Yakuda
Verified User
No i just posted the indictment
There is no First Amendment right to overturn an election
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
No i just posted the indictment
They may well prove he knowingly did it, but they do not have to prove that.
reread what I posted about elements of a crime v. whats in an indictment.
Ok.. so?
Tinkerpeach
Member
Ok yes but still it's just a best guess.
Means the same thing.
Trials go many different ways, you can never predict them.
Usually you can get fairly accurate though.
I am looking for the paths his lawyers can take and I see a few good options.
Which they choose and how they argue it is another thing though.
And do you understand that not everything in an indictment must be proven?
Yakuda
Verified User
I understand just fine
Ok, I am glad you are able to learn.
Amazing that the Stable Genius will have to use stupidity as his defense, huh?
I asked... why do they have to prove that....
You answered...
Then I educated you that just because its in the indictment does not mean they have to prove it.
You answered...
Then I educated you that just because its in the indictment does not mean they have to prove it.
QP!
Verified User
Correct.
It is legal for me to ask my lawyer 'can i do XYZ' and for the lawyer to advise me, that is against the law. I did not break the law by just seeking that advise.
I can even go get a 2nd opinion from another lawyer, and if they also say 'that is against the law', that is fine and I broke no laws.
BUt what i cannot do is keep going to more and more lawyers and especially ones who were not my advisers on a hunt for one who will say 'Oh ya you can do XYZ' so i can then do it and say 'i did not break any law as THAT lawyer told me i could'.
Trump cannot ignore his hand chosen WH Counsel, his hand chosen AG and other key administrations advisors put in those rule with a very specific part of their mandate being to give the POTUS the legal guidance to ensure he protects the Constitution and the laws of the US and simply go shopping for others lawyers who hold differing views. Anymore than a future POTUS could not ignore all his Advisor Lawyers and find an ANTIFA lawyer instead who says he can do something that his internal advisor lawyers say he cannot and then do it and claim, he was just following legal advise.
You have to have a very compelling reason to ignore the advise of your own Counsels and that has to be 'I have lost faith in them', in which case you fire and replace them. If your new key legal advisors then provide a new path, that is one you could defensibly take.
If it were a legit defense, it just might work, we all know he is stupid.
Yakuda
Verified User
I dont learn anything from you
Yakuda
Verified User
If they are say he defrauded the us they do.
No, they have to prove he conspired to overturn a legal election and to disrupt an official proceeding.
what is not amazing is how the democrats support fascism. It's what you shit stains do. time and time again
criminalizing what you deem to be disinformation is pure fascism
Funny but not exactly legal.
The standard for a jury is to be willing to be unbiased and look at the evidence presented. People on the right and the left can meet that standard.
Can you back up that claim? He’s charged with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
Not even a mediocre attempt at deflection.
Trump’s defense is that, despite the 60+ court decisions, all that aides and advisors were telling him, audits and recounts and declarations by secretaries of state, he still pursued the idea that the election was stolen.
Only stupid people believe that. That’s his defense. STUPID.
How ironic from the self-proclaimed stable genius, huh?
Well, I think you did. I understand that’s hard for you to admit, even to yourself.