Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[Paranoid Android]

As far as my last post about indictments and my incoming Hot Take could also go in the Trump thread.

It's interesting if prosecuted or even now some Republicans are trying to distance even saying Trump is culpable for Jan 6th. My take is watch out! I think most Republicans are very interested and like how Trump acted. They just believe he was a totally, bumbling idiot, who was lazy. In short they want Trump gone and find someone who is competent in getting this fascism going.

[Fugus]

If they do manage a conviction, and Trump is like "nah fam I totally pardoned myself back when I was president!" and the supreme court upholds Trump being able to pardon himself (I don't think they would; the GOP has been looking for a way to cut themselves free of Trump and this would be a very clean one) I imagine that the conviction would be a pretty damning first swing at convicting him of criminal election tampering in various states, which... yeah, he can't pardon.

I truly hope that would be the case and then watch Trump respond with all the dirt he got on the GOP (Partially from Russia) and then nuke them on his way down. Especially if he talks about how he got his nominations. Then watch us stare at Garland waiting on him to look or act.

[Poopymonster]

I truly hope that would be the case and then watch Trump respond with all the dirt he got on the GOP (Partially from Russia) and then nuke them on his way down. Especially if he talks about how he got his nominations. Then watch us stare at Garland waiting on him to look or act.

Krieger said it best.

[Paranoid Android]

2 takes.

Fox News, Chris Stirewalt, the Fox political editor called Arizona and had to be unanimous in Fox news room. He was fired but more importantly Fox carried this lie until, when? Think they still carrying but was months after January 6th and until lawsuits I believe.

Second is Bill Barr covering his ass like a mofo. I agree he knew the election like was bs but remember all he did before. Also Trump was calling him for legal advice and Barr quickly in his deposition say the DOJ was separate and could not give legal counsel. Hmmmmmmm? Sure didn't stop him before when he no doubt before.

Before the election, Barr and others backed Trump's claim that he would lose only bc of voter fraud. Barr told the media and Congress that an election with a lot of mail in votes would not be secure, calling it a conclusion backed by "common sense"
https://t.co/wbngZ4u2Vh

https://twitter.com/ktbenner/status/...DS34kJ8Mg&s=19

Also noted if he knew and believed Trump was crazy, Barr never went public.

[alach]

Years of the Trump thread has led to this. So many times he would do something horrible, and it was posted brilliantly here - only to see no real action take place.
Well, other people have been paying attention now it seems it is time for team Trump to pay the piper. I cannot see how he escapes justice from this, and they haven't even started on how he has been swindling the public yet.

Netflix has a new docu out on the FLDS church and how those people felt so sure of things when they were part of the cult, only to look back today and realize just how horrible it actually was.
I expect the same will soon be happening with vast numbers of conversatives sometime soon - at least I sure hope so.

Trumps head must be absolutely exploding right about now.

[Edge-]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3pm...giuliani-drunk

“The mayor was definitely intoxicated, but I do not know his level of intoxication when he spoke with the president,” Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s reelection campaign, said during his videotaped deposition played by the committee.

Trump advisor Jason Miller on drunk Rudy Giuliani telling Trump to just declare victory in the 2020 election that he lost.

How many drunk, old, senile men with bad teeth were running this country?

[Kaleredar]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3pm...giuliani-drunk

Trump advisor Jason Miller on drunk Rudy Giuliani telling Trump to just declare victory in the 2020 election that he lost.

How many drunk, old, senile men with bad teeth were running this country?

I don’t imagine “my lawyer was drunk when he told me to break the law” is a very valid defense

[Edge-]

Reading a thread on the hearing today, holy shit did Trump just buy into literally every possible conspiracy he could in a desperate attempt to get the whole fraud thing to be true lol One conspiracy debunked? Let's move to the next one!

One of my faves...

Epic grift is epic.

Didn't we already know that none of the money was being spent on the "defense" to begin with? I feel like finding out the "fund" was just a marketing tactic is new at least.

Not that it will matter for the idiots that gave him their money.

[Ripster42]

Didn't we already know that none of the money was being spent on the "defense" to begin with? I feel like finding out the "fund" was just a marketing tactic is new at least.

Not that it will matter for the idiots that gave him their money.

I'm going to laugh if what gets him is wire fraud. The testimony from all the people who told trump directly that there was no evidence of fraud essentially proves that trump knew the election wasn't stolen, which means he was soliciting all that money under false pretenses.

[Edge-]

I'm going to laugh if what gets him is wire fraud. The testimony from all the people who told trump directly that there was no evidence of fraud essentially proves that trump knew the election wasn't stolen, which means he was soliciting all that money under false pretenses.

Seems straightforward, but I doubt it is. There's enough "reasonable doubt" for this to be something gross, but not illegal.

Not that I care about people getting their money back. They threw it into the fire, their fault if it burns up.

[Ripster42]

There's enough "reasonable doubt" for this to be something gross, but not illegal.

There was until we saw evidence of person after person telling him it's nonsense, and his own AG testifying that he wasn't interested in the factual basis for his claims. There's not really much wiggle room there. If he doesn't face charges for this, the sole reason will be because he was president.

[Edge-]

There was until we saw evidence of person after person telling him it's nonsense, and his own AG testifying that he wasn't interested in the factual basis for his claims. There's not really much wiggle room there. If he doesn't face charges for this, the sole reason will be because he was president.

Doesn't matter how many people told him it was bullshit. If he "honestly" believe it, he's got legal grounds to stand on that "he believed it despite everyone else telling him he's wrong."

I'm no legal expert, but from what little I know it seems like he's got a fairly solid defense against fraud. Because he usually does.

[solinari6]

Seems straightforward, but I doubt it is. There's enough "reasonable doubt" for this to be something gross, but not illegal.

I don't think that "whether he believed it was stolen or not" matters in this case... the "Election Defense Fund" that they said all this money was going into didn't exist. It just went into their SuperPAC and was spent on all sorts of random things. That's straight up fraud (probably!)

[Ripster42]

Doesn't matter how many people told him it was bullshit. If he "honestly" believe it, he's got legal grounds to stand on that "he believed it despite everyone else telling him he's wrong."

I'm no legal expert, but from what little I know it seems like he's got a fairly solid defense against fraud. Because he usually does.

@cubby Pretty sure it doesn't matter what he says he believes, because a jury can decide for themselves whether or not he's telling the truth when he says that's what he believes. An insanity defense would be just as viable in this case, because he would literally have become detached from reality in the face of all of those people telling him it didn't happen, and, again, his AG saying that he didn't care if any conspiracy was true or not. I recognize you're not a trumper, but bilbur's testimony is a direct refutation to the defense you're proposing for trump.

[Edge-]

I don't think that "whether he believed it was stolen or not" matters in this case... the "Election Defense Fund" that they said all this money was going into didn't exist. It just went into their SuperPAC and was spent on all sorts of random things. That's straight up fraud (probably!)

Fine print matters. For example -

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN27R309

Donations under $8K automatically go to the "Save America" PAC and RNC fund.

With extensive earlier reporting on how little of the money raised for the "Election Defense Fund" actually being spent on that - https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/v...f-2fac647ea53d

With earlier reporting confirming that no "Election Defense Fund" entity actually existed, it was all just branding (which remains shady, but legal) - https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...9f8_story.html

According to the fine print in the latest fundraising appeals, 75 percent of each contribution to the joint fundraising committee would first go toward the Save America leadership PAC and the rest would be shared with the party committee to help with the party’s operating expenses. This effectively means that the vast majority of low-dollar donations under the agreement would go toward financing the president’s new leadership PAC, instead of buttressing efforts to support the party or to finance voting lawsuits.

As I said above, the fine print matters.

[Ripster42]

As I said above, the fine print matters.

Sure does. It doesn't solve the wire fraud problem. That earlier reporting was done before sworn testimony was given about how many times trump was told that his claims were false. You can't knowingly solicit money from people to fix a problem that you know doesn't exist. If you tell people a bunch of kids have cancer, and that you're going to split the donated money between funding those kids' cancer treatment while the other 95% of it goes into your bank account, and there's not actually any kids with cancer, you're still going to jail, even though you told people that you were going to keep 95% of the money anyway.

[Edge-]

Sure does. It doesn't solve the wire fraud problem. That earlier reporting was done before sworn testimony was given about how many times trump was told that his claims were false. You can't knowingly solicit money from people to fix a problem that you know doesn't exist. If you tell people a bunch of kids have cancer, and that you're going to split the donated money between funding those kids' cancer treatment while the other 95% of it goes into your bank account, and there's not actually any kids with cancer, you're still going to jail, even though you told people that you were going to keep 95% of the money anyway.

You can if you simply claim that no matter how many people told you, no matter how many presentations about it you received, you still believed the election was fraudulent. Which Trump can and will do if it comes to it, as he's still doing in public today.

In my experience, fraud is fairly narrowly defined in these instances. And as long as the fine print was there when people donated, it's very much, "You're shit outta luck, and the person you gave the money to is laughing all the way to the bank."

[Ripster42]

You can if you simply claim that no matter how many people told you, no matter how many presentations about it you received, you still believed the election was fraudulent.

Again, only if the jury believes you. And, again, you'd have a better chance with the insanity defense after the litany of people who testified they told him so.

There's no fine print that says "we know there actually wasn't any fraud during the election." The fine print isn't going to excuse the crime here. The only thing that will save him is that he was formerly a president, if, indeed, he does avoid jail.

[Edge-]

Again, only if the jury believes you.

This assumes it would make it to court to begin with, and honestly I'm fairly skeptical. Beyond that, if the whole jury believes you. Just one person can hold that up.

And, again, you'd have a better chance with the insanity defense after the litany of people who testified they told him so.

Disagree. Trump has been consistent on this point. IIRC he acknowledged he lost once, but it was while complaining about fraud, but beyond that he's been consistent in his public statements that he believes he won the election and that fraud was committed.

Because again: It doesn't necessarily matter how many experts and smart people told him he was wrong. If he can convince a single person on the jury he honestly believed that - and honestly I'd believe him here - he's in the clear.

There's no fine print that says "we know there actually wasn't any fraud during the election." The fine print isn't going to excuse the crime here. The only thing that will save him is that he was formerly a president, if, indeed, he does avoid jail.

Fine print had to do with where the money was going and which organization was spending it, covering Trump and the campaign from any liability since it was made "clear" to donors that most of their money would be going to other organizations before the "Election Defense Fund".

Because we all read the fine print : |

[Endus]

You can if you simply claim that no matter how many people told you, no matter how many presentations about it you received, you still believed the election was fraudulent. Which Trump can and will do if it comes to it, as he's still doing in public today.

Ignorantiam juris non excusat, and all that.

If you should've known better, you can still be found legally responsible. Otherwise, you'd escape literally any legal charges by just saying "golly gosh darn it, I just didn't know!"

Clearly, that isn't how it actually works. If you start randomly shooting a gun at some dude, and kill him, you don't get to claim you though the gun would be filled with blanks, not unless you had a darn good reason to think so, that you can substantiate, like a film set armorer handing you a gun and saying so. This is especially not true if you keep that shit up when people tell you it's wrong; if anyone's telling Trump there's no fraud and it's not being investigated and he just chooses to "not believe them", he's accepting that responsibility, right there. It's like if you fired the gun at a tree, and it exploded as the bullets slammed into it, and someone said "holy shit, stop shooting, the bullets are live rounds", and you said "nah, I don't believe they are, I believe they're blanks!" and then shoot a guy. Yeah, no, that'd be negligent manslaughter at a minimum.