Election and Jan 6 charges

[Paul158]

2 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

That is the kind of background information that is typically used in the sentencing phase after a determination of guilty, not during the trial phase.

I wouldn't know I am not a lawyer.  I was just repeating myself to Wrestlingrasta. From my prior thread. 

[WrestlingRasta]

11 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

You are a smart guy. By chance ( prior to Jan. 6th ) do you know the 3 individuals who denied multiple requests for extra security because of the optics? They thought it would look bad to have a large presence of National Guard Soldiers already there early in the morning. They were more concerned about the optics not the security. If its ok with you I only want to discuss this one question. If you are not interested or do not know the answer that's fine.  Side note . I have never used twitter.

Yes, I am aware of the reporting around that issue, as it is obviously a big piece of this case in whole. I’m aware that there’s a lot of differing stories depending on who is commentating. I’m aware it’s been proven Flynn and Piatt lied to Congress about their involvement in the decision making around NG deployment. But I don’t think there’s really a whole lot of concrete info as to who did what in regard to the NG. More completely varying reports than anything else. 
 

One interesting thing about this indictment, if you read it, is that the charges don’t lead a whole lot to the violence and storming of the building, but more the planning and scheming involved in trying to overturn the results through Congress. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Yes, I am aware of the reporting around that issue, as it is obviously a big piece of this case in whole. I’m aware that there’s a lot of differing stories depending on who is commentating. I’m aware it’s been proven Flynn and Piatt lied to Congress about their involvement in the decision making around NG deployment. But I don’t think there’s really a whole lot of concrete info as to who did what in regard to the NG. More completely varying reports than anything else. 
 

One interesting thing about this indictment, if you read it, is that the charges don’t lead a whole lot to the violence and storming of the building, but more the planning and scheming involved in trying to overturn the results through Congress. 

And I think that is very intentional. I have made the case that Trump's actions with regard to the rioters disqualify him in my mind, but that is a far cry from disqualifying him in the legal sense. Proving that he wanted the rioters to riot is a near impossibility. I believe it, but can't prove it. And so it seems the prosecutors in this case chose not to prosecute that point and probably for the same reason.

[WrestlingRasta]

6 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

And I think that is very intentional. I have made the case that Trump's actions with regard to the rioters disqualify him in my mind, but that is a far cry from disqualifying him in the legal sense. Proving that he wanted the rioters to riot is a near impossibility. I believe it, but can't prove it. And so it seems the prosecutors in this case chose not to prosecute that point and probably for the same reason.

Agree. I actually started to write that I believe that was a very specific charging tactic for that reason. There’s a lot of evidence what happened was his intent, but going to be real hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.  
 

I’ll be honest in that I thought proving he knew the election wasn’t stolen was going to be real hard to prove. But reading the indictment and the testimony that has come out…..it’s pretty damning.  Three words in that evidence I believe is most damning: “You’re too honest” in response to Pence when Pence told him he could not do what Trump wanted him to do. How can you say you didn’t know it is a lie, when your rebuttal is ‘your’e too honest’?  That doesn’t leave much reasonable doubt. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[Paul158]

9 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

And I think that is very intentional. I have made the case that Trump's actions with regard to the rioters disqualify him in my mind, but that is a far cry from disqualifying him in the legal sense. Proving that he wanted the rioters to riot is a near impossibility. I believe it, but can't prove it. And so it seems the prosecutors in this case chose not to prosecute that point and probably for the same reason.

Fair enough.

[Paul158]

5 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Agree. I actually started to write that I believe that was a very specific charging tactic for that reason. There’s a lot of evidence what happened was his intent, but going to be real hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.  
 

I’ll be honest in that I thought proving he knew the election wasn’t stolen was going to be real hard to prove. But reading the indictment and the testimony that has come out…..it’s pretty damning.  Three words in that evidence I believe is most damning: “You’re too honest” in response to Pence when Pence told him he could not do what Trump wanted him to do. How can you say you didn’t know it is a lie, when your rebuttal is ‘your’e too honest’?  That doesn’t leave much reasonable doubt. 

Just a side note . Do you have a legal background? You may plead the 5th if you want.

[Paul158]

14 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

And I think that is very intentional. I have made the case that Trump's actions with regard to the rioters disqualify him in my mind, but that is a far cry from disqualifying him in the legal sense. Proving that he wanted the rioters to riot is a near impossibility. I believe it, but can't prove it. And so it seems the prosecutors in this case chose not to prosecute that point and probably for the same reason.

Just a side note. Do you have a legal back ground? You may also take the 5th.

[WrestlingRasta]

9 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Just a side note . Do you have a legal background? You may plead the 5th if you want.

I do not have a legal background. My background is completely and solely athletics. 

[WrestlingRasta]

24 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

And I think that is very intentional. I have made the case that Trump's actions with regard to the rioters disqualify him in my mind, but that is a far cry from disqualifying him in the legal sense. Proving that he wanted the rioters to riot is a near impossibility. I believe it, but can't prove it. And so it seems the prosecutors in this case chose not to prosecute that point and probably for the same reason.

Even more to the point, in the indictment the prosecutors specifically lay out their belief the defendant “has a right to lie to the public” about the results. However  the charging is not in the lies but in the actual operational plans. 
 

This is important for people who are not going to read the indictment but rather get their information from right wing media and influencers, because they’re talking point already this morning is that he is being charged for his first amendment right of free speech. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

11 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Just a side note. Do you have a legal back ground? You may also take the 5th.

Finance. But I play a lawyer on TV.

[Wrestleknownothing]

Another strategy point. I have seen the question asked elsewhere, what took so long?

One of the specific statutes they are charging him under is 18 USC 1512(c)(2), an Enron era law passed in response to Arthur Anderson's destruction of documents as the government was investigating. It is the "corruptly obstruct an official proceeding" charge. This law has been used repeatedly and successfully in prosecuting the Jan. 6 rioters. It has withstood every defense attempt to say it does not apply.

Establishing that history of precedence took time. I imagine that has something to do with the delay. Demonstrate success, and a lot of it, on the small fishes before going after the big fish.

[Paul158]

5 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Finance. But I play a lawyer on TV.

So you are an actor .Are you on strike right now? Also that's why you're the man when it comes to spread sheets. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, Paul158 said:

So you are an actor .Are you on strike right now? Also that's why you're the man when it comes to spread sheets. 

No, I was just making a joke based on that old commercial (showing my age), "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."

 

 

[Paul158]

1 minute ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

No, I was just making a joke based on that old commercial (showing my age), "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."

 

 

I knew that .Just playing along. 

[ionel]

Even if not lawyers I'm sure Wrestle & Wrestling are qualified.

[WrestlingRasta]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

Even if not lawyers I'm sure Wrestle & Wrestling are qualified.

haha I was going to go with that, but went with what my background actually was instead.

[Paul158]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

Even if not lawyers I'm sure Wrestle & Wrestling are qualified.

So far they are doing a commendable job.

[WrestlingRasta]

Another interesting tidbit I just read. There’s been a lot of talk about Jan 6 case being about nothing more than bringing down Trump. Well, Trump is now Jan 6 defendant number 1,097. Over 1000 people have been charged with actions related to Jan 6. 
 

It’s not just all about bringing down Trump folks. It’s about doing whatever we can to make sure what happened doesn’t happen again. 

[WrestlingRasta]

Topic for discussion: this talk about those who were coming for Trump since ‘the moment he came down the escalator’

There’s no denying that, that is very true. And many of those (at least more public people) gave their reasons for feeling how they felt, based on his actions before he decided to run for president. If their notions turn out to be true, and proven in multiple courts of law in multiple venues, does that wipe out the whole notion of going after him for seven years make his actions acceptable? 

Edited August 2, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[DJT]

10 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Topic for discussion: this talk about those who were coming for Trump since ‘the moment he came down the escalator’

There’s no denying that, that is very true. And many of those (at least more public people) gave their reasons for feeling how they felt, based on his actions before he decided to run for president. If their notions turn out to be true, and proven in multiple courts of law in multiple venues, does that wipe out the whole notion of going after him for seven years make his actions acceptable? 

Perhaps if he wasn’t attacked relentlessly, he would’ve behaved better… It’s easy to believe everyone is out to get you, well, when everyone is actually out to get you.

Edited August 2, 2023 by DJT

[WrestlingRasta]

Just now, DJT said:

Perhaps if he wasn’t attacked relentlessly, he would’ve behaved better…

Which is where the “based on his actions prior to deciding to run for President” comes in to play. 

[Plasmodium]

25 minutes ago, DJT said:

Perhaps if he wasn’t attacked relentlessly, he would’ve behaved better… It’s easy to believe everyone is out to get you, well, when everyone is actually out to get you.

He wasn't attacked any more than Biden.  These public grievances are his schtick.  He tilts as many windmills as he possibly can.  Pepperidge Farms remembers how he inserted himself into politics - the Birther Movement.   

[WrestlingRasta]

7 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

He wasn't attacked any more than Biden.  These public grievances are his schtick.  He tilts as many windmills as he possibly can.  Pepperidge Farms remembers how he inserted himself into politics - the Birther Movement.   

For that matter, going back to the 90's (development of internet)......if you decided you wanted to run for President, you started getting widely attacked, Republican or Democrat.  The level of which you are attacked is relative to the level of success you are having in your campaign/elections.

[Paul158]

35 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Which is where the “based on his actions prior to deciding to run for President” comes in to play. 

I'm sure there were people that didn't like him  prior to his election. Actually a lot of democrats liked Donald prior to him running for president. Then he did the unthinkable and ran for president. Then he got elected and got 70 million new haters. Does he know how to throw a punch.?Yes.If you attack him will he fight back ? Yes. Does he send mean tweets? Yes. Does he act like a jerk? Yes. Does the liberal Media hate him  with a passion? Yes. Has Biden been treated with kid gloves by the media compared to Trump? You bet your a--.  

[DJT]

You guys really think Biden is/was attacked as much as Trump? Really? I didn’t figure for you two to be exclusively FoxNews watchers… that’d be the only explanation for that viewpoint.

Setting the personal attacks aside, yes, Trump is a crass asshole and, yes, Biden is a bumbling senile geriatric. Trump began his presidency with the loser, corporate media and the democrats crying he stole the election and was an illegitimate president. This followed with a yearslong investigation by the FBI and special counsel into the false allegations, and even when they were proven to be unfounded, the media and democrats continued with the lies. In no way does the corporate media take every chance they can to twist facts just to smear Biden like they did/do with Trump.

Edited August 2, 2023 by DJT