19 Comments
User's avatar
Cameron Sprow's avatar

Yes, we are left with the legal system. The legal system that should have stopped all this ridiculousness before it got started. Trump IS guilty of stupidity, he IS guilty of thinking the election was rigged, but then again millions of other Americans are also guilty of this same sentiment, myself included. Donald Trump should not be anywhere near the office of the POTUS, but for a myriad of other reasons, not criminal or illegal ones. The case you and the "legal system" have tried to make against him might be the flimsiest in all history. He is guilty of exactly NOTHING having to do with January 6th. Full disclosure, I was a nevertrumper before the term was coined, but I am also a fair-minded person as well. Again, Trump should not be President, but not for any of the reasons you cite in this tripe-filled essay.

Steve Berman's avatar

How was the legal system supposed to stop this ridiculousness before it got started?

Cameron Sprow's avatar

By not indicting him on such flimsy evidence, of course.

Steve Berman's avatar

The indictment is for a conspiracy. If the co-conspirators all testify that DJT knew the stolen election claims were false (and they are proven false by direct evidence in other cases), and yet DJT proceeded and continues to claim they are true, I think any grand jury would indict. I think any jury would likely convict.

I think Trump’s defense may be that this was adjudicated by constitutional means--the impeachment--for things he did in office. And therefore he is facing double jeopardy for the same crimes. In any case, DJT won’t want to defend it, only delay it.

Cameron Sprow's avatar

No one would ever convince me that Joe Biden got 16 million more votes in a Presidential election than Barack Obama, especially since he ran for President 2 other times and couldn't muster ANY support in those tries. I look forward to my own indictment...

SGman's avatar

You should read paragraph three of the indictment.

Curtis Stinespring's avatar

"3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the

election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the

election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election

through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote

in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the

Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the

outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful. "

Curtis Stinespring's avatar

I think conviction is a sure thing, but it will be flawed because there is no way to prove Trump's thinking beyond the shadow of a doubt.

SGman's avatar

The impeachment defense wouldn't work: that's a political action, not a criminal one - thus no double jeopardy exists, as he has not faced a previous criminal trial for the same crimes for which he has been indicted.

SGman's avatar

By having a Minority Report-style Pre-Crime Bureau, I suppose...

Also, pretty obvious Cameron hasn't read the indictment: Trump is charged for actions between Nov 14 and Jan 6.

Cameron Sprow's avatar

Oh, you mean actions like offering national guard troops to DC for Jan. 6th? Or maybe you mean the "crime" of thinking the 2020 election was rigged? No, I haven't read the indictment, but as they say, a ham sandwich can be indicted, and, very possibly, the ham sandwich is more guilty.

SGman's avatar

You should read it, especially if your claim to be "fair-minded" is anything more than hot air.

Curtis Stinespring's avatar

"Trump can’t admit under oath he believes the 2020 election was stolen, because it will open him up to questions he can’t answer."

Trump might be guilty of everything you say but I do not believe the above quote. There is no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt what Trump was thinking at any given time.

SGman's avatar

Pence's testimony of Trump saying that Pence is "too honest" sure doesn't help.

Curtis Stinespring's avatar

True if it's a verbatim quote and is not used to mean "up tight" or "straight arrow" or some other imprecise thought.

SGman's avatar

We'll just have to see what other evidence is presented.

Lawrence Penner's avatar

So, presumed innocence is no longer an American Justice system foundational concept. I guess this is what happens in late stage TDS.

Bill Pearson's avatar

Steve was spot on when he stated this should have, could have been resolved by republican's when it happened. They whined, let the legal system take care of it. Now they are. Good.

And so we are being totally clear headed and concise about our legal system. here are Jack Smith's words from yesterday: "In this case, my office will seek a speedy trial so that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens. In the meantime, I must emphasize that the indictment is only an allegation and that the defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.'

Whining is so unbecoming from those of you who have lost your way when it comes to trump adoration. I guess i understand it though. This is the man who does everything "perfectly" and has never had to ask God for forgiveness because he has never sinned. .

May God help us all...all but trump because he doesn't need God's help.