Garland about to speak

Tinkerpeach said:
The indictment is in the CNN link dumbass.

And yes I did read it and my points stand until you can refute them which you apparently can't.
Click to expand...

Let's look at the indictment.

As the Defendant’s attempts to obstruct the electoral vote through deceit of state
officials met with repeated failure, beginning in early December 2020, he and co-conspirators
developed a new plan: to marshal individuals who would have served as the Defendant’s electors,
had he won the popular vote, in seven targeted states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New
Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—and cause those individuals to make and send to the Vice
President and Congress false certifications that they were legitimate electors. Under the plan, the
submission of these fraudulent slates would create a fake controversy at the certification
proceeding and position the Vice President—presiding on January 6 as President of the Senate—
to supplant legitimate electors with the Defendant’s fake electors and certify the Defendant as
president.
Click to expand...

On December 31, the Defendant signed a verification affirming false election fraud
allegations made on his behalf in a lawsuit filed in his name against the Georgia Governor. In
advance of the filing, Co-Conspirator 2—who was advising the Defendant on the lawsuit—
acknowledged in an email that he and the Defendant had, since signing a previous verification,
“been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been
inaccurate” and that signing a new affirmation “with that knowledge (and incorporation by
reference) would not be accurate.” The Defendant and Co-Conspirator 2 caused the Defendant’s
signed verification to be filed nonetheless
Click to expand...

It is pretty obvious you didn't read the indictment since you claimed no fraud was committed.
Signing a document you know to be false is fraud.
Getting others to sign documents you know to be false is fraud.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
What is the first count in the indictment?

What are the facts alleged in that first count?

Is it fraud to get someone to falsely sign a document?
Click to expand...

The actual indictment is charging Trump with pursuing unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.

However you will notice that Smith, nowhere in the first charge, lists what Trump actually did.

This is the key thing he has to prove in court and if he had actual evidence of Trump doing these things they would have been listed specifically in the indictment. Instead he is relying on Trump spreading lies to get the conspiracy charges.

Any first year law student could argue this case for Trump and get him off.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The actual indictment is charging Trump with pursuing unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.

However you will notice that Smith, nowhere in the first charge, lists what Trump actually did.

This is the key thing he has to prove in court and if he had actual evidence of Trump doing these things they would have been listed specifically in the indictment. Instead he is relying on Trump spreading lies to get the conspiracy charges.

Any first year law student could argue this case for Trump and get him off.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.
That is some funny shit.
The actual indictment is 4 counts that accuse violations of specific laws.
Trump is not charged with pursuing unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.
He is charged with violating the following statutes.

18 USC 371 (conspiracy to defraud the US)
18 USC 1512(k) (conspiracy to obstruct the vote certification)
18 USC 1512(c)(2) (obstructing the vote certifcation)
18 USC 241( conspiracy to violate civil rights)


To argue that Smith doesn't lay out what Trump did for the first charge he is indicted for is silly. He lays out multiple paragraphs that take up over 40 pages.

From page 42 where the end of the evidence of count 1 is completed.
The Defendant and his co-conspirators committed one or more of the acts to effect
the object of the conspiracy alleged above in Paragraphs 13, 15-16, 18-22, 24, 26, 28, 30-33, 35,
37-39, 41, 43-44, 46, 50, 52, 54, 56, 57-64, 67, 71-75, 78-82, 84, 85, 87-97, 99-100, 102-104, 111,
114, 116, 118-119, and 122.
Click to expand...
The indictment then incorporates the paragraphs that are relevant for each of the other 3 charges.

Any first year law student would understand what the crime that is being charged is and where the evidence is laid out. They would hopefully see that Trump is going to have a hard time fighting the facts in the case.
Arguing Trump didn't believe what he was told repeatedly may be an attempt to argue for an insanity defense but it isn't a defense against the crimes listed. If you are told something, even if you don't believe it, you can't argue you were never told.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO.
That is some funny shit.
The actual indictment is 4 counts that accuse violations of specific laws.
Trump is not charged with pursuing unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.
He is charged with violating the following statutes.

18 USC 371 (conspiracy to defraud the US)
18 USC 1512(k) (conspiracy to obstruct the vote certification)
18 USC 1512(c)(2) (obstructing the vote certifcation)
18 USC 241( conspiracy to violate civil rights)


To argue that Smith doesn't lay out what Trump did for the first charge he is indicted for is silly. He lays out multiple paragraphs that take up over 40 pages.

From page 42 where the end of the evidence of count 1 is completed.

The indictment then incorporates the paragraphs that are relevant for each of the other 3 charges.

Any first year law student would understand what the crime that is being charged is and where the evidence is laid out. They would hopefully see that Trump is going to have a hard time fighting the facts in the case.
Arguing Trump didn't believe what he was told repeatedly may be an attempt to argue for an insanity defense but it isn't a defense against the crimes listed. If you are told something, even if you don't believe it, you can't argue you were never told.
Click to expand...

Look at Smiths own words there where he says "one or more".

That means he doesn't know and doesn't have evidence and is going to leave it up to a jury to decide.

He should know at this point exactly what laws Trump broke but he doesn't.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Look at Smiths own words there where he says "one or more".

That means he doesn't know and doesn't have evidence and is going to leave it up to a jury to decide.

He should know at this point exactly what laws Trump broke but he doesn't.
Click to expand...
Don’t project your ignorance onto Smith, he knows exactly what he’s doing.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The actual indictment is charging Trump with pursuing unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.

However you will notice that Smith, nowhere in the first charge, lists what Trump actually did.

This is the key thing he has to prove in court and if he had actual evidence of Trump doing these things they would have been listed specifically in the indictment. Instead he is relying on Trump spreading lies to get the conspiracy charges.

Any first year law student could argue this case for Trump and get him off.
Click to expand...

You didn't read it. Yet another lie from the forum compulsive liar. The specifics are in the document. The lies were used as subtext for the crime.

You can lie and claim a bank stole your money. You can't use that as an excuse to rob the bank. I doubt you understand this because you are so incredibly fucking stupid. But that is what the indictment alleges. That Trump used the lies as a pretext for asking VP Pence to break the law on his behalf. He used the lies to rally people to Washington D.C. He used the lies strongarm legislatures to and states to submit slates of fake electors. The lies are not the crime. Get a fucking clue.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
You need to prove he knew it was false beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

How far are you going to try to move the goalposts?

This was about you arguing there no mention of Trump committing fraud in the indictment.
Clearly there was mention of Trump committing fraud in the indictment. Those instances of fraud were part of the conspiracy which includes multiple attempts to commit fraud that were not successful.

As to your argument that the prosecution has to prove he knew it was false beyond a reasonable doubt, that is nonsense.
They have to prove he committed the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. There is nothing on the statute that says the crime doesn't exist if the person believes a lie. If there was, then no one would ever be convicted of fraud because they could just claim they believed it. The standard here is would a reasonable person given the information the defendant was given believe that the lie was true. If you read the indictment, which it appears you haven't, the document lays out multiple instances where Trump and the conspirators were told it was a lie or they admitted it was a lie.

Let me give you an example of how Trump could not believe his statement was true unless Trump is a raving lunatic.
Trump met with Pence and others and tried to pressure Pence to reject electoral votes. Pence told Trump he couldn't legally do that. Multiple people testified to this meeting and Pence's statement. Less than 2 hours later Trump put out a statement that he and Pence were in agreement that Pence could reject votes. Did Trump believe he and Pence were in agreement? Or was Trump knowingly telling a lie?
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Look at Smiths own words there where he says "one or more".

That means he doesn't know and doesn't have evidence and is going to leave it up to a jury to decide.

He should know at this point exactly what laws Trump broke but he doesn't.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.. Wow. Is English your second language?
Bill, Ted, and Bob each ate one or more donuts. It means each one ate donuts but they may not have all eaten the same number of donuts.


The Defendant and his co-conspirators committed one or more of the acts to effect
the object of the conspiracy alleged above in Paragraphs 13, 15-16, 18-22, 24, 26, 28, 30-33, 35,
37-39, 41, 43-44, 46, 50, 52, 54, 56, 57-64, 67, 71-75, 78-82, 84, 85, 87-97, 99-100, 102-104, 111,
114, 116, 118-119, and 122.
Click to expand...

In order for it to be a conspiracy each of the conspirators had to commit at least one of the acts but they did not have to commit all the acts.
The laws broken and listed in the indictment number 4. Trump broke all 4 laws. The conspiratorial acts committed by Trump do not include all the acts committed by the conspirators as a whole.
Conspiracy requires more than one person to conspire. Then it requires at least one act that contributes to the conspiracy.

All the acts listed help to prove the conspiracy. Once the conspiracy is proven you only need to prove one act to prove one was a party to the conspiracy.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO.. Wow. Is English your second language?
Bill, Ted, and Bob each ate one or more donuts. It means each one ate donuts but they may not have all eaten the same number of donuts.




In order for it to be a conspiracy each of the conspirators had to commit at least one of the acts but they did not have to commit all the acts.
The laws broken and listed in the indictment number 4. Trump broke all 4 laws. The conspiratorial acts committed by Trump do not include all the acts committed by the conspirators as a whole.
Conspiracy requires more than one person to conspire. Then it requires at least one act that contributes to the conspiracy.

All the acts listed help to prove the conspiracy. Once the conspiracy is proven you only need to prove one act to prove one was a party to the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

And that is the sticking point for Smith.

He has to prove Trump organized it.

And he needs actual proof like audio or phone calls or text messages, none of which I hear he has.

The only other thing would be to get those involved to admit Trump organized it so that is really his only recourse, to offer them deals to turn in Trump but that is always risky in court because the defense will argue that they are only flipping on Trump to lessen their sentences.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
How far are you going to try to move the goalposts?

This was about you arguing there no mention of Trump committing fraud in the indictment.
Clearly there was mention of Trump committing fraud in the indictment. Those instances of fraud were part of the conspiracy which includes multiple attempts to commit fraud that were not successful.

As to your argument that the prosecution has to prove he knew it was false beyond a reasonable doubt, that is nonsense.
They have to prove he committed the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. There is nothing on the statute that says the crime doesn't exist if the person believes a lie. If there was, then no one would ever be convicted of fraud because they could just claim they believed it. The standard here is would a reasonable person given the information the defendant was given believe that the lie was true. If you read the indictment, which it appears you haven't, the document lays out multiple instances where Trump and the conspirators were told it was a lie or they admitted it was a lie.

Let me give you an example of how Trump could not believe his statement was true unless Trump is a raving lunatic.
Trump met with Pence and others and tried to pressure Pence to reject electoral votes. Pence told Trump he couldn't legally do that. Multiple people testified to this meeting and Pence's statement. Less than 2 hours later Trump put out a statement that he and Pence were in agreement that Pence could reject votes. Did Trump believe he and Pence were in agreement? Or was Trump knowingly telling a lie?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has said that lying is not illegal, Trump is not responsible for how people act on those lies.

Smith needs to actually connect Trump to the crimes committed.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
And that is the sticking point for Smith.

He has to prove Trump organized it.

And he needs actual proof like audio or phone calls or text messages, none of which I hear he has.

The only other thing would be to get those involved to admit Trump organized it so that is really his only recourse, to offer them deals to turn in Trump but that is always risky in court because the defense will argue that they are only flipping on Trump to lessen their sentences.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.. No he doesn't have to prove Trump organized it. That is silly. If that was the case, everyone that is party to a conspiracy could just claim someone else organized it and then no one would ever be convicted. Who organized the conspiracy is not part of the law. One only needs to be party to the conspiracy in some fashion even if unaware of the majority of the conspiracy.

Audio and text, None of which he has? I guess you are determined to prove you lied about reading the indictment.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Lying is not illegal. Using the lying to commit a crime is illegal.

When are you finally going to go read the indictment?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/01/indictment-document-trump-jan-6-pdf/
Click to expand...

Trump didn't commit any crimes, others did.

What part of that are you not understanding?

If I say a politician is evil and 10 people go and try to assassinate said politician it's not my fault, I am not responsible for their actions.

That is Smiths problem here.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Trump didn't commit any crimes, others did.

What part of that are you not understanding?

If I say a politician is evil and 10 people go and try to assassinate said politician it's not my fault, I am not responsible for their actions.

That is Smiths problem here.
Click to expand...

No. Your problem is you still haven't read the indictment.

The problem Trump has is he didn't make a statement and then others acted on it. He was part of a conspiracy with others. He is not charged with lying. He is charged with conspiracy. The group of people conspired to prevent Biden from becoming President. They used lies as part of that conspiracy. Even if you assume everything Trump said is true, you still have the conspiracy.

But your honor, you can't convict my client of bank robbery because he never lied!!
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
No. Your problem is you still haven't read the indictment.

The problem Trump has is he didn't make a statement and then others acted on it. He was part of a conspiracy with others. He is not charged with lying. He is charged with conspiracy. The group of people conspired to prevent Biden from becoming President. They used lies as part of that conspiracy. Even if you assume everything Trump said is true, you still have the conspiracy.

But your honor, you can't convict my client of bank robbery because he never lied!!
Click to expand...

Good luck proving that in court.

For instance, Smith has to prove that Trump had prior contact with the rioters that attacked the capital and organized the insurrection.

I think you know that didn't happen.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Good luck proving that in court.

For instance, Smith has to prove that Trump had prior contact with the rioters that attacked the capital and organized the insurrection.

I think you know that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO..
You didn't read the indictment yet, did you?

They don't need to prove Trump had any contact with any rioter since he is not charged with conspiracy with any rioters.
But that ignores the fact that in any conspiracy, all the conspirators don't have to be in contact with all the other conspirators.

If A, B and C meet to conspire and then B meets with E and F to continue the conspiracy, then A,B,C, D and F can all be charged with conspiracy even though A and C never net E and F. The only thing that the prosecutor has to prove is they were all involved in the same conspiracy. He doesn't have to prove they all met each other.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Good luck proving that in court.

For instance, Smith has to prove that Trump had prior contact with the rioters that attacked the capital and organized the insurrection.

I think you know that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

It did. It was not serendipitous that the Trump rally was at the exact same time that the joint congress was certifying the electoral college votes. The rally just happened to be down the street as close to the capitol as possible. Trump selected several speakers who told the BIG LIE and extrapolated on it. They were firing the people up for action. The online communications that organized it were violent and designed to make rightys angry. Trump is responsible for this whole insurrection. 150 cops were badly hurt. Trump should pay for all of their medical care and pain and suffering. He should pay for the time and cost of repairing the capitol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top