Another MAGA talking point shot down!

[Jarod]

How do they know he understood unless he admitted it and they have record of it?

Remember that Smith needs to prove this in a court of law.

Trump has a three year history of denying the election results plus all of the action he took against the results.

That tells me he didn't understand that the election was legitimate.

Witnesses will testify and the Jury will decide if they believe the witnesses or not.
Smith does not NEED to prove it at all, I have explained that to you. Can you not learn, brain damage?
If Trump did not understand, he is too stupid to be president.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

it is very easy for a jury to not have reasonable doubts.

- CEO asks corporate lawyers and board, can i take all this company money personally. They all advise 'no'.

- CEO seeks study saying he can take the money personally. They say 'no'.

- CEO keeps asking others until he finds someone who says 'yes'.

- CEO is charged with stealing money.

You argue no jury can prove he 'reasonably knew'.

But that is because you are a derp who trusts Trump more than anyone else.

A jury can absolutely decide based on those facts and they typically do with far less.

You are under the assumption that advisors are always correct when they aren't.

Do you know that Kennedy's advisors unanimously agreed that we should have the air force bomb the missile sites in Cuba?

Kennedy chose not to.

Things like this will be brought up by Trumps defense throwing Smith's whole argument out of the window.

They are their to advise, they are not part of the actual decision.

So it really doesn't matter how many witnesses Smith wants to bring in because it's not going to do anything to Trumps defense.

Trump is not required to listen to them or believe them.

This is how Smith is running this entire case, it's flawed from top to bottom with crap like this.

 

[Jarod]

In a criminal case you have to prove reasonable doubt.

How can Smith possibly do that?

He has no idea what Trump was thinking.

There are so many ways his defense can argue out of this it's laughable.

For instance, Trump could argue that they were not experts on election laws.

Done deal.

He could say they weren't appointed to give him advice on election results.

Done deal

He could say he didn't trust them on things they were not hired to perform.

Done deal.

Here is the kicker though.

A president doesn't need to take the advice of their advisors and they often do not when they disagree with them. There is a very long history of this.

Bush didn't, Clinton didn't, Kennedy didn't, FDR most certainly didn't.....the list is virtually endless.

It does not matter what Trump was thinking, it matters what he did. What he was thinking might explain why he committed the crime.

BTW, Trump very likely will not take the stand the say anything to the jury although I hope he would.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Again the requirement is NOT that they prove he knew but that he 'SHOULD HAVE known'.

- if all your hand picked top advisors say it is X
- if you go out and commission all sorts of independent studies that say it is X
- if you are telling others often it is X

- but you ignore all that and seek out other advisors who say it is Y


Then a jury can certainly find you 'should have known it was X'. 'A reasonable man would have found it to be X'.

If this defense passes then there is no criminal conspiracy ever charged that would win in court as long as they got one lawyer involved who simply said 'i think it is legal to do it'. Everyone could rightly say 'we trusted the lawyer advice'.

They are called advisors for a reason, that doesn't mean they are always right.

They are giving opinions.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

How many times, handjob, must we go over this. The DC case, the most important of the 4, will be adjudicated very quickly. This judge will not stand for unnecessary delays.

It's scheduled for May dumbass, that is not quick.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

That is for a jury to decide.

The idea that a POTUS hand picks advisors he does not trust and does not just fire and replace them with ones he does trust is certainly something that can lead them to a guilty verdict over 'should have known'.

POTUS using your line of 'just playing a game with ones i never trusted' begs the question 'why keep them around'?

A potus can hire whoever he wants for any reason he wants, that doesn't mean he has to trust them on every single issue.

Jared was an advisor, he never told Trump he was wrong.

So there you go, reasonable doubt on this issue.

 

[Jarod]

It's scheduled for May dumbass, that is not quick.

May is quick for a felony.

 

[Jarod]

A potus can hire whoever he wants for any reason he wants, that doesn't mean he has to trust them on every single issue.

Bank Robber: "Some people told me I could come in here with a gun and demand money, so I didnt think it was illegal."

Tinker: "The Alleged bank robber must be innocent, you cant prove he did not believe that it was wrong."

 

[QP!]

You are under the assumption that advisors are always correct when they aren't.

Do you know that Kennedy's advisors unanimously agreed that we should have the air force bomb the missile sites in Cuba?

Kennedy chose not to.

Things like this will be brought up by Trumps defense throwing Smith's whole argument out of the window.

They are their to advise, they are not part of the actual decision.

So it really doesn't matter how many witnesses Smith wants to bring in because it's not going to do anything to Trumps defense.

Trump is not required to listen to them or believe them.

This is how Smith is running this entire case, it's flawed from top to bottom with crap like this.

LIES.

I am not under that assumption and made no such claim.


What i said is if you are POTUS and you trust NONE of your key advisors and instead think random outside new advisors you just got introduced to are more credible then you should fire all your inside advisors and replace them,


it rings hollow to any reasonable person of juror, that Trump would not trust the people he put into the greatest position of TRUST around him to advise him.

Again:

- All Trump key hand picked advisors (AG, doJ, FBI, etc) say 'no fraud'
- Trump still seeks outside studies to prove fraud but they all come back saying 'no fraud'
- Trump then seeks 'Team crazy lawyers' who say 'fraud but can present no evidence as they say as hey enter over 60 court cases and LOSE them all'


A reasonable jury can reasonable find 'he should have known' based on all the above and find him guilty.

 

[QP!]

They are called advisors for a reason, that doesn't mean they are always right.

They are giving opinions.

No one said they are always right and of course they are giving opinion so you are saying nothing here.


that aside, if ALL of your top advisors give the same opinion, and you hired them and put them into your most trusted advisors spots you better have good reason to go against all their advice.


If i ask 20 lawyers 'can i do X' and they all say no, that is there legal advise based on their expert understanding of the law.

I can ignore and do X anyway but my ignoring the lawyers will certainly speak to my intent and state of mind in a way a jury can infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even if i say i really believed i could do it legally.

 

[QP!]

A potus can hire whoever he wants for any reason he wants, that doesn't mean he has to trust them on every single issue.

Jared was an advisor, he never told Trump he was wrong.

So there you go, reasonable doubt on this issue.

I am not arguing it would not be reasonable doubt for stupid people.

That is the problem you keep making. Trump could state he pooped in the toilet and the poop spoke to him telling him he could do it and you would say 'how do we know he does not believe that;'

it is true we cannot know Trump does not think poop cannot speak to him. He might.

BUt a jury does not have to believe that creates reasonable doubt just because you do.


You have to also consider this from the view of people who are not stupid, like you are.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I am not arguing it would not be reasonable doubt for stupid people.

That is the problem you keep making. Trump could state he pooped in the toilet and the poop spoke to him telling him he could do it and you would say 'how do we know he does not believe that;'

it is true we cannot know Trump does not think poop cannot speak to him. He might.

BUt a jury does not have to believe that creates reasonable doubt just because you do.


You have to also consider this from the view of people who are not stupid, like you are.

If Smith can't prove it then it doesn't matter what the jury rules because it will be overturned either on appeal or by the supreme court.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

No one said they are always right and of course they are giving opinion so you are saying nothing here.


that aside, if ALL of your top advisors give the same opinion, and you hired them and put them into your most trusted advisors spots you better have good reason to go against all their advice.


If i ask 20 lawyers 'can i do X' and they all say no, that is there legal advise based on their expert understanding of the law.

I can ignore and do X anyway but my ignoring the lawyers will certainly speak to my intent and state of mind in a way a jury can infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even if i say i really believed i could do it legally.

They didn't all give him the same opinion.

That's the problem.

Trump had to make a call between varying opinions.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

LIES.

I am not under that assumption and made no such claim.


What i said is if you are POTUS and you trust NONE of your key advisors and instead think random outside new advisors you just got introduced to are more credible then you should fire all your inside advisors and replace them,


it rings hollow to any reasonable person of juror, that Trump would not trust the people he put into the greatest position of TRUST around him to advise him.

Again:

- All Trump key hand picked advisors (AG, doJ, FBI, etc) say 'no fraud'
- Trump still seeks outside studies to prove fraud but they all come back saying 'no fraud'
- Trump then seeks 'Team crazy lawyers' who say 'fraud but can present no evidence as they say as hey enter over 60 court cases and LOSE them all'


A reasonable jury can reasonable find 'he should have known' based on all the above and find him guilty.

Jarod was a top advisor, Rudy was a top advisor and they both told him the election was a fraud.

And do you even know what an advisor is?

It isn't an official position.

It's someone the president asks advice from.

 

[QP!]

If Smith can't prove it then it doesn't matter what the jury rules because it will be overturned either on appeal or by the supreme court.

And if Smith can prove it will not be overturned.

Cool. We can both say meaningless stuff that is obvious.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Bank Robber: "Some people told me I could come in here with a gun and demand money, so I didnt think it was illegal."

Tinker: "The Alleged bank robber must be innocent, you cant prove he did not believe that it was wrong."

Except Smith is going to try and prove that Trump knew his information was false and acted against it.

That is a big difference.

Smith is the one pursuing this particular path.

He is the one that opened the door on this, not Trump.

That's because it's all he's got which shows how weak his case against Trump actually is.

He is going for conspiracy charges which are notoriously hard to prove in court.

He doesn't have any actual evidence of Trump doing wrong.

 

[QP!]

They didn't all give him the same opinion.

That's the problem.

Trump had to make a call between varying opinions.

All of his official WH advisors DID give him the same conclusions and advice.

It was only the 'after the fact' 'team crazy' advisors who came in after the fact that told him otherwise. Many of them who have been recorded saying what they were telling Trump was wrong and would not stand up such as Eastmans admission all of the SCOTUS would shoot it down, after being pressed.

 

[QP!]

Jarod was a top advisor, Rudy was a top advisor and they both told him the election was a fraud.

And do you even know what an advisor is?

It isn't an official position.

It's someone the president asks advice from.

Cite Jarod telling Trump it was stolen.

Lets be clear. When we are talking about Trump's advisors we are talking about the ones he had as part of his Administration that he hand picked to advise him.

Rudy was not an official advisor to the POTUS and was only part of team crazy who came in after the fact.


Again as CEO i have a Board and corporate lawyers to advise me. If i ask them if i can I take all this corporate money personally' and they ALL say 'no that would be a crime', I cannot then go try and find an advisor who will say 'sure take it' and then hide behind, he is my new advisor and since i believed his advise you cannot prosecute.

Your arguments are stupid because you are stupid.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

All of his official WH advisors DID give him the same conclusions and advice.

It was only the 'after the fact' 'team crazy' advisors who came in after the fact that told him otherwise. Many of them who have been recorded saying what they were telling Trump was wrong and would not stand up such as Eastmans admission all of the SCOTUS would shoot it down, after being pressed.

You seem to think that advisors have some sort of expertise here, they don't.

Hell Karl Rove was a senior advisor to Bush.

There opinions are not expert opinions.

Smith would have to show they had extensive knowledge of how elections work for their opinions to actually matter.

And an advisor gives advice which could be either right or wrong, a president is not required to follow it.

This whole issue is dumb, Smith can call whoever he wants because it's not going to change anything.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It's scheduled for May dumbass, that is not quick.

When was the DC case scheduled for May?
To my knowledge, they are supposed to present possible trial dates to the judge later this week. No date has been set.

Chutkan also asked prosecutors, via Upadhyaya, to formally file a requested trial date and estimate of the length of their case by Aug. 10. Trump’s team, she added, must respond to that filing by Aug. 17.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/03/trump-election-case-choosing-trial-date-00109784