2

You do not know that Relativist does not know that Trump knowingly made false claims. You know you don't know because you in fact cannot read minds.

As this political circus in America continues, I honestly think that the legacy of Trump will be that he, (via his supporters and the political cowards in the republican party) has managed to reduce a country and a people, that were hitherto, considered by most Europeans as the 'champions/leader/main defender of the free world,' to comedy and complete ridicule. I wonder how many people in the world still respect all things American?

I wonder how many people in the world still respect all things American? — universeness

I respect American citizens though. We should not mix up politics/politicians/bureaucracy with the country and its people. I would be mad if someone disrespects "Spanish things" because of the incompetence of our politicians and the 2017 Catalonia conflict. I think one thing is not linked to the other.

Imagine if I been told, "hey do not visit London or Glasgow because of Brexit"
This sounds stupid as hell, right?

Imagine if I been told, "hey do not visit London or Glasgow because of Brexit"
This sounds stupid as hell, right? — javi2541997

Both London and Glasgow voted against Brexit, so yes the logic of not visiting Glasgow or London for that reason, would be a bit logically skewed. However, I think it is absolutely correct, that Brexit has severely damaged Britain, particularly on the European stage. I think most European progressives now see Britain (probably England in particular) as a rather backwards and regressive place, that does not deserve their respect or patronage.

As you suggest, it is wrong and illogical, to tar an entire nation of people with the same brush, but all nations have a global image, based on their historicity compared against their current political and social trajectory.
I always considered the American people, to be, in general, in the final analysis, 'progressive.'
I currently consider American society, regressive.

Is the current circus in America a schism or was my younger view of 'all things American,' naive?
In contrast to @T Clark, I have two American nieces, but that whole family left America and now live in Scotland and they took that decision because of their conclusion that life in America had taken such a general downturn.
They would go back to America to visit but I think they would plan where to visit, based on such as:
From: The federalist papers.org

The state that loves Donald Trump the most is West Virginia, where 61 percent of the residents approve of the job he’s doing. In addition to West Virginia, there are four western states where Trump’s approval rating remains high: Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska; five southern states; Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas; and two midwestern states, both North and South Dakota.

I maintain my view that the whole Trump circus, has damaged the global image of America as a nation of rational thinkers, in ways that will endure for a long long time. I do think that in the future, the call of 'president Trump,' will be used as a hammer against any future attempt by any American group/government to politically guide, on a global platform.
The British and Spanish will forever pay for their legacy of colonialism.
All nations do have some sort of historicity that does not compliment or enhance their ability to be a role model for the human species, on the global stage, and that is fair imo.
I think Trump, and his movement is fast becoming one of the most destructive and corrosive forces against the image of 'all things American,' on the global stage and the longer the circus is allowed to continue, the more long term damage to American societal culture, as perceived by global observers, will occur. Those Americans who state they 'don't care' how the rest of the world perceives them, are fools indeed imo.

I totally agree with your post, but…

I think most European progressives now see Britain (probably England in particular) as a rather backwards and regressive place, — universeness

No. Trust me when I say that most people still see the UK (or just England) as a progressive economy and nation. Yes, Brexit was a mistake, but it doesn't imply that British society went backwards afterwards. There are other nations in this world that are worse than the UK, just see Latin America and Africa.

The British and Spanish will forever pay for their legacy of colonialism. — universeness

This is the point where I always disagree with you, but I respect your opinion. Whether the Spanish and British should "pay" for whatever is not a problem/issue of modern societies. There are worse things to debate about and find some solutions. For example, Climate change and the civil war of Sudan.

Now we’re on the road to criminalizing political speech because a man dared to doubt the results of an election. — NOS4A2

This is mostly what the defense will amount to, but it won't hold up because the charges aren't about Trump doubting the election results or investigating the election or even challenging it in court. All of those things are fair game. But it is what he did subsequently to the results of the investigations and the court challenges that is relevant to this case. Trump refused to accept any evidence or conclusions that there was no widespread election fraud, and pushed forward to develop schemes to stay in power. If you were a reasonable conservative, a reasonable Republican, just a reasonable, thinking person, this is where you would finally have to break with Trump, no matter how much you liked his policies and achievements. This crosses the line from just having doubts or concerns to interfering with the peaceful transfer of power and damaging our democratic institutions, perhaps permanently. Lucky for us, it was mostly conservatives and Republicans who stood up to him and wouldn't go along with his schemes when he crossed this line. Otherwise, we'd be living in an authoritarian country with a president who remained in power by overturning the election results in his favor. Would you really want to live in that country?

No. Trust me when I say that most people still see the UK (or just England) as a progressive economy and nation. Yes, Brexit was a mistake, but it doesn't imply that British society went backwards afterwards. There are other nations in this world that are worse than the UK, just see Latin America and Africa. — javi2541997

Well, we simply disagree on that one. I never find the argument that there are 'worse' in existence, a valid reason for excusing bad and regressive national policy. The existence of a more intense wrong does not make the wrong you do any less wrong imo.

This is the point where I always disagree with you, but I respect your opinion. Whether the Spanish and British should "pay" for whatever is not a problem/issue of modern societies. — javi2541997

I equally respect your position. We would never progress in anything, if we all had identical viewpoints.
I don't suggest the British and Spanish 'should' pay for their colonial history, I am insisting they have been paying and they will always be paying for a long time yet. They/we, remain somewhat marred by much of their historical behaviour, as a culture. But as I said, all nations have such legacies, to a lesser or greater degree. From the vile Chin/Han, Spartan/Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Roman empires (to name but a few ancient examples) to the horrible Prussian, Ottoman, French, Spanish and British empires to the American treatment of the indigenous peoples of those lands, The German, Italian and Japanese shame of fascism., to the Russians under Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot etc, etc. To modern day horrors such as the Russians under Putin.
I know that many people have many positive things to say about each of the 'empires' or 'cultures' I have mentioned above. But, I hold the opinion that they were all net negative forces in the story of the progression of the human race towards 'my' concept of what I think humans can be. So, this is only my personal viewpoint, and only has any currency, for those who hold the same or similar opinion.

I hope the Trump horror in America does not result in anything like these historical backwards systems, as to a large extent, we still live in a global balance of power, within which, America is probably still, the most significant player. I hope that balance shifts soon and for ever.
I think it's very bad, if we still live in a world where if America sneezes, we can all catch the flu.

Now we’re on the road to criminalizing political speech because a man dared to doubt the results of an election. — NOS4A2

These are the actual laws he's alleged to have broken:

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to defraud the United States

18 U.S. Code § 1512(k) - Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding

18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2) - Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

He's not being prosecuted for doubting the results of the election. He's being prosecuted for conspiring to overturn the results of the election.

To quote Bill Barr from here:

"As the indictment says, they're not attacking his First Amendment right. 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," he added. "All conspiracies involve speech, and all fraud involves speech. Free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy."

I guess the insurrection hoax can be put to bed. That was the crime people were told he committed, believed he committed, only to have it all fall apart more than once now. The charges aren’t even close.

They’ve moved on without any self-reflection. They’ve fallen back on the “overturning the results of the election” canard. “Contesting the election” sounds too legal so another string of The Narrative is chosen in its place because by now people are so used to hearing it.

The Defendant's conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means:

a. The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant's opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.

b. The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. The Defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.

c. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome; that sought to advance the Defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted states' legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.

d. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results. First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince the Vice President to use the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them. When that failed, on the morning of January 6, the Defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused.

e. After it became public on the afternoon of January 6 that the Vice President would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd— including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results— violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.

Are you saying that he didn't do these things or that these things aren't crimes?

No, I’m quite sure he and his lawyers tried to contest the election. I’m not sure he did so fraudulently. The claims that he did so knowingly and fraudulently are without evidence and therefor bullshit. Maybe some evidence will drop in the future but here is nothing.

What it’s doing is criminalizing Trump’s beliefs and his legal counsel, so now the first amendment is thrown under the bus.

Did you even read what Michael wrote? Because your answer has no bearing on the examples given under a, b, d and e.

What it’s doing is criminalizing Trump’s beliefs and his legal counsel, so now the first amendment is thrown under the bus. — NOS4A2

They're not criminalising his beliefs and legal counsel. His conspiracy to use fraudulent electors is a crime:

The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states ... attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors.

The claims that he did so knowingly and fraudulently are without evidence and therefor bullshit. — NOS4A2

Some of the evidence is described in the indictment. For example:

On December 13, the Defendant asked the Senior Campaign Advisor for an update on "what was going on" with the elector plan and directed him to "put out [a] statement on electors." As a result, Co-Conspirator 1 directed the Senior Campaign Advisor to join a conference call with him, Co-Conspirator 6, and others. When the Senior Campaign Advisor related these developments in text messages to the Deputy Campaign Manager, a Senior Advisor to the Defendant, and a Campaign staffer, the Deputy Campaign Manager responded, "Here's the thing the way this has morphed it's a crazy play so I don't know who wants to put their name on it." The Senior Advisor wrote, "Certifying illegal votes." In turn, the participants in the group text message refused to have a statement regarding electors attributed to their names because none of them could "stand by it."

The actual evidence itself will be presented at trial.

Your description of evidence shows Trump did nothing except ask for a statement.

Imagine a candidate losing an election, and claiming the loss was because of millions of votes from the Moon People.

Then everyone has to dissect whether or not there really are Moon People, whether the candidate “really” believes it, etc— and 50/60 million people end up believing it.

There’s just as much evidence for Moon People as there is for voter fraud or a stolen election.

All of these legal proceedings for the ramblings of a narcissistic man/child. It’s an incredible sight. And watching the supporters contort themselves into mental pretzels is astonishing.

I'm not going to quote all 45 pages for you. Read it yourself. The above was simply an example of them having evidence of a criminal conspiracy of which Trump was a party.

You don’t have to quote all of it. Just one would suffice. The first one was a swing and a miss.

Contesting an election isn’t criminal. But criminalizing political speech is.