Bannon will likely testify that Trump had a scheme in place to claim the election was stolen if he was losing. That Trump, Bannon, Stone, etc. all talked about it and went forward with it. Wouldn't you agree that would be very damning? What do you think a jury would think of such testimony? — RogueAI

Only a confession by the accused counts as evidence of a crime.

For general intent crimes juries will be instructed to infer intent from the proof of the act. The federal documents case mostly has general intent crimes I think, as they do not aim at a specific result that mens rea should be aimed at.

The Jan. 6 case though, does require the prosecution to establish that Trump's intent was aimed at the result of the conspiracies. There are restrictions on admitting testimony from others about what Trump said due to "hearsay" not being admissable evidence. So yes, we should ignore Bannon's statements insofar as they are interpreted as going to the heart of Trump's intent. However, they corroborate with actual acts by Trump (declaring himself the winner), which in a constellation acts and facts can result as proof of intent. And that constellation of facts seems quite clear to me, the speech, the claims Pence could make him President, the claim of being the winner despite the official results contradicting him, etc. etc. They were all aimed at refusing the official outcome and being made President. There's no adequate alternative explanation as the acts are a concerted effort.

It must be a quote from Donald Trump because he is the only one that can speak about his thoughts, intentions, and beliefs. If an eye witness can quote him then that would suffice for me. — NOS4A2

So if Pence testifies in court that Trump said to him “You’re too honest” - and assume for the moment that Trump does not testify - would that suffice? If not, would multiple statements by other witnesses along the same lines suffice?

Bannon will likely testify that Trump had a scheme in place to claim the election was stolen if he was losing. That Trump, Bannon, Stone, etc. all talked about it and went forward with it. Wouldn't you agree that would be very damning? What do you think a jury would think of such testimony?

Is this conspiracy of yours a theory? Or is there some indication that these men met and discussed such ideas at some point before the election?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/steve-bannon-said-trump-going-say-election-stolen-jan-6-committee-1234610621/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/14/steve-bannon-audio-trump-declare-victory

https://youtu.be/OxNoUnxN_cs

"In the audio, recorded three days before the election and published by Mother Jones on Wednesday, Bannon told a group of associates Trump already had a scheme in place for the 3 November vote.

“What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner,” Bannon, laughing, told the group, according to the audio.

“He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/14/steve-bannon-audio-trump-declare-victory

You replied to this post less than a day ago. You're just trolling at this point.

Only a confession by the accused counts as evidence of a crime. — Michael

??? is this a mis-type? Or maybe I'm not following you. You're not seriously suggesting that someone could commit murder but unless they confess then all other evidence does not count and they should be declared innocent by a jury?

he's specifically talking about crimes where intent matters, I guess.

Although, interestingly enough, intent DOES matter in a murder charge. If a lawyer can't prove intent for a murder charge, they can opt to pursue manslaughter charges instead.

So instead of saying declared innocent, he might claim that you can't convict someone of murder without a confession, only manslaughter .

??? is this a mis-type? Or maybe I'm not following you. You're not seriously suggesting that someone could commit murder but unless they confess then all other evidence does not count and they should be declared innocent by a jury? — EricH

I was being sarcastic as a passive-aggressive jab at NOS4A2's defence of Trump.

Bannon was saying that for months before the election as a part of a speaking tour. He also said that Trump would be inaugurated and Pelosi would invoke the 25th amendment so she could become president. Predictions are one thing, but conspiracies are another. I'm just wondering how you’ve come to believe that him and Trump and Stone were engaging in a criminal conspiracy.

With regard to the ridiculous charade of the Jan 6 indictement as being an 'assault on free speech':

Remember that we are not seeing Republicans arrested for wearing their Make America Great Again hats or their Don’t Tread on Me bumper stickers, both fine examples of free speech. The key difference is this: Speech that leads to crime has never been protected from prosecution. Wearing a Second Amendment shirt is not a crime, but conspiring to commit murder is a crime, separate from the murder itself. Lying to masses of Americans that their right to vote was taken away and encouraging them to take it back by any means — as Trump is accused of doing — can, based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, constitute a crime.

To suggest that special counsel Jack Smith’s latest indictment on the Jan. 6 assault is just an attack on free speech, as some Republican partisans are claiming, is itself an attack on the rule of law. If a private citizen had organized the events on Jan. 6, there is little doubt that they would have been arrested and prosecuted. The Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol should not be held to a higher standard than the former president. If we decide that presidents should never be charged with crimes after they leave office for actions committed while in office, we are no longer a democracy. — No, fellow Republicans, the Justice Department is not biased against us

he's specifically talking about crimes where intent matters, I guess. — flannel jesus

He was joking
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/828383

I was being sarcastic as a passive-aggressive jab at NOS4A2's defence of Trump. — Michael

Ah - I didn't pick that up

joking or not, it's relevant to the argument NOS is making. If NOS thinks that trump can't be guilty here because you can't prove intent without a confession, then that means a lot of crimes that involve intent are also unprovable without a confession.

If I barge into someone's home and shoot them in the head, then without a confession you can't prove that I didn't intend to shoot approximately in their direction and I just accidentally shot them in the head.

The mantra from Trump's lawyer and supporters that I keep hearing now is "they're trying to criminalize political speech." But what if some 'political speech' is used to commit crimes? What if you use political speech to incite a riot, threaten and intimidate, try to discount people's votes, or try to defraud and overthrow the government? What is 'political speech' anyway, and how does that differ from normal speech? AFAIK there is no special or protected category of speech defined as political speech. It's just speech. And if it is used to commit a crime, it isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Predictions are one thing, but conspiracies are another. I'm just wondering how you’ve come to believe that him and Trump and Stone were engaging in a criminal conspiracy. — NOS4A2

It's an inference but not that big of a stretch. It's not like they don't know each other and the best explanation is that Bannon's and Stone's predictions are simply coincidences. Bannon and Stone were both advisors to Trump in the past, they had relationships with him and each other, and they had insight into how Trump thinks. You could argue that alone is explanation enough to why they were able to accurately predict what Trump did, but I would argue that alone is enough to warrant investigating whether they conspired with Trump to come up with this plan of action for 2020 with the goal of staying in power if he lost the election. I think them talking to each other beforehand to brainstorm this course of action is more likely than them each coming up with it independently. After all, Bannon is often credited with being the mastermind behind Trump's 2016 campaign. And Roger Stone cosplays as a Bond villain... I could be wrong and if if this conspiracy isn't be proven to be true, I will admit that.

What we can say for sure is that these people are scum. The idea of declaring victory on election night before all of the votes are counted as a political strategy is corrupt and vile -- and so is anyone who would recommend or admire that.

While you cannot infer intent from the act itself, it's still possible to infer it from other acts before that. For instance, you had a prior fight with the person, went to the store to buy a gun and then went to their house, we have a clear case for intent without a confession.

yes, of course I agree. I don't personally need a confession to find a person beyond all reasonable doubt guilty of a crime involving intent. The same can't be said for every poster

Oddly enough, even a confession doesn't establish certainty. People have confessed to crimes they haven't committed.

joking or not, it's relevant to the argument NOS is making. If NOS thinks that trump can't be guilty here because you can't prove intent without a confession, then that means a lot of crimes that involve intent are also unprovable without a confession. — flannel jesus

Of course - that's what I'm trying (in my own way) to get NOS to understand

yes, of course I agree. I don't personally need a confession to find a person beyond all reasonable doubt guilty of a crime involving intent. The same can't be said for every poster

In this case you do need a confession, or some substantial evidence, because all of the evidence points to Trump believing the election was stolen. I can provide pages of quotes, activities, and witnesses to prove this. All of it is documented. And you would provide…what exactly?

Even if he believed it was stolen, yes, even if it was stolen, stealing it back isn't lawful.

Edit: meaning criminal intent can arise irrespective of what he believed to be the case. It is sufficient that he intended the result of the conspiracy.

Contesting an election is legal.

Not by every method.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not here to prove to you he was guilty. I can't provide anything, there are people whose job it is to do that and that's exactly what they're going to do. I eagerly await the trial and, if it's made public, the evidence that comes out of it.

You'll be waiting a long, long time if you're waiting for an old fraudster like Trump to confess. You'd have to be an idiot to think he believed the election was stolen. This is a recurring strategy he uses: "If I win I'm great, if I lose it was rigged against me." It's the sore loser strategy and we all remember it from childhood -- but Trump never outgrew it. He was gearing up to use this in case he lost to Hillary in 2016. He used this for the Iowa primary in 2016. He even used this for why he didn't win an Emmy for his TV show "The Apprentice."

I've known chronic liars and the question always comes up from others who know them: "What if they really believe what they're saying?" It's a ridiculous question. They're toxic people and I want nothing to do with them. Yet we elected one to be President in 2016... and what do you know, we're still dealing with the repercussions of that toxic relationship.

I still can’t figure out what particular act was the criminal one or who the victims were.

I’m just curious as to why you believe it or not. If not for evidence or lack thereof, then what?

Victims are not required. Failed attempts at crimes can be convicted as well. As to the particular acts, they are set out in the writ of summons or whatever that's called in the US. Whether they can prove intent with respect to the conspiracies is another. I think the classified documents case is much simpler to prove because they are general intent crimes.

A victimless crime lacking any overt criminal act or criminal intent doesn't seem like much of a crime. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, to me.