If Trump thought the election was not on the level, does he win the Fulton County case?

[The AntiDonald]

This is a good question.

Willis' case hinges on her contention that Trump and the other defendants made "false statements"...that he knew his statements about election fraud were false which means all of their actions were for another purpose...overthrowing the election.

But if they believed their statements about election fraud were true, that means they were not false statements and their actions had a different purpose...stopping the election fraud.

There is very little evidence that can support the notion that Trump and the other defendants knew their statements were false, but that won't stop Willis from making contentions that are base on blatant spin and nonsense. And she will be aided by all the spin and nonsense that has been spouted over the last coupe of years by the Trump haters and the Trump hating media.

The decision in court as to whether Trump and the other defendants or guilty or not will rest with the jury, so it'll all come down to whether the jury is persuaded by facts and reason or if they fall on the side of spin and nonsense.

Rudy has already admitted in a deposition that he lied about Ruby Freeman and her daughter. Be prepared for a lot more of these admissions to come out as these folks realize they are going to jail.

 

[Mycroft]

If we should not accept their opinion, why should we accept yours? Your argument defeats itself.

I have never asked you to accept my opinion.

 

[Mycroft]

What about the "opinions" of the 60 COURTS who told trump he was WRONG?????

They didn't.

 

[Mycroft]

That is hugely wrong, Mycroft. There are mountains of evidence that support the fact that Trump knew his claims of election fraud were phony.

Whether other people said stuff is irrelevant.

Trump had his own opinions...and that's what matter when considering whether Trump believed election fraud caused him to lose or not.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Whether other people said stuff is irrelevant.

Trump had his own opinions...and that's what matter when considering whether Trump believed election fraud caused him to lose or not.

What he believes is irrelevant if he is calling state officials demanding they find him extra votes or tries to set up fake electors, dude.


Would you be fine if Hillary Clinton tried to do those two things after the 2016 election?

 

[Jessie C]

They didn't.

THEY DID!

Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President Donald Trump and his allies challenging the election or its outcome.

Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign

Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President...

www.reuters.com

 

[jmotivator]

Assuming he thought the election was not on the level, because he believed the folks saying there was election fraud and other problems, is he still guilty of something?

I voted Other because the question really should be "should he win" and "should he lose".

If a person believes that election fraud occurred it would be chilling to think that you can go to jail for such beliefs.

It that were the case then what do you do about news paper editorial staff and Hollywood celebrities and TV pundits who swore up and down that the 2016 election was stolen?

 

[Quag]

Irrelevant to Trumps guilt but the triator knew he lost

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Trump knew he lost and he lied about it.

Trump Knew He Lost the Election, Aides Testify

Despite his claims, former President Donald Trump privately conceded he lost to Joe Biden, according to video testimony from former administration officials. He also took dramatic steps to potentially withdraw troops from Afghanistan, steps that the committee showed he knew he had lost and wanted to

www.wsj.com

 

[Yes_Minister]

I voted Other because the question really should be "should he win" and "should he lose".

If a person believes that election fraud occurred it would be chilling to think that you can go to jail for such beliefs.

It that were the case then what do you do about news paper editorial staff and Hollywood celebrities and TV pundits who swore up and down that the 2016 election was stolen?

Did Hillary Clinton try to create fake electors or demand state officials find her extra votes? That is the difference here.

 

[JasperL]

I voted Other because the question really should be "should he win" and "should he lose".

If a person believes that election fraud occurred it would be chilling to think that you can go to jail for such beliefs.

Good thing that nothing in the indictment might send anyone to jail for their beliefs!!

It that were the case then what do you do about news paper editorial staff and Hollywood celebrities and TV pundits who swore up and down that the 2016 election was stolen?

Did they engage with others in a conspiracy to then overturn the results? If not, then you do nothing.

DJT and others were indicted for their illegal ACTIONS. Read the indictment. It's all there. Just for example, there really is a certified winner of the GA election and it's Biden. Trump et al. did exhaust all their legal options to overturn that result. That's just a fact. When legal options all failed, Trump et al. engaged in an attempt to use illegal means to overturn the results.

 

[jmotivator]

Did Hillary Clinton try to create fake electors or demand state officials find her extra votes? That is the difference here.

LOL. She created a false Russian Conspiracy that launched 5 year bullshit investigation to challenge the legitimacy of the Presidency and push Hollywood and the News Media to plead with electors to vote Hillary.

It's like you spent 2016 through 2020 under a rock..

 

[jmotivator]

Good thing that nothing in the indictment might send anyone to jail for their beliefs!!

Did they engage with others in a conspiracy to then overturn the results? If not, then you do nothing.

DJT and others were indicted for their illegal ACTIONS. Read the indictment. It's all there. Just for example, there really is a certified winner of the GA election and it's Biden. Trump et al. did exhaust all their legal options to overturn that result. That's just a fact. When legal options all failed, Trump et al. engaged in an attempt to use illegal means to overturn the results.

They literally sought to have the EC vote Hillary. And they justified it with a bullshit story and a bullshit investigation that Hillary, her staff, the FBI and the DOJ knew was bullshit.

Again, if you actually believe that the election was stolen then you should have the right to challenge the election. The abundance of evidence in the 2016 election shows that Hillary Clinton and her staff knew the Russian collusion story was bullshit but she let it tear the country apart anyway.

 

[Yes_Minister]

LOL. She created a false Russian Conspiracy that launched 5 year bullshit investigation to challenge the legitimacy of the Presidency and push Hollywood and the News Media to plead with electors to vote Hillary.

It's like you spent 2016 through 2020 under a rock..

So show me a link that she tried to set up fake electors and demanded state officials to find her extra votes.

I think pleading with electors to change their votes is ill-advised, but it's not fraud like setting up fake electors would be. If all Trump did was plead that the electors vote for him rather than Biden, he wouldn't be charged dude.

 

[jmotivator]

So show me a link that she tried to set up fake electors and demanded state officials to find her extra votes.

I think pleading with electors to change their votes is ill-advised, but it's not fraud like setting up fake electors would be.

Setting up electors in the event you win a state challenge isn't setting up fake electors. Pleading with electors to change their vote is doing DIRECTLY what Trump planned to do after a successful legal challenge. He lost that legal challenge and so nothing came of those standby electors.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Setting up electors in the event you win a state challenge isn't setting up fake electors. Pleading with electors to change their vote is doing DIRECTLY what Trump planned to do after a successful legal challenge. He lost that legal challenge and so nothing came of those standby electors.

Except a lot of the charges are related to these electors, the prosecution thinks that Trump was using these electors to commit fraud.


Does not seem like Trump and his team had honest intentions with these electors.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[Overitall]

What about the "opinions" of the 60 COURTS who told trump he was WRONG????? trumps stupid beliefs mean nothing in light of cold hard facts. He can believe the moon is made of cheese, and it means nothing.

Actually, what Trump believed goes to the heart of the case. The prosecution is claiming Trump knowingly believed he lost the election, but lied about it. It's going to be difficult to prove intent. Trump can reject the conclusion of all 60 courts. Their opinions only matter if you believe the courts are right. How many times has a criminal insisted he is innocent, despite being found guilty in court?

 

[JasperL]

They literally sought to have the EC vote Hillary. And they justified it with a bullshit story and a bullshit investigation that Hillary, her staff, the FBI and the DOJ knew was bullshit.

I don't know who "they" are, and it's of course legal in some states for the certified electors to vote their consciences. It's certainly legal for you or me to write an opinion - "Hey, electors, use the right you have in the LAW to vote your conscience!!" Had Trump done THAT, there's no issue, no indictment.

Have you read the indictment?

Again, if you actually believe that the election was stolen then you should have the right to challenge the election.

Of course, and Trump et al. did challenge the 'election' and lost every single challenge, lost every recount, every court case. That's where the legal options ended. It is in fact illegal to after you've exhausted all your LEGAL options, appoint fake electors then try to have Pence illegally and unilaterally toss random states that he doesn't like the outcome, and then insert illegally appointed electors in their place.

The abundance of evidence in the 2016 election shows that Hillary Clinton and her staff knew the Russian collusion story was bullshit but she let it tear the country apart anyway.

Start a thread on that if you want. This is about 'beliefs' being a defense for illegal ACTIONS.

 

[JerryW]

This is exactly the time the Trump team will put forth their data and information and it won't be just vote recounts, which is virtually all we've had so far.

Looking forward to this reveal - promised to be happen on August 28th.

Edited to fix typo

Wait, is the report coming the 21st?

 

[Rexedgar]

This is a good question.

Willis' case hinges on her contention that Trump and the other defendants made "false statements"...that he knew his statements about election fraud were false which means all of their actions were for another purpose...overthrowing the election.

But if they believed their statements about election fraud were true, that means they were not false statements and their actions had a different purpose...stopping the election fraud.

There is very little evidence that can support the notion that Trump and the other defendants knew their statements were false, but that won't stop Willis from making contentions that are base on blatant spin and nonsense. And she will be aided by all the spin and nonsense that has been spouted over the last coupe of years by the Trump haters and the Trump hating media.

The decision in court as to whether Trump and the other defendants or guilty or not will rest with the jury, so it'll all come down to whether the jury is persuaded by facts and reason or if they fall on the side of spin and nonsense.

What evidence have you been privy to?

 

[jmotivator]

I don't know who "they" are, and it's of course legal in some states for the certified electors to vote their consciences. It's certainly legal for you or me to write an opinion - "Hey, electors, use the right you have in the LAW to vote your conscience!!" Had Trump done THAT, there's no issue, no indictment.

I've given you examples.

Have you read the indictment?

Yes, I have. Challenging an election isn't a crime.

Of course, and Trump et al. did challenge the 'election' and lost every single challenge, lost every recount, every court case. That's where the legal options ended. It is in fact illegal to after you've exhausted all your LEGAL options, appoint fake electors then try to have Pence illegally and unilaterally toss random states that he doesn't like the outcome, and then insert illegally appointed electors in their place.

Well that's bullshit. Losing a court case doesn't obligate you to agree with the decision. You can immediately plan appeals, new challenges. That's like arresting you folks for wanting to overturn a SCOTUS decision...

Start a thread on that if you want. This is about 'beliefs' being a defense for illegal ACTIONS.

No, the claimed illegality of the Trump indictment requires that he knew he lost and was seeking an unjustified outcome. You know, like what Hillary did....

 

[CharloTexan]

This is a good question.

Willis' case hinges on her contention that Trump and the other defendants made "false statements"...that he knew his statements about election fraud were false which means all of their actions were for another purpose...overthrowing the election.

But if they believed their statements about election fraud were true, that means they were not false statements and their actions had a different purpose...stopping the election fraud.

There is very little evidence that can support the notion that Trump and the other defendants knew their statements were false, but that won't stop Willis from making contentions that are base on blatant spin and nonsense. And she will be aided by all the spin and nonsense that has been spouted over the last coupe of years by the Trump haters and the Trump hating media.

The decision in court as to whether Trump and the other defendants or guilty or not will rest with the jury, so it'll all come down to whether the jury is persuaded by facts and reason or if they fall on the side of spin and nonsense.

There's plenty of evidence that supports Trump and others knew their statements were false, and to the degree that, surprisingly, you are yet convinced, it will be thoroughly presented in trial. Trump, by far more than any person on Earth, as President had access to all of the information, knowledge and philosophy in the world at his disposal, just for the asking. To believe that, in spite of that vast bank of information available to inform him on his most vital issue of concern, and yet he was oblivious, and unconvinced of the truth of the matter. And that, all in light of 60 losses - SIXTY! - out of a possible 60 (.000 batting average) in courts across the land.

As the President, he has an obligation, generally, to the people of the USA to be right, correct. Morally, ethically, politically, and legally. Especially when the plan you are about to implement is to reverse the presidential election results that are based in every possible way on the will of those people, from your opponent winning, to you winning - no conflict of interest there in your "Presidential duties", surely not.

That is called an insurrection dude. Yes, it's spelled - I N S U R R E C T I O N. Yes, it IS a big word.

 

[pamak]

...

Supposedly, yes. In Wisconsin. The allegation is that Trump called Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Voss and said that he would like them to decertify the election result. That's not illegal.

"Hey, Wisconsin, decertify the election."

"No, sorry, we don't have that authority."

"I disagree."

"Ok, fine. We aren't doing it."

This is a crime, now?

By the way, an overt act to farther a conspiracy does not have to be a crime itself. For example, I may conspire to kill somebody and buy perfectly legally a gun to do so. The prosecutor can still use the LEGAL action of mine buying a gun as part of proving the elements of the crime of conspiracy.

Conspiracy Laws

In-depth information about the inchoate crime of conspiracy, which involves agreement between two or more people to commit a crime and an 'overt act.'

www.justia.com

Finally, in most states, conspiracy requires an “overt act” taken in furtherance of the crime. This overt act does not have to be the crime itself, nor does it have to be an act that is illegal. Rather, the act must merely be a step taken in furtherance of the criminal objective, such as buying a weapon or holding a meeting to plan an attack.


The federal law seems to have similar requirements

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

So, yes, the types of phone calls you are citing can be used to support the crime of conspiring to defraud the United States

 

[JasperL]

I've given you examples.

Right, editorial staff, unnamed, and Hollywood celebs, unnamed, etc.

But you miss the point, because you must. There is no crime possible if Hillary herself said to electors - "Hey, Trump electors!! You have the legal right to vote your conscience. Use that right to vote for ME!!!"

What you can't do is engage in a conspiracy to have those very electors to be illegally discarded, their votes nullified, at the whim of Pence/Biden as VP in 2016, then illegally 'appointed' electors substituted in their place. That is the core of the 'conspiracy.' Where does 'belief' enter into this scheme? Nowhere - it is about ACTIONS.

Yes, I have. Challenging an election isn't a crime.

Then you didn't read it very carefully because they did more than 'challenge' the election. They attempted to overturn the legally certified results.

Well that's bullshit. Losing a court case doesn't obligate you to agree with the decision. You can immediately plan appeals, new challenges. That's like arresting you folks for wanting to overturn a SCOTUS decision...

Why did you ignore this: "It is in fact illegal to after you've exhausted all your LEGAL options, appoint fake electors then try to have Pence illegally and unilaterally toss random states that he doesn't like the outcome, and then insert illegally appointed electors in their place."

Has nothing at all to do with 'agree' with a decision or not. It's whether you and me have an obligation to comply with the decision and therefore the LAW. If we 'disagree' we cannot then, because we really really REALLY believe it was wrong, then legally act contrary to that decision. Our beliefs are not relevant to the LAW.

If an abortion provider in Tennessee really, really disagrees with SCOTUS, really believes it was wrongly decided, really, really believes the law in Tennessee and all the court decisions, are in fact unconstitutional, can he then illegally provide abortions, based on his genuine belief, and use his genuine beliefs as a defense for conduct that is objectively illegal, based on the LAW? Of course not. So why is it OK for POTUS to do so, in the case of election court decisions, the decisions by the state officials?

No, the claimed illegality of the Trump indictment requires that he knew he lost and was seeking an unjustified outcome. You know, like what Hillary did....

Did he lose all the court cases? Did he lose the recounts? Did he lose the vote of the electors? Yes to all three and none of them are subject to opinion. So on what basis can he believe he legally won the election?

Does the law give Pence the unilateral right to discard entire slates of electors, based on his whim? No. That is not an opinion.

Does the law give the SoS the legal prerogative to 'find' 11,000 votes? Of course not.

Under what law did the fake electors appoint themselves to be the official electors for GA? There is no law, because the certified result in GA is that Biden won, and so the Biden slate was appointed and cast their votes for Biden.

Etc......

Are we a country ruled by the law or by men? POTUS has an obligation to support and defend the Constitution, and the bedrock of that is that we are a country ruled by the law, not by the 'beliefs' of men such as POTUS. What Trump 'believed' is not relevant to anything when his actions subverted, violated, THE LAW.

 

[Jessie C]

Actually, what Trump believed goes to the heart of the case. The prosecution is claiming Trump knowingly believed he lost the election, but lied about it. It's going to be difficult to prove intent. Trump can reject the conclusion of all 60 courts. Their opinions only matter if you believe the courts are right. How many times has a criminal insisted he is innocent, despite being found guilty in court?

trump KNOWS he lost. He told Meadows he knows he lost. Refer back to Cassidy Hutcheson's testimony. Reject 60 rulings??? PLEASE!!!! That's insane by anyone's definition.