Schiff: ‘Sufficient evidence’ to criminally charge Trump over efforts to overturn election

[Jacksprat]

The call to Raffensperger is pretty clear evidence of a crime.

Absolutely.

 

[Athanasius68]

"The devil made me do it" isn't a defense in a conspiracy case. It only adds the devil as a co-conspirator. That's what was rejected. The defense. It's not even logically sound much less legally.

Even if such a nonsensical defense were allowed, Trump hasn't been indicted much less convicted of this crime. This court did not investigate nor prosecute Trump. Trump's guilt or innocence cannot be determined by this court.

You'd like to pre-empt Trump's involvement with 1/6 using these unrelated cases. What was determined with Rhodes and Meggs has no influence whatsoever on the DoJ's investigation into Trump.

Yes. The DOJ argued that the defense (those who tried to make it) would be unable to prove their claim of Trump culpability.

 

[Athanasius68]

No you haven't and no you can't. And again, it's been explained to you 15 times. The prosecutions argument that a defendant can't get away with blaming Trump, or the prosecution even going so far to say Trump did not make you do it is NOT in any way shape or form an absolution of Trump for January 6.

Just stop.

Since Trump did nothing to cause somebody else to riot, then obviously the DOJ can't argue sensibly that Trump did something to cause the riot.

 

[Athanasius68]

Lie. No you have not.

And the funniest thing about your lie: even if it were true, it wouldn't make one lick of difference. In what deranged fantasy does it matter what was said in another court? It's all just so painfully stupid. It's not even worth lying about.

So the DOJ says in one court that Trump did nothing to cause that person on trial to riot.

Then they say in another court that Trump did something to cause that person to riot.

It doesn't work. They are all one big happy DOJ family.

 

[Michael Cole]

Yes. The DOJ argued that the defense (those who tried to make it) would be unable to prove their claim of Trump culpability.

Which does not absolve Trump of culpability. Trump wasn't on trial. If and when he's indicted, the Rhodes Meggs trial won't be used nor needed.

 

[Athanasius68]

Which does not absolve Trump of culpability. Trump wasn't on trial. If and when he's indicted, the Rhodes Meggs trial won't be used nor needed.

A prosecution isn't like the Jan 6 committee- the defense is actually allowed to challenge the evidence, present their own evidence and make an argument.

The DOJ made the claim of non-Trump culpability in relation to somebody else's trial. That would matter in a Trump trial.
It would also matter in that other guys' trial

 

[Michael Cole]

A prosecution isn't like the Jan 6 committee- the defense is actually allowed to challenge the evidence, present their own evidence and make an argument.

Which has nothing to do with Rhodes.

The DOJ made the claim of non-Trump culpability in relation to somebody else's trial.

They rejected the defense. Trump couldn't be held accountable in this trial. Trump wasn't on trial. I don't know what you're not getting. That Trump couldn't be blamed for Rhodes' and Meggs' actions doesn't absolve Trump of any guilt on 1/6.

That would matter in a Trump trial.
It would also matter in that other guys' trial

If there is a connection, perhaps with Stone, yes it could matter. But it doesn't matter. A federal judge ruled Trump and Eastman likely committed federal felonies. That's not the 1/6 committee.

 

[Athanasius68]

Which has nothing to do with Rhodes.

They rejected the defense. Trump couldn't be held accountable in this trial. Trump wasn't on trial. I don't know what you're not getting. That Trump couldn't be blamed for Rhodes' and Meggs' actions doesn't absolve Trump of any guilt on 1/6.

If there is a connection, perhaps with Stone, yes it could matter. But it doesn't matter. A federal judge ruled Trump and Eastman likely committed federal felonies. That's not the 1/6 committee.

Yes-- Trump was not responsible.
That's what the DOJ argued in court-- under oath, in somebody else's trial

What's the impact on that in now suddenly saying Trump IS responsible?

 

[Galactic Spin]

So the DOJ says in one court that Trump did nothing to cause that person on trial to riot.

Then they say in another court that Trump did something to cause that person to riot

That's still a lie.

And even if it were true, it would make no difference whatsoever.

You're really not getting this.

 

[vanceen]

Complete digression...

I've noticed that on message boards lately, asking someone for evidence of a claim they make is now called "sealioning" and earns the requester the epithet "troll".

Repeated requests for evidence are answered by photographs of sea lions and more "troll" characterizations.

Since when is it bad form in a debate to ask for supporting evidence for a claim?

 

[Galactic Spin]

I've noticed that on message boards lately, asking someone for evidence of a claim they make is now called "sealioning" and earns the requester the epithet "troll".

No you haven't. What you have noticed is that posters are either ignorant of basic facts of these topics or are pretending to be ignorant, and people are not going to provide ymthem with basic facts that they should already know before even commenting.

I, for one, am glad people are taking a stand against the sealioning. It derails and spams and ruins threads.

 

[vanceen]

No you haven't. What you have noticed is that you are either ignorant of basic facts of these topics or are pretending to be ignorant, and people are not going to provide you with basic facts that you should already know before even commenting.

A bizarre reply. What do you know about me that leads you to concluded I'm "ignorant of basic facts"? And how did this question become personal?

Do you think that asking for evidence of a claim is a bad thing to do in a debate?

Bear in mind that things "everybody knows" often turn out to be false.

 

[Galactic Spin]

A bizarre reply. What do you know about me that leads you to concluded I'm "ignorant of basic facts"? And how did this question become personal?

Do you think that asking for evidence of a claim is a bad thing to do in a debate?

Bear in mind that things "everybody knows" often turn out to be false.

I caught that and edited to my meaning of "posters". I apologize for the personal accusation. Though, if I see you do this, I will revert back to it.

 

[vanceen]

I caught that and edited to my meaning of "posters". I apologize for the personal accusation. Though, if I see you do this, I will revert back to it.

Do what?

 

[Galactic Spin]

Do what?

Haha, sealioning about sealioning. I see what you did there. Pretty witty.

 

[vanceen]

Haha, sealioning about sealioning. I see what you did there. Pretty witty.

You haven't clearly said what's the difference between "sealioning" and asking for evidence of a claim.

If someone says "water is wet" and a poster replies "link?" there might be reason to suppose the response is disingenuous.

On the other hand, most of the posts I see that are accused of "sealioning" are not of that nature. It looks to me as if accusations of "sealioning" is what some posters do when they have no evidence of what they are claiming.

Asking for evidence of claims is an essential part of debate. If that can't be done, the whole exercise is truly pointless.

 

[Galactic Spin]

You haven't clearly said what's the difference between "sealioning" and asking for evidence of a claim.

I pretty clearly spoke to ignorance, pretend or otherwise, of basic facts that everyone should already have before commenting. I spoke right to it. I could not have been more clear.

 

[vanceen]

I pretty clearly spoke to ignorance, pretend or otherwise, of basic facts that everyone should already have before commenting. I spoke right to it. I could not have been more clear.

Yes, you did, apologies.

I still contend that many things that many people consider "basic facts" are in fact nonsense with no supporting evidence.

Before I make a claim here, I'm in the habit of searching the subject. First, to be sure I don't say something incorrect, and second, to have a response if I'm asked for evidence.

Your stipulation of pretence is perfectly fair. People shouldn't play games by asking for proof of things they already know. The "basic facts" part is more contentious, to say the least.

In any case, I've seen plenty of posts on here where people are asking for evidence of things that are not established common knowledge, and getting accused of "sealioning". It's happend to me, as well. I see no sense in it. Again, I think it's usually what posters do when they have no evidence. It's much easier to post a photograph of an aquatic mammal than it is to admit "I have nothing to back this up".

 

[Galactic Spin]

I still contend that many things that many people consider "basic facts" are in fact nonsense with no supporting evidence.

Then take that case by case I guess.

 

[jnug]

David Schoen, was on the Ari Melber show tonight jousting with Melber about the evidence v Trump and the possibility of DOJ indictment.

Schoen's on air defense of Trump provides a good example for why this case is a tedious process that takes time.

Now I will admit that if Melber were actually a good trial attorney, he would not be wasting his time as a TV talking head. In fact, I have little good to say about any of the TV talking head attorneys including the famous TV talking head attorneys. That said, it is the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that makes federal criminal prosecution so hard for prosecutors and allows defense attorneys to just throw a bunch of duck feathers in the air in a stiff breeze and cloud the issue enough to make it difficult to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

IMO, DOJ will have to nail either Eastman or Meadows and get one or both of them to turn on Trump to make a conviction against him. Now it is possible that Meadows has already turned. That is a possibility. Pat Cippollone will have no choice but to testify truthfully and he will not have the shield of Executive Privilege before the Grand Jury as he had before the House Committee. Cippollone with either Eastman or Meadows would make life pretty precarious for Trump.

 

[Michael Cole]

Yes-- Trump was not responsible.
That's what the DOJ argued in court-- under oath, in somebody else's trial

What's the impact on that in now suddenly saying Trump IS responsible?

There is no impact. That's the point.

 

[Michael Cole]

Complete digression...

I've noticed that on message boards lately, asking someone for evidence of a claim they make is now called "sealioning" and earns the requester the epithet "troll".

Repeated requests for evidence are answered by photographs of sea lions and more "troll" characterizations.

Since when is it bad form in a debate to ask for supporting evidence for a claim?

Relentless requests to already answered questions is sealioning.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Relentless requests to already answered questions is sealioning.

Don't feed the sealions.

 

[Athanasius68]

There is no impact. That's the point.

Of course there is.
That other guy was on trial. The state said he-- and nobody else-- was responsible.

 

[vanceen]

Relentless requests to already answered questions is sealioning.

OK. But I've seen the term used more than once for perfectly valid requests for evidence to support a claim.

Part of the phenomenon is that some posters, when asked for evidence or links, post numerous long links that turn out not to support their claim in the slightest. To find that out you have to read a long link that turns out to be pointless. When it's pointed out that the link doesn't support the claim, the claimer starts saying "I've already answered that!"

I prefer debate to be based on facts as much as possible. If the facts are stipulated, some point of agreement is at least possible. If everybody can just make up their facts, "debate" is nothing but pointless posing and bloviating.