2024 Field

[striker42]

I thought all Governors had pardon powers in the state. I am going to guess you live in Georgia to know that much about the DA. I am sure you know the law especially Georgia law better than me but I dont see how Trumps phone calls is not soliciting someone to commit election fraud. That the state Republicans are trying to change the states constitution to get epection fraud grand jury to include the entire state rather than just the county it was committed in tells me they expect charges. Even if they make the change I would think not would not effect crimes prior to the change but they wouldnt be doing it now for any other reason than to help Trump. I dont see how Trump could make any claim that he just wanted accurate results and there was no corrupt motive.




I fully expect the real crazies to come out if/when Trump goes on trial. Expecting atleast 1 terrorist attack.

Who has the power to pardon state crimes is determined by state constitutions. Georgia's constitution vests the pardon power in the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Georgia actually has one of the weaker governorships out there. The most powerful man in the State of Georgia isn't the governor, it's the speaker of the house.

You can pretty much bet that a DA of a major city is a piece of trash. I've never met one that wasn't. I have some personal experience with this woman though and have absolutely no respect for her. As such, she's exactly the kind of person I'd expect would be a DA.

I'd need to look more into the bills currently proposed on the issue to see if they'd require re-indictment. Even if they would I'm not sure that's something the legislature could do. There's a lot that I would need to look into there so instead I'll just wait and see how it plays out.

As for why I don't think he can be convicted, it's because of the reasonable doubt standard. I'll put in this disclaimer, I'm assuming this is all based on what is publicly known about that call. If there's additional evidence it could change things. But based on what is publicly known, I can't see there being a conviction.

You don't have to believe claims that Trump just wanted accurate results. You can believe that he was trying to influence the election. The question is whether there's an alternate explanation that supports reasonable doubt. If his lawyers show up and argue that he believed that there was rampant voter fraud and he was pleading with the Secretary of State to step in, investigate what was going on, and find enough of the fraud to make the result reflect the truth, it's a hard narrative to disprove.

You don't have to believe that explanation. You can think he's lying through his teeth. The question is whether that explanation creates a reasonable doubt. And it does. Unless they have more then there's a fair chance the judge tosses this on summary judgment.

It's just so hard to get a conviction with talk in general terms like the call was. If he had said something like "maybe we can get you a few boxes of ballots that you can say were found" then you have him. You have something specific. General terms can be explained away as Trump asking the SOS to do his job.

 

[cajunrevenge]

In the call Raffensberger explains to Trump what's wrong with his accusations and he just circles back around minutes later to the same claims. I also dont think "my client is a delusional narcissist who isnt capable of telling fantasy from reality" is a good excuse in court. If it was this one thing that's a solid excuse but it's literally everything in life.



I also expect Republicans in Georgia to atleast attempt to change the state constitution to allow the Governor to pardon Trump.

 

[striker42]

In the call Raffensberger explains to Trump what's wrong with his accusations and he just circles back around minutes later to the same claims. I also dont think "my client is a delusional narcissist who isnt capable of telling fantasy from reality" is a good excuse in court. If it was this one thing that's a solid excuse but it's literally everything in life.



I also expect Republicans in Georgia to atleast attempt to change the state constitution to allow the Governor to pardon Trump.

You still run into the problem of the call being too general. You can infer that he wanted the SOS to commit election fraud but inferences are often not enough. Think of it as solicitation of prostitution. If you go up to a girl you think is a prostitute and say "It sure would be nice if I had some company tonight," have you committed solicitation? No. While it's easy to infer you were wanting to pay the woman for sex, you could argue that you were just trying to pick up a girl for a one night stand. Without saying something more specific, you can't be proven to have committed solicitation beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's essentially what that call was. An inference of Trump soliciting election fraud can be made. A strong inference. But you need something more concrete.

 

[cajunrevenge]

First let me say its refreshing to have a discussion around here without the childish games people want to play. I dont think the call was general at all. Trump specifically mentions the total he lost by and that he just wants to find that many votes for himself repeatedly in the call. So any argument he just really cared about accurate results goes out the window there imo. He says screw all these other allegations as long as he gets enough to win the state. So corrupt intent imo is firmly established. Just the call itself was highly inappropriate. If the call wasnt trying to get Raffensberger to commit election fraud what could the intent have been? Trump repeatedly asks Raffensberger to just award him more votes based on baseless lies. If Raffensberger the next day called a press conference and says they are awarding 12k more votes to Trump because "insert any claim Trump makes here" how would that not be election fraud? Its pretty obvious the intent isnt pure when Raffensberger tells Trump that their investigations of his claims resulted in no evidence of a wrong vote total and Trump refuses to accept it. Trump literally tells Raffensberger that theres nothing wrong with just saying we recalculated and Trump won. Would that not be election fraud? Or atleast attempted election fraud? I dont know that the Secretary could change the vote if he wanted to but it would atleast have given fuel to the fire for states legislature to try to overturn the vote based on false allegations of election fraud.

 

[nsacpi]

First let me say its refreshing to have a discussion around here without the childish games people want to play. I dont think the call was general at all. Trump specifically mentions the total he lost by and that he just wants to find that many votes for himself repeatedly in the call. So any argument he just really cared about accurate results goes out the window there imo. He says screw all these other allegations as long as he gets enough to win the state. So corrupt intent imo is firmly established. Just the call itself was highly inappropriate. If the call wasnt trying to get Raffensberger to commit election fraud what could the intent have been? Trump repeatedly asks Raffensberger to just award him more votes based on baseless lies. If Raffensberger the next day called a press conference and says they are awarding 12k more votes to Trump because "insert any claim Trump makes here" how would that not be election fraud? Its pretty obvious the intent isnt pure when Raffensberger tells Trump that their investigations of his claims resulted in no evidence of a wrong vote total and Trump refuses to accept it. Trump literally tells Raffensberger that theres nothing wrong with just saying we recalculated and Trump won. Would that not be election fraud? Or atleast attempted election fraud? I dont know that the Secretary could change the vote if he wanted to but it would atleast have given fuel to the fire for states legislature to try to overturn the vote based on false allegations of election fraud.

I think context also matters in establishing motive. There is a lot of context to chew on.

 

[cajunrevenge]

Motive isnt even a question imo. Trump repeatedly says he only cares about getting enough votes awarded to him win the state. One thing that I focus on is that Trump would say 14000 dead people voted so I win just from that. Theoretically if 14000 dead people voted it wouldnt be 14,000 for any one candidate. Same with any other claim Trump makes. He never says 14000 dead people voted so let's find those peoples votes and see who they voted for. Its "heres the excuse I want you to use".



Being a delusional narcissist only protects from the law so much. You cant try to rob a bank no matter how much you believe that money is actually yours. I think the excuse that the defendant is delusional doesnt fly when the person was the acting President. His cabinet and VP certainly thought he was mentally capable by not using the 25th amendment.

 

[striker42]

The problem is there are plenty of things in the call that are likely him soliciting election fraud but there's nothing specific and explicit enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that was likely intentional. Trump is a slippery speaker who has been around the block enough to know to keep things vague when he's dancing close to the line. If this was a civil case, you'd have him as you just need a preponderance of the evidence. But it's a criminal case. The call alone is vague enough in the actions he's soliciting to make a conviction based on the call alone unlikely.

The question is whether they intend for it to be the call alone. It's possible this is a new DA that's grandstanding to make a name for herself and is basing everything on the call. However, something happened over the weekend that makes me wonder if they're going to try a different tactic. The DA's office hired a RICO expert. RICO statutes, if you don't know, are laws designed to take down racketeering and other forms of organized crime. They carry very stiff penalties and require people working in concert.

This makes me think what they might be hoping to do is bring in Trump associates and threaten them with RICO charges unless they roll on Trump and the pressure he put on the Georgia SOS. Alternatively, they might have some evidence that's not publicly available that they intend to use to nab Trump as well as others. The final possibility is that they intend to charge Trump under Georgia's RICO law to make the headlines bigger.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[nsacpi]

There were other calls to Raffensberger besides the one that was recorded, including one from Lindsey Graham acting on behalf of very poorly chosen one. There is a fair amount of public information out there on that call and some of the others. They may not have been recorded, but my guess is they have been memorialized.

There was also an orchestrated campaign to pressure Raffensberger, including demands by Perdue and Loeffler for his resignation.

A lot of context to chew on.

 

[striker42]

There were other calls to Raffensberger besides the one that was recorded, including one from Lindsey Graham acting on behalf of very poorly chosen one. There is a fair amount of public information out there on that call and some of the others. They may not have been recorded, but my guess is they have been memorialized.

There was also an orchestrated campaign to pressure Raffensberger, including demands by Perdue and Loeffler for his resignation.

A lot of context to chew on.

And a lot of the context can play into the same narrative. There was a belief that there was widespread fraud. They can point to the unprecedented number of absentee ballots, irregularities in the vote counting (e.g. the water leak), later debunked rumors of boxes of ballots, the lopsided late gains by Biden etc. They don't even have to show fraud, just show enough that to support that thinking there might be fraud wasn't totally unreasonable. If they were pressuring Raffensberger to fight back against fraud, there was no crime. That's just pressing an elected official to do their job. And the prosecution has to put on enough evidence against this explanation to push it beyond reasonable doubt.

The problem here isn't what's most likely true. The problem here is whether there's enough evidence to exclude other explanations. If what is publicly known is all they have, they don't have a great case. What they really need is someone close to Trump to turn on him.

 

[nsacpi]

There was a belief that there was widespread fraud.

We're gonna have a bunch of trials that are gonna establish whether a belief in an unfounded conspiracy theory can be an effective part of a legal defense strategy.

One of very poorly chosen one's problems is that Raffensberger and other Georgia election officials repeatedly and specifically knocked down all of his claims of fraud. And he still pushed them to find the votes to put him over the top.

 

[thethe]

We're gonna have a bunch of trials that are gonna establish whether a belief in an unfounded conspiracy theory can be an effective part of a legal defense strategy.

One of very poorly chosen one's problems is that Raffensberger and other Georgia election officials repeatedly and specifically knocked down all of his claims of fraud. And he still pushed them to find the votes to put him over the top.

Did they actually push back with data and audit results of the contested areas?

 

[striker42]

We're gonna have a bunch of trials that are gonna establish whether a belief in an unfounded conspiracy theory can be an effective part of a legal defense strategy.

One of very poorly chosen one's problems is that Raffensberger and other Georgia election officials repeatedly and specifically knocked down all of his claims of fraud. And he still pushed them to find the votes to put him over the top.

Again, the issue comes back to reasonable doubt. You're on a jury in this trial. The only evidence is this call. Trump's attorney stands up there and says that his client fervently believed there was voter fraud when making that call. He points to the fact that Trump had a strong lead on election night and unprecedented levels of absentee balloting dragged Biden to a razor thin lead. He talks about rumors that were flying at the time. He points to door knocking efforts by democrats leading up to the election. All of that to explain that Trump believed that there was fraud and he just wanted Raffensberger to do his job and ensure the true winner was certified. Could you say there's not reasonable doubt?

The prosecution would need to show that either Trump didn't actually believe this or else that the belief was unreasonable. So they'd either need some evidence showing Trump knew he lost and was trying to manipulate the results. That would be evidence we currently don't know about. Or else they have to prove the belief was unreasonable.

When I say unreasonable, I don't mean what you might think unreasonable is. I mean it's a belief that's so out there that no reasonable person could hold it. The belief doesn't have to be correct or even probable. It can run counter to evidence. It just has to be something that a reasonable person could believe. This really wont be a hard hurdle to clear.

So if there's a legitimate chance Trump actually believed he won Georgia and this belief is reasonable, then it provides reasonable doubt.

 

[nsacpi]

Again, the issue comes back to reasonable doubt. You're on a jury in this trial. The only evidence is this call. Trump's attorney stands up there and says that his client fervently believed there was voter fraud when making that call. He points to the fact that Trump had a strong lead on election night and unprecedented levels of absentee balloting dragged Biden to a razor thin lead. He talks about rumors that were flying at the time. He points to door knocking efforts by democrats leading up to the election. All of that to explain that Trump believed that there was fraud and he just wanted Raffensberger to do his job and ensure the true winner was certified.

The prosecution would need to show that either Trump didn't actually believe this or else that the belief was unreasonable. So they'd either need some evidence showing Trump knew he lost and was trying to manipulate the results. That would be evidence we currently don't know about. Or else they have to prove the belief was unreasonable.

When I say unreasonable, I don't mean what you might think unreasonable is. I mean it's a belief that's so out there that no reasonable person could hold it. The belief doesn't have to be correct or even probable. It can run counter to evidence. It just has to be something that a reasonable person could believe. This really wont be a hard hurdle to clear.

So if there's a legitimate chance Trump actually believed he won Georgia and this belief is reasonable, then it provides reasonable doubt.

Raffsenberger and his team addressed every one of his claims of fraud. And there were multiple phone calls.

When you ask someone to do something and they tell you it would be illegal and you press them to do it anyway I think there might be a wee bit of legal jeopardy.

 

[striker42]

Raffsenberger and his team addressed every one of his claims of fraud. And there were multiple phone calls.

When you ask someone to do something and they tell you it would be illegal and you press them to do it anyway I think there might be a wee bit of legal jeopardy.

Just because Raffensberger addressed his claims doesn't mean that Trump was obligated to believe him. You can believe things that are wrong or that the government has told you were wrong. The fact that the SOS disagreed doesn't make Trump's belief per-se unreasonable. In fact, considering how many believed there was fraud, it's pretty hard to say that no reasonable person could believe there was election fraud.

Nothing in that call is particularly hard to come up with an excuse for. It's not a smoking gun. It shows Trump made a call and requested the SOS to do things. You need to show his intent was to get the SOS to commit election fraud. The evidence isn't strong enough on that leg. At least not what we publicly know.

 

[nsacpi]

Just because Raffensberger addressed his claims doesn't mean that Trump was obligated to believe him. You can believe things that are wrong or that the government has told you were wrong. The fact that the SOS disagreed doesn't make Trump's belief per-se unreasonable. In fact, considering how many believed there was fraud, it's pretty hard to say that no reasonable person could believe there was election fraud.

Nothing in that call is particularly hard to come up with an excuse for. It's not a smoking gun. It shows Trump made a call and requested the SOS to do things. You need to show his intent was to get the SOS to commit election fraud. The evidence isn't strong enough on that leg. At least not what we publicly know.

Oh I'm sure very poorly chosen one sincerely held the belief he was cheated. When you have an ego as fragile as his you create a set of alternate facts when the actual facts become too unpleasant. The question then becomes does the law make room for a defense based upon having an ego too fragile to believe in reality. It is an interesting question. There are provisions for insanity, for minors, for being incapacitated in various ways. So does being susceptible to an alternative reality (aka delusional thinking) without a basis in fact allow you to get away with something. There are a lot of people who will be defending their actions on January 6 on that basis.

 

[striker42]

Oh I'm sure very poorly chosen one sincerely held the belief he was cheated. When you have an ego as fragile as his you create a set of alternate facts when the actual facts become too unpleasant. The question then becomes does the law make room for a defense based upon having an ego too fragile to believe in reality. It is an interesting question. There are provisions for insanity, for minors, for being incapacitated in various ways. So does being susceptible to an alternative reality (aka delusional thinking) without a basis in fact allow you to get away with something. There are a lot of people who will be defending their actions on January 6 on that basis.

What you're getting as is if his belief was reasonable. If he believed he won Georgia and the belief was not so out there that no reasonable person could believe it, then the call can be explained away to at least the point of reasonable doubt. It is hard to say his belief that he won Georgia wasn't reasonable (in a legal sense). There's a large number of people who still believe it and there are objective things he can point to (number of absentee votes) that at least make it where a reasonable person could believe it.

You really need other evidence to cut off the defense's ability to explain away the call. You need something showing that he wanted the SOS to commit fraud. If you have that, the call then becomes the criminal act that completes the crime.

 

[nsacpi]

What you're getting as is if his belief was reasonable. If he believed he won Georgia and the belief was not so out there that no reasonable person could believe it, then the call can be explained away to at least the point of reasonable doubt. It is hard to say his belief that he won Georgia wasn't reasonable (in a legal sense). There's a large number of people who still believe it and there are objective things he can point to (number of absentee votes) that at least make it where a reasonable person could believe it.

You really need other evidence to cut off the defense's ability to explain away the call. You need something showing that he wanted the SOS to commit fraud. If you have that, the call then becomes the criminal act that completes the crime.

if the secretary of state or attorney general of a state told a reasonable person that state law provided no legal path to reversing the outcome, a reasonable person would accept that rather than continue to press for action to find the votes to reverse the outcome

this is where context comes in...all of the legal shenanigans involving Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Mr. Pillow are not things a reasonable person would do...they represent an extra-constitutional attempt to overturn an election...including an effort to spread a mass delusion about the true outcome of the election that tragically culminated in the events of January 6

that's the context i'm referring to...if a guy is on trial for hitting his wife, how much evidence does a judge typically allow of prior patterns of hitting ex-wives and ex-girlfriends

 

[striker42]

if the secretary of state or attorney general of a state told a reasonable person that state law provided no legal path to reversing the outcome, a reasonable person would accept that rather than continue to press for action to find the votes to reverse the outcome

this is where context comes in...all of the legal shenanigans involving Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Mr. Pillow are not things a reasonable person would do...they represent an extra-constitutional attempt to overturn an election...including an effort to spread a mass delusion about the true outcome of the election that tragically culminated in the events of January 6

that's the context i'm referring to...if a guy is on trial for hitting his wife, how much evidence does a judge typically allow of prior patterns of hitting ex-wives and ex-girlfriends

I find it hilarious you think people would just accept that a politician can't do what they want them to do. That's the exact opposite of how people react. Being told that a politician can't do something just annoys the person and makes them cry all the more. I've had enough experience on the government side of things to see this first hand.

 

[nsacpi]

I find it hilarious you think people would just accept that a politician can't do what they want them to do. That's the exact opposite of how people react. Being told that a politician can't do something just annoys the person and makes them cry all the more. I've had enough experience on the government side of things to see this first hand.

he did a lot more than cry...if all he did was whine and cry he wouldn't be in any jeopardy

 

[thethe]

[tw]1369164548075294721[/tw]

Fraud was so obvious action needed to be taken.

Like Obi Wan, the left should have never struck the Donald down. He will come back in 2024 with a resounding landslide victory just like he did in 2020