It seems like you believe Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection or perhaps treason?
Can't get anything past you, can we?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It seems like you believe Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection or perhaps treason?
Fight like hell is a well worn phrase that means work hard. You know that. All the banal metaphors Trump used are used in every day language all the time and by politicians. Suggesting that Trump of all people was so smart as to be Jedi mind tricking the crowd into breaking into the Capitol just doesn’t make sense to me.Are you saying the only evidence that would be viable is if he literally states, "go break into the capital building!" and any other words except those in that order is meaningless? That is wild.
He created a rally called, "Save America" to "gather on my (his) behalf" to "fight like hell" for democracy and then tweeted, "We won the Presidential Election, by a lot. FIGHT FOR IT. Don't let them take it away."
On 1/3 he retweeted someone saying, "on the 6th, i recommend wearing a body camera. The more video angles of that day, the better."
At the rally he literally told his supporters to walk down to the Capital and instantly proclaimed "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong." What could that possibly be alluding to? He also made those statements after Rudy G had just said, "Let's have trial by combat!" lol
Taking out the absolute nonsense of voter fraud impacting the election in any way to begin with (often there was more fraud found in favor of Trump than Biden anyways, but I digress), we can't sit here and be so naive as to pretend we don't understand exactly what Trumps intentions were. He laid those out for us. He also didn't attempt to stop it when he knew what was transpiring because again, it was what he truly wanted to happen.
It’s a shame Jack Smith didn’t charge him with that then even though it’s what the little clown committee recommended.Can't get anything past you, can we?
You’re very late to the game on Johnson.At some point you have to stop giving someone the benefit of the doubt. I did with Trump early on, and last night with Xavier Johnson.
It was off the cuff like everything trump does. He didn’t plan anything. Like blurting out bleach. Truthfully he isn’t fit to be president. The problem is neither is the other guyYou’re very late to the game on Johnson.
Re Trump, you have to be consistent. If he’s a ranting narcissist, who doesn’t really pay much attention to the damage he might cause with his words (see the voluminous Tweeting history for actual evidence of this), then you have to apply that characterization here. I just don’t buy Trump as the type who can “plan” a “sophisticated” coup. It wasn’t really in him.
He tried a ham fisted, stupid legal strategy and it was soundly rejected by the judiciary and Congress. When it didn’t work, he raged, pouted, and got a bunch of people riled up about it not being fair.
I get looking into it to see if what he did crossed the line into illegal behavior, given the results. But, again, if it was so clearly a planned insurrection, after years of investigation, why isn’t the Biden/Garland DOJ even charging him with that? Why didn’t Jack Smith?
At some point you have to stop giving someone the benefit of the doubt. I did with Trump early on, and last night with Xavier Johnson.
I guess that depends. Is thinking the earth is round merely a "belief" or is it a fact? At some point something is so blatantly obvious that in order for it to be a "belief", it would require entertaining illogical thinking to the contrary. I don't have the time nor the patience to live in a land of make-believe.It seems like you believe Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection or perhaps treason?
Ok.I guess that depends. Is thinking the earth is round merely a "belief" or is it a fact? At some point something is so blatantly obvious that in order for it to be a "belief", it would require entertaining illogical thinking to the contrary. I don't have the time nor the patience to live in a land of make-believe.
It's not about Jedi mind tricks. Trump is a simpleton and those "banal metaphors" were used because the Jan 6th rioters have openly said they took those exact words as a call to arms. Don't take it from me, take it directly from them! There is no plausible defense to his case.Fight like hell is a well worn phrase that means work hard. You know that. All the banal metaphors Trump used are used in every day language all the time and by politicians. Suggesting that Trump of all people was so smart as to be Jedi mind tricking the crowd into breaking into the Capitol just doesn’t make sense to me.
You're going to need to provide a little more information around what you're implying. What are they incredibly incompetent about exactly? Biden is old AF, and needs to move on. He very well may be living in a land of make-believe. As for the other two, I am going to need more context on your implications in order to understand your question.Ok.
So are Biden, Garland, and Jack Smith living in a land of make believe? Are they Trump dupes, too? Are they just incredibly incompetent? How do you square this circle?
You've now shifted the argument from (1) Trump using words to intentionally beseech the crowd to break into the Capitol building to (2) the crowd interpreting Trump's words as a "call to arms." Those two aren't identical and mobs aren't rational. (Yes, Trump is responsible for a mob being there in the first place and he certainly planned that demonstration).It's not about Jedi mind tricks. Trump is a simpleton and those "banal metaphors" were used because the Jan 6th rioters have openly said they took those exact words as a call to arms. Don't take it from me, take it directly from them! There is no plausible defense to his case.
Spot on.Are you saying the only evidence that would be viable is if he literally states, "go break into the capital building!" and any other words except those in that order is meaningless? That is wild.
He created a rally called, "Save America" to "gather on my (his) behalf" to "fight like hell" for democracy and then tweeted, "We won the Presidential Election, by a lot. FIGHT FOR IT. Don't let them take it away."
On 1/3 he retweeted someone saying, "on the 6th, i recommend wearing a body camera. The more video angles of that day, the better."
At the rally he literally told his supporters to walk down to the Capital and instantly proclaimed "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong." What could that possibly be alluding to? He also made those statements after Rudy G had just said, "Let's have trial by combat!" lol
Taking out the absolute nonsense of voter fraud impacting the election in any way to begin with (often there was more fraud found in favor of Trump than Biden anyways, but I digress), we can't sit here and be so naive as to pretend we don't understand exactly what Trumps intentions were. He laid those out for us. He also didn't attempt to stop it when he knew what was transpiring because again, it was what he truly wanted to happen.
You think it is as plain as the earth is round that Trump engaged in and encouraged insurrection. That is a federal crime. If convicted of it, Trump would beyond doubt be barred from holding the Presidency again.You're going to need to provide a little more information around what you're implying. What are they incredibly incompetent about exactly? Biden is old AF, and needs to move on. He very well may be living in a land of make-believe. As for the other two, I am going to need more context on your implications in order to understand your question.
As someone who works in law, the answer to that is actually quite simple.You think it is as plain as the earth is round that Trump engaged in and encouraged insurrection. That is a federal crime. If convicted of it, Trump would beyond doubt be barred from holding the Presidency again.
So why hasn't DOJ charged him with that?
Thank god we have you "someone who works in the law" to explain such nuances to us.As someone who works in law, the answer to that is actually quite simple.
In the judicial system, you often find prosecutors will charge a criminal with a lower-level crime beyond what may be obvious simply because it's a defense attorneys' job to muddy the waters with meaningless drivel, such as you're providing. In doing so, a human jury is a wild card and with a high-level charge and subsequent penalty, someone in the jury may be more apt to use that that illogical reasoning to assume there could be a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, to protect against that from happening, prosecutors go with a lower-level charge they confidently feel they can prove without a shadow of a doubt, simply because it's much easier to convict.
What? You do realize that logic you outlined goes both ways, right?Re Trump, you have to be consistent. If he’s a ranting narcissist, who doesn’t really pay much attention to the damage he might cause with his words (see the voluminous Tweeting history for actual evidence of this), then you have to apply that characterization here. I just don’t buy Trump as the type who can “plan” a “sophisticated” coup. It wasn’t really in him.
He tried a ham fisted, stupid legal strategy and it was soundly rejected by the judiciary and Congress. When it didn’t work, he raged, pouted, and got a bunch of people riled up about it not being fair.
I get looking into it to see if what he did crossed the line into illegal behavior, given the results. But, again, if it was so clearly a planned insurrection, after years of investigation, why isn’t the Biden/Garland DOJ even charging him with that? Why didn’t Jack Smith?
Social media poster for a bail bond company.Thank god we have you "someone who works in the law" to explain such nuances to us.
What an odd phrasing. You a stenographer? Custodian at a law firm?
What? You do realize that logic you outlined goes both ways, right?
You can't proclaim him to be an unintelligent and oblivious narcissist, yet also somehow be a great president. At the same time, if he somehow is intelligent and knowingly coercing his disciples into doing these things, then he's obviously a diabolical and crazed sociopath. According to you, it's one or the other.
So which one is he to you?
The opposite is actually true. They overcharge so they can broker a plea and ensure convictions and their success rateAs someone who works in law, the answer to that is actually quite simple.
In the judicial system, you often find prosecutors will charge a criminal with a lower-level crime beyond what may be obvious simply because it's a defense attorneys' job to muddy the waters with meaningless drivel, such as you're providing. In doing so, a human jury is a wild card and with a high-level charge and subsequent penalty, someone in the jury may be more apt to use that that illogical reasoning to assume there could be a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, to protect against that from happening, prosecutors go with a lower-level charge they confidently feel they can prove without a shadow of a doubt, simply because it's much easier to convict.
Neither. I'm actually in legal technology. I own a software company that I helped create and design which attorneys utilize to help them in every facet of law. From contract drafting, funding litigation via our vendor management tool, to utilizing AI resources to help develop defense and prosecuting theories for cases and even predict outcomes with a very high success rate.... amongst many other things.Thank god we have you "someone who works in the law" to explain such nuances to us.
What an odd phrasing. You a stenographer? Custodian at a law firm?
That is merely a strategy often utilized when you have multiple people being charged simultaneously. In doing so, the tactic is to get one defendant to become a witness against the others. Especially when the evidence is overbearing. In a case like this, you set yourself up for losing the case by overcharging.The opposite is actually true. They overcharge so they can broker a plea and ensure convictions and their success rate
Uh no. It’s routinely done in cases with an individual defendantThat is merely a strategy often utilized when you have multiple people being charged simultaneously. In doing so, the tactic is to get someone to get one defendant to become a witness. Especially when the evidence is overbearing. In a case like this, you set yourself up for losing the case by overcharging.
What you're referencing are low level crimes where a cop may nab someone in a high-speed chase and then hit him with as many charges as possible knowing he has evidence to back them, but the jury isn't likely to convict them of all of them. To that, as you indicated, they're looking for plea deals knowing the criminal is going to have soft defense, likely with a part-time public defender.Uh no. It’s routinely done in cases with an individual defendant
I’m talking about felony classes as well. The trump case is anomalous in every wayWhat you're referencing are low level crimes where a cop may nab someone in a high-speed chase and then hit him with as many charges as possible knowing he has evidence to back them, but the jury isn't likely to convict them of all of them. To that, as you indicated, they're looking for plea deals knowing the criminal is going to have soft defense, likely with a part-time public defender.
What we're talking about here is quite different. I don't think DJT will have a public defender assigned to him.
Right, but like in the state of IN there are 7 categories of felonies. Wobblers, or level 1 felonies, can often be reduced down to misdemeanors.I’m talking about felony classes as well. The trump case is anomalous in every way
Of course. That’s why they overcharge. There’s room to bargain a plea. State court is a different animal. That’s how they manage caseloads and ensure high conviction ratesRight, but like in the state of IN there are 7 categories of felonies. Wobblers, or level 1 felonies, can often be reduced down to misdemeanors.
He’s not a shyster. He’s in litigation funding. Smart. That’s betterShyster Fight!!!
Smith wanted this case to be quick and relatively uncomplicated. A charge of insurrection would have introduced 1A issues. Also, insurrection has rarely been criminally charged. The conspiracy counts, on the hand, have been oft-tested.You think it is as plain as the earth is round that Trump engaged in and encouraged insurrection. That is a federal crime. If convicted of it, Trump would beyond doubt be barred from holding the Presidency again.
So why hasn't DOJ charged him with that?
I think he had planned with several people in his administration, Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, and several others for this to happen for several weeks According to Cassidy Hutchinson, no one was surprised.Because it was too unpredictable. Because I listened to the worst parts of his rally speech and it didn’t sound much different than a normal Trump rally speech with no direction or even serious implication to break in. Because I haven’t seen a single written piece of evidence where he planned for that to happen or even wanted it at the time.
I don’t think that absolves him of all responsibility, though. I just don’t think he was trying to start an insurrection on J6.
Because it’s harder to prove. He’s going with the case he knows he can make.You think it is as plain as the earth is round that Trump engaged in and encouraged insurrection. That is a federal crime. If convicted of it, Trump would beyond doubt be barred from holding the Presidency again.
So why hasn't DOJ charged him with that?
That you don't like my arguments doesn't make them "meaningless drivel." Try using that language in your next brief and let us know how the judges treat that exaggeration.As someone who works in law, the answer to that is actually quite simple.
In the judicial system, you often find prosecutors will charge a criminal with a lower-level crime beyond what may be obvious simply because it's a defense attorneys' job to muddy the waters with meaningless drivel, such as you're providing. In doing so, a human jury is a wild card and with a high-level charge and subsequent penalty, someone in the jury may be more apt to use that that illogical reasoning to assume there could be a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, to protect against that from happening, prosecutors go with a lower-level charge they confidently feel they can prove without a shadow of a doubt, simply because it's much easier to convict.
Perhaps you could point to the post where I described Trump as "a great president?"What? You do realize that logic you outlined goes both ways, right?
You can't proclaim him to be an unintelligent and oblivious narcissist, yet also somehow be a great president. At the same time, if he somehow is intelligent and knowingly coercing his disciples into doing these things, then he's obviously a diabolical and crazed sociopath. According to you, it's one or the other.
So which one is he to you?
Correct.Uh no. It’s routinely done in cases with an individual defendant
It isn't hard to prove the Earth is round, Zeke. Not at all.Because it’s harder to prove. He’s going with the case he knows he can make.
That's just your opinion, man.It isn't hard to prove the Earth is round, Zeke. Not at all.
You're preaching to the choir. You need to talk to Kyrie Irving.It isn't hard to prove the Earth is round, Zeke. Not at all.
Let me muddy the waters here:That's just your opinion, man.
They’re really going to have trouble as it sounds like we MAY have found alien life
So which one is it?Perhaps you could point to the post where I described Trump as "a great president?"
That you don't like my arguments doesn't make them "meaningless drivel." Try using that language in your next brief and let us know how the judges treat that exaggeration.
As for "muddying the waters," how can one muddy the waters on something you described as being as obvious as the Earth being round? How many prosecutors do you know who would fear trying to prove a fact so obvious in court? Perhaps, you were engaging in a bit of hyperbole and didn't really mean to be taken literally (like Trump)?
As for the lower-level charge stuff, That seems unlikely given this administration's description of Trump as a "threat to democracy." But if it is so simple, what is your expert legal opinion on exactly how the insurrection charge is harder to prove than what Smith has already charged? What element, specifically, carries a higher burden? Of course, by arguing that, you've made my point--the evidence regarding Trump's alleged insurrection is weak--weak enough Smith doesn't think he can win.
You also must know of the phenomenon called "overcharging," where a prosecutor actually charges more than they think they might be able to prove in the hopes the defendant will either settle it out rather than face that risk or to give the jury a way to split the baby and deliver a middle-of-the-road finding that still nails the defendant. Why wouldn't Smith do that here if Trump is such a danger to democracy?