[pilowsky]

thepossum, on 2023-August-04, 02:00, said:

Can I ask a (possibly uninformed) question

Can you be preselected from prison then go on to stand for President? Apologies if already asked

I have rather strong views about the amount of media time this issue is occupying

Strangely, it seems that you can be selected, stand and be elected even if you're in a federal or state prison but at the same time be barred from voting.
You can't vote if you're a felon in Florida.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2023-August-03, 15:27, said:

As Nixon claimed: "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal".

Of course, Nixon is hardly the President that one should emulate. But I'm sure Trump is a big believer in that principle.

If you read the transcript, Nixon was mot saying a president could not break the law, that the determinant was if it were done under presedential powers, for national security purposes.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2023-August-03, 15:25, said:

That's why a bedrock of this case is the fact that almost all his advisors told him that there was no massive voter fraud and he actually lost. I think there's even some statements by Trump acknowledging this. So he knowingly lied to the public, he was not acting on this "genuine belief".

The genuine belief meme is media having to talk about something, If you sincerely believe your neighbor is an alien intent on taking over the world, it is still criminal to shoot your neighbor.It absolutely makes no difference what Trump believed about the election, it is whether or not he knew or should have known his continued actions were criminal.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2023-August-04, 13:38, said:

The genuine belief meme is media having to talk about something, If you sincerely believe your neighbor is an alien intent on taking over the world, it is still criminal to shoot your neighbor.It absolutely makes no difference what Trump believed about the election, it is whether or not he knew or should have known his continued actions were criminal.

The canonical example of restrictions on free speech is "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre". But if you honestly think the building is on fire, you wouldn't know that this is wrong.

I heard one commentor say today that Trump's best strategy is to claim ignorance, that he didn't understand his advisors who told him the election was valid, and couldn't predict the results of his statements. Trump is arguably one of the dumbest people ever to achieve such a high position in government, so this could conceivably succeed. OTOH, he's also way too egotistical to take this approach.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2023-August-04, 13:59, said:

Trump is arguably one of the dumbest people ever to achieve such a high position in government

People in Australia, Brazil, Italy and UK (to name a few in alphabetical order) might doubt this particular argument.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2023-August-04, 13:59, said:

The canonical example of restrictions on free speech is "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre". But if you honestly think the building is on fire, you wouldn't know that this is wrong.

I heard one commentor say today that Trump's best strategy is to claim ignorance, that he didn't understand his advisors who told him the election was valid, and couldn't predict the results of his statements. Trump is arguably one of the dumbest people ever to achieve such a high position in government, so this could conceivably succeed. OTOH, he's also way too egotistical to take this approach.

Even if you sincerely believe the election was stolen, you still cannot conspire to overturn the results by illegal mesns, which the fake elector scheme was.

[taxisquad3]

Has the US Constitutional Republic NOT democracy been Bidened??

[Winstonm]

taxisquad3, on 2023-August-05, 09:52, said:

Has the US Constitutional Republic NOT democracy been Bidened??

democratic constitutional republic

[shyams]

Presumably there aren't many lawyers posting here, but it will be interesting to know expert views.

Why did the Special Counsel include so much in the indictment document that appears superfluous. To me, paragraphs 53 thru 85 in the indictment are grounds enough to test the conspiracy (and the associated 3 counts) in court.

Why bother with Trump lying? Or arguing with various lawmakers all over the country? Or with VP Pence about what Pence can or cannot do? Or his playing of the crowd on Jan 6?

I have no law knowledge but (as a layman) the conspiracy could possibly be wholly proven by focusing on (A) The Fake Electors scheme, and (B) Dishonest attempts to leverage the Justice Deptt. to weaken or overturn the election results.

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2023-August-05, 13:47, said:

Presumably there aren't many lawyers posting here, but it will be interesting to know expert views.

Why did the Special Counsel include so much in the indictment document that appears superfluous. To me, paragraphs 53 thru 85 in the indictment are grounds enough to test the conspiracy (and the associated 3 counts) in court.


Why bother with Trump lying? Or arguing with various lawmakers all over the country? Or with VP Pence about what Pence can or cannot do? Or his playing of the crowd on Jan 6?

I have no law knowledge but (as a layman) the conspiracy could possibly be wholly proven by focusing on (A) The Fake Electors scheme, and (B) Dishonest attempts to leverage the Justice Deptt. to weaken or overturn the election results.

If you want to understand it better, I recommend emptywheel.net, the blog of independent reporter Marcy Wheeler who breaks down and explains each charge and the requirements needed to prove the charges. She also explains why Smith used all the Trump quotes. She specializes in national security and knows the law as well as most attorneys.

One post in particular is titled:
The Elements of Offense in the Trump Jan 6 Indictment

[johnu]

taxisquad3, on 2023-August-05, 09:52, said:

Has the US Constitutional Republic NOT democracy been Bidened??

Welcome QOP. Are you one of those who still thinks Trump is president? I see you are also anti-climate change. Are you an anti-vaxxer, anti-masker, and flat earther too?

[shyams]

Winstonm, on 2023-August-05, 15:59, said:

If you want to understand it better, I recommend emptywheel.net, the blog of independent reporter Marcy Wheeler who breaks down and explains each charge and the requirements needed to prove the charges. She also explains why Smith used all the Trump quotes. She specializes in national security and knows the law as well as most attorneys.

One post in particular is titled:
The Elements of Offense in the Trump Jan 6 Indictment

Thank you. This is a good article.

My view (before I read Marcy Wheeler's article) was that even if the trial focused only on the section I mentioned, Trump would be toast. Then it's the matter of length of sentence and political impact on electorate (if he is still allowed to run).

[johnu]

shyams, on 2023-August-05, 23:02, said:

Then it's the matter of length of sentence and political impact on electorate (if he is still allowed to run).

There's no question that Trump can run for president, even if indicted, even if convicted, even if in prison.

Can he serve as president if he wins? If he had been convicted in either of his impeachment trials, the senate could have voted to permanently bar him from public office.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the right to disqualify an insurrectionist. Not surprisingly it's never been put to the test, and since Democrats only control the Senate there is zero chance of that will happen.

[Winstonm]

This just in: judge rules that Trump will be tried as an adult.

[barmar]

shyams, on 2023-August-05, 13:47, said:

Presumably there aren't many lawyers posting here, but it will be interesting to know expert views.

Why did the Special Counsel include so much in the indictment document that appears superfluous. To me, paragraphs 53 thru 85 in the indictment are grounds enough to test the conspiracy (and the associated 3 counts) in court.

Well, the first line of p.53 is "As the Defendant's attempts to obstruct the electoral vote through deceit of state officials met with repeated failure". So if nothing else, many of the preceding information illustrates those attempts and how they failed. They're background for the actual conspiracy.

But the lies were also instrumental in causing the violent assault on the Capitol by his supporters. "The Defendant's Exploitation of The Violence and Chaos at the Capitol" is an important part of this.

[shyams]

barmar, on 2023-August-11, 16:03, said:

Well, the first line of p.53 is "As the Defendant's attempts to obstruct the electoral vote through deceit of state officials met with repeated failure". So if nothing else, many of the preceding information illustrates those attempts and how they failed. They're background for the actual conspiracy.

But the lies were also instrumental in causing the violent assault on the Capitol by his supporters. "The Defendant's Exploitation of The Violence and Chaos at the Capitol" is an important part of this.

If Trump is found guilty specifically of causing violence and chaos (even after the likely Supreme Court ruling), it would mean your nation's First Amendment rights will have reverted back to the 1920s instead of the rulings of the Supreme Courts since the late 1960s. "Brandenburg" overruled many of the standards established by Supreme Courts of the '20s and made way for more freedom of speech.

I realise we are talking about Trump, but this is more to do with all of your 1-A rights (the kind of rights that we in the UK are envious of).

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2023-August-12, 03:02, said:

If Trump is found guilty specifically of causing violence and chaos (even after the likely Supreme Court ruling), it would mean your nation's First Amendment rights will have reverted back to the 1920s instead of the rulings of the Supreme Courts since the late 1960s. "Brandenburg" overruled many of the standards established by Supreme Courts of the '20s and made way for more freedom of speech.

I realise we are talking about Trump, but this is more to do with all of your 1-A rights (the kind of rights that we in the UK are envious of).

Lying versus first amendment rights is an area fraught with danger for prosecutors but there are some rules that apply. For example, I am free to lie unless I am being interviewed by the FBI or am under oath or am testifying to Congress. There are limits to free speech.

In the indictment of Trump, his lies are shown to be in contrast with truth he knew or should have known having been alerted that opposing views were incorrect. He then repeated those lies in order to provoke a corrupt response - delaying the certifiation of the votes. This action is the heart of Conspiracy to Defruad the United States. He, and at least one other person, used known lies to attempt to stop or delay the certification of the electoral college votes. As it turns out, there were 6 other co-conspirators thus far discovered, and the state of Michigan is bringing charges of their own against the fake electors in their state.

Trump is screwed unless he can get reelected and regain pardon powers.

[johnu]

shyams, on 2023-August-12, 03:02, said:

If Trump is found guilty specifically of causing violence and chaos (even after the likely Supreme Court ruling), it would mean your nation's First Amendment rights will have reverted back to the 1920s instead of the rulings of the Supreme Courts since the late 1960s. "Brandenburg" overruled many of the standards established by Supreme Courts of the '20s and made way for more freedom of speech.

I realise we are talking about Trump, but this is more to do with all of your 1-A rights (the kind of rights that we in the UK are envious of).

Specifically in the USA.

You seem to have been misinformed by right fringe media that have picked up on Trump's ridiculous claims that the government violated his first amendment rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There never has been an absolute right to "free" speech. For instance, you can be sued in civil court for libel or slander. In fact, in the E Jean Carrol civil defamation case, Trump just lost a $5 million judgement, and there is another defamation case scheduled next year.

As for Trump's speech on January 6, from Georgetown Law (a premier US law school)

Quote

It is a felony under federal law to intentionally “solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade” another person to engage in a crime of violence against a person or property. 18 U.S.C. § 373. Many states have similar laws.

Trump walked right up to the line during his speech, IMO he crossed over the line, but, and a big but, Trump was not charged under this statute for his public speech on January 6 that sent mobs of people to commit acts of violence against the Capitol police and the Capitol building.

Trump was indicted because of:

Pushing state officials to either ignore the actual voting results and declare Trump the winner, organizing slates of fake electors, most who secretly met, and sent their fake votes to Congress to be counted on January 6. Pressuring Mike Pence to either throw out legitimate electoral votes from swing states and use the fake elector votes, or send the electoral votes back to the states, or just suspend the voting for 10 days, and by using the insurrection to prevent the electoral vote from happening on January 6. In fact, because Pence refused to leave the Capitol, the final vote was able to restart and completed on 3:40 January 7.
The actual counts:
1. Conspiracy to defraud the US government (with 6 co conspirators)
2. Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
3. Obstruction of an official proceeding
4. Conspiracy against rights

You can read the actual indictment here:

Former President Donald Trump's third indictment, annotated

[shyams]

johnu, on 2023-August-13, 00:31, said:

You seem to have been misinformed by right fringe media that have picked up on Trump's ridiculous claims that the government violated his first amendment rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You seem to (a) have assumed things that are wrong, and (b) not have read my previous comments where I suggested that Trump is toast if they focus on the conspiracy.

I specifically focused on Free Speech rights for all Americans. If you wish, you can look at lawyerly articles on Schenck (1919) and Brandenberg (1969) and see for yourself if the latter SC ruling helped Americans obtain more rights previously not afforded by the court four decades prior.

As for the rest of your points, they add no new value for me. I have read the actual indictment in quite some detail. After WinstonM referred me to it, I read the (very useful) article on the EmptyWheel blog. Finally, I am not American, so I don't care either way what happens on this case.

What I do find fascinating is that even the mere hint of a pro-Trump slant can lead to "Orange Man Bad" styled responses. That reflex is, if I may say so, almost Pavlovian.

[johnu]

shyams, on 2023-August-13, 08:21, said:

You seem to (a) have assumed things that are wrong, and (b) not have read my previous comments where I suggested that Trump is toast if they focus on the conspiracy.

I specifically focused on Free Speech rights for all Americans. If you wish, you can look at lawyerly articles on Schenck (1919) and Brandenberg (1969) and see for yourself if the latter SC ruling helped Americans obtain more rights previously not afforded by the court four decades prior.

As for the rest of your points, they add no new value for me. I have read the actual indictment in quite some detail. After WinstonM referred me to it, I read the (very useful) article on the EmptyWheel blog. Finally, I am not American, so I don't care either way what happens on this case.

What I do find fascinating is that even the mere hint of a pro-Trump slant can lead to "Orange Man Bad" styled responses. That reflex is, if I may say so, almost Pavlovian.

Your comment speaks for itself

shyams, on 2023-August-12, 03:02, said:

If Trump is found guilty specifically of causing violence and chaos (even after the likely Supreme Court ruling), it would mean your nation's First Amendment rights will have reverted back to the 1920s instead of the rulings of the Supreme Courts since the late 1960s. "Brandenburg" overruled many of the standards established by Supreme Courts of the '20s and made way for more freedom of speech.

I realise we are talking about Trump, but this is more to do with all of your 1-A rights (the kind of rights that we in the UK are envious of).