he clearly had a plan ahead of time to declare victory regardless of the election results. — GRWelsh

Which is so obvious even a Trump supporter will deny it.

The Hawaii situation happened due to ineptitude (or incompetence or inexperience - take your pick) on the part of the Hawaiian electoral commission - perhaps inexperience is an OK explanation since this was their first time participating in national elections.

The vote was so close that they had to do a recount - but the electoral ballots had to be cast before they were able to finish the recount. Oops. So the Democrat electors held a public session in which they cast their electoral ballots for Kennedy - and as the article makes clear they had to do this on the designated date - otherwise even if the recount had showed that Kennedy had won (which he did) their ballots could not be legally counted.

While not explicitly stated in the article there is no doubt that if Nixon had won the recount then the Democrats would not have contested the results.

So it was most definitely not an attempt to subvert the legitimate vote counts - as Trump tried to do.

No. I am unable to pass off someone else’s judgement with my own, especially a Washington jury. — NOS4A2

Based on the evidence available to the public so far seems quite clear that Trump is guilty - but he is allowed his day in court - and if he can present a credible defense and the jury finds him innocent I would accept that.

So what evidence would convince you that Trump did the things he is accused of? Or put differently - are you open to the possibility that Trump did the things he is accused of?

They are evidence that there was a plan to overturn the election results if Trump was losing or lost. Stone and Bannon were both confidants and advisors of Trump, and what they said in advance was exactly what Trump did on election night. This is in addition to Trump's own words leading up to the election. No one is saying Trump didn't have the right to doubt the election results or the fairness of the process, but he clearly had a plan ahead of time to declare victory regardless of the election results.

He said he would not concede and would contest the results if the election wasn't free or fair. He rightfully feared the dirty pool that occurred in the lead up to that election, with activists, their corporate overlords, and both social and legacy media engaged in a shadow campaign to fundamentally alter how elections were run, right beneath the nose of everyday Americans.

oh I get it, fantastic explanation. Thank you.

So what evidence would convince you that Trump did the things he is accused of? Or put differently - are you open to the possibility that Trump did the things he is accused of?

You’d have to prove he did so corruptly. Any quote or admission would suffice, given proper context. Inference by projection or conspiracy theory just doesn’t cut it.

None of your allegations are going to be applicable in court. There are only the unsupported claims, lies, and interference with official operations of the conspirators that will be heard.

Your argument amounts to saying a matrix of crimes you cannot prove justifies a set of crimes that might be.

I never said they were applicable in court. So yours is a mischaracterization and thus an evasion of my argument.

I was observing that you were intentionally using criteria that cannot be used. Doing so is an evasion of the matter of what can be proved (or not).

You’d have to prove he did so corruptly. Any quote or admission would suffice, given proper context. Inference by projection or conspiracy theory just doesn’t cut it. — NOS4A2

A blatant example of corruption was Trump's asking Rosen (the acting AG) to lie, and "say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congress". (This came AFTER Trump went through a litany of fraud allegations that deputy AG Donaghue refuted one by one). After the AG refused, Trump pursued replacing him with Jeffrey Clark, who had drafted a letter to be sent to State Legislatures falsely stating exactly that.

He said he would not concede and would contest the results if the election wasn't free or fair. — NOS4A2

That's a lot different from declaring victory on election night when he was behind and all the votes hadn't been counted yet.

You’d have to prove he did so corruptly. Any quote or admission would suffice — NOS4A2

Not quite following you here. Are you saying that the only thing to convince you would be if Trump himself acknowledged it he did so corruptly? Or would you be convinced if multiple direct eye witnesses testified that what he was doing was illegal?

The president has the authority to fire who he wants, and for whatever reason. Zero corruption there. You have to show that he corruptly defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, all of which is piffle.

The illegality of the charges is that he intended to corruptly defraud the United States or deny people their rights. No one proved he defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, and they certainly didn’t prove he did so corruptly. On top of that it isn’t up to the government to determine what is true or false, what people should believe, and what they can say about it.

They continued to count votes after election day, on days when there is no election, after the election was over, and magically Biden pulled ahead.

They continued to count votes after election day, — NOS4A2

That's like counting chickens after they've hatched! Outrageous!

They continued to count votes after election day, on days when there is no election, after the election was over, and magically Biden pulled ahead. — NOS4A2

We knew prior to the election that Trump was planning to declare victory prematurely if it looked like he was ahead, and claim any subsequent votes that put Biden ahead were fraudulent. It was a plan.

https://www.axios.com/2020/11/01/trump-claim-election-victory-ballots

Trump's team is preparing to falsely claim that mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 — a legitimate count expected to favor Democrats — are evidence of election fraud.

And this article was published days before the election. I guess they’re psychics. Only explanation. Definitely not because any thinking person could see it beforehand.

I know that you're juggling a lot of different threads here, so it's understandable - but we appear to have lost track of our particular conversation. I'll try again. Here's where we are:

what evidence would convince you that Trump did the things he is accused of? Or put differently - are you open to the possibility that Trump did the things he is accused of? — EricH

You’d have to prove he did so corruptly. Any quote or admission would suffice, given proper context. Inference by projection or conspiracy theory just doesn’t cut it. — NOS4A2

Not quite following you here. Are you saying that the only thing to convince you would be if Trump himself acknowledged it he did so corruptly? Or would you be convinced if multiple direct eye witnesses testified that what he was doing was illegal? — EricH

And here's your last response where we seem to lose the thrust of my question:

The illegality of the charges is that he intended to corruptly defraud the United States or deny people their rights. No one proved he defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, and they certainly didn’t prove he did so corruptly. On top of that it isn’t up to the government to determine what is true or false, what people should believe, and what they can say about it. — NOS4A2

It looks to me that your last response was to a different question. I'm simply asking for clarity on what evidence would convince you that Trump is guilty of the charges? Just to repeat it:

Any quote or admission would suffice, given proper context. — NOS4A2

I'm looking for clarity on your response - must that be a quote from Donald Trump or can it be a quote from eye witnesses to the events?

The president has the authority to fire who he wants, and for whatever reason. Zero corruption there. You have to show that he corruptly defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, all of which is piffle. — NOS4A2

The firing was secondary. He wanted them to LIE. How is that not corrupt, irrespective of the (il)legality?

In fact, Trump told a number of lies - including lying about what Mike Pence said and lying about the Georgia Secretary of State. Do you acknowledge he lied about them?

No one proved he defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, and they certainly didn’t prove he did so corruptly. — NOS4A2

That's precisely what the prosecution will try to do in court. They believe they have the evidence to do so, hence the indictment.

You seem to be suggesting that they must prove to the public their case before the trial even starts? That's not how the legal system works. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Before the election, Steve Bannon said Trump would declare victory before all the votes were counted. See: this

Yes, Roger Stone did as well.

https://sports.yahoo.com/video-shows-roger-stone-telling-065216462.html

You're putting the cart before the horse. — Michael

My Kingdom, for a horse.

Or is it the other way around?

You're putting the cart before the horse. — Michael

Yeah but it's a good cart. A very fine cart. Some people even say best cart.

We can all just hope that the conditions of @NOS4A2 is not indicative of all Trump supporters, because if it is I'm not sure any of them can ever return to a shared reality.

It is interesting that Lauro, (Trump's lawyer), calls for televised court sessions along with many on the other side of the aisle. I am surprised that Trump thinks it will help him.

That's precisely what the prosecution will try to do in court. They believe they have the evidence to do so, hence the indictment.

You seem to be suggesting that they must prove to the public their case before the trial even starts? That's not how the legal system works. You're putting the cart before the horse.

There is no probable cause. There is no evidence of any crime or criminal activity. They have to stretch the plain meaning of language to argue their case, and the indictment reads as if it was written by a breathless MSNBC reporter. Like the Russia scam, the impeachment efforts, the J6 committee, the lack of probable cause and the proliferation of imaginary crimes are ruinous to their credibility as reasonable people. Since there is no crime and no probable cause, you’ve put the cart before the horse.

If what you say is simple as that, then the best defense would be to argue that in a court of law.

There is no evidence of any crime or criminal activity. — NOS4A2

That you know of. They know more than you. They believe they have evidence, hence the indictment.

There is no evidence of any crime or criminal activity — NOS4A2

. Are you therefore predicting the charges will be dismissed? If not, why not?