Trump Indicted By DC Grand Jury

[Starkiller]

17 minutes ago, ctm said:

When Trump called the Ga. Sec. of state and asked him to find 11K votes, does that fall under his 1st ammendment right of free speech?

If I write a ransom note, is that protected by the 1st Amendment?

[ChesterCopperpot1]

6 minutes ago, TitansPDO said:

 

Would need for that to get past a hearsay exception for someone to say what Trump said. 

Statements by party-opponent could come into play here, but this is where civil and criminal practice differ and I get confused. You can compel a party to testify in a civil proceeding; you can’t in a criminal proceeding. And if the party refuses to testify in a civil proceeding or asserts the 5th amendment right against self incrimination the negative inferences may be drawn whereas you can’t do that in criminal matters. 
 

so I don’t know if trump’s statements could be used in the manner to say he was relying on advice of counsel. The most common (and easiest) way to invoke that defense is for the party to actually testify. And that’ll never happen here. 

[pat]

If I sign a loan contract and then later refuse to pay it back, is that protected by my first amendment right to change my mind?

[pat]

If I tell someone to commit a crime and they do it, is that protected by the first amendment?

[TitansPDO]

25 minutes ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said:

Statements by party-opponent could come into play here, but this is where civil and criminal practice differ and I get confused. You can compel a party to testify in a civil proceeding; you can’t in a criminal proceeding. And if the party refuses to testify in a civil proceeding or asserts the 5th amendment right against self incrimination the negative inferences may be drawn whereas you can’t do that in criminal matters. 
 

so I don’t know if trump’s statements could be used in the manner to say he was relying on advice of counsel. The most common (and easiest) way to invoke that defense is for the party to actually testify. And that’ll never happen here. 

 

At best, it could possibly go towards Trump's lack of mens rea to commit the offense. However, as a legal defense, such a mistake of law, reliance upon counsel is not a sufficient ground to assert that defense, at least in Texas State Court. See Gallegos v. State, 828 S.W.2d 577, 579 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.) ("Appellant relied upon the advice of his attorney. Because his mistake of law was not based upon an official statement or interpretation of the law by a court or an administrative agency, he is not entitled to a mistake of law defense.). The same is true of any potential mistake of fact defense as Trump would have relied upon a third party. Id. ("a defendant who relies upon another's mistake of law is not entitled to raise a mistake of fact defense.")

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by TitansPDO

[OILERMAN]

3 hours ago, begooode said:

Agree 100%. But my point was railing about First Amendment rights for a president to lie knowingly (highlighted in the indictment) and dangerously about election results is just a terrible place to be in as a Trump supporter.  By pivoting wholeheartedly to that argument they concede the lies straightaway "it's his right!!" , but beforehand it was "Dems stole it, look at all da red counties, Basement Biden, Trump Won" , etc,... 

 

Trump tells it like it is.....durrrr!

 

Now

 

It's Trump's 1st amendment right to lie about election results!!!

 

And BTW, send your cash to the stop the steal fund(that doesn't exist) you stupid dupes!

[titanruss]

6 hours ago, LongTimeFan said:

in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, ‘But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. …

 

What concerns me here is that the implications of this filing for free speech are quite chilling. And those people celebrating this indictment are dismissing that, and they shouldn't. … When is the price too high? You have an indictment in Florida, which I said was a strong one. That's a solid case. Trump could still beat it, but it's a legitimate case bas

 

It doesn't matter if he believed it... it was a clearly proven falsehood over and over and over, before and after and since... and he's still saying it.

 

You can believe no one actually gets bothered when you shit in their yard...

 

Your mom could tell you all day that it is OK to shit in peoples yards...

 

... but if you keep shitting in peoples yards while starting a murderous cult of yard shitters that tries to overthrow the government

 

You broke like... all the laws.

 

 

...crazy you dont get that. Ohhhh yeah, forgot, you do. You just would rather the world be filled with yard shitters.

Edited August 3, 2023 by titanruss

[titanruss]

8 hours ago, ctm said:

NYT is reporting that co-conspirator #6 is Boris Epshteyn.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/us/politics/boris-epshteyn-co-conspirator-6.html

 

EPSHTEYN....You mean EPSTEIN.

 

lol

 

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by titanruss

[nine]

It says it right there at the beginning of the filing:  the indictment isn’t about free speech.  It specifically states that Trump is afforded the same right to exercise free speech as anyone else.  
 

The indictment is about Trump and his cohorts scheming  to circumvent and undermine lawful election procedures as described in the Electoral Count Act of 1887…and their orchestrated efforts to convince numerous state officials to ignore their own state constitutions and go with the “alternate electors” scheme they were implementing. 
 

This scheme involved the printing of falsified electoral certificates which were signed by panels of illegitimate wannabe electors falsely attesting themselves as the state’s  rightful electors and awarding the state’s electoral votes to  Trump.  These counterfeit documents were then submitted for certification as if they were actual legitimate certificates.  
 

None of the charges or actions described in the indictment had anything whatsoever to do with Trump constantly lying to the American people about the outcome of the election;  even blatant lies are still protected under the First Amendment.
 

 The charges Trump faces are strictly for his actions while conspiring with others to circumvent and overthrow a democratically-held election as a means of keeping himself in power.

[IsntLifeFunny]

4 hours ago, titanruss said:

 

It doesn't matter if he believed it... it was a clearly proven falsehood over and over and over, before and after and since... and he's still saying it.

 

You can believe no one actually gets bothered when you shit in their yard...

 

Your mom could tell you all day that it is OK to shit in peoples yards...

 

... but if you keep shitting in peoples yards while starting a murderous cult of yard shitters that tries to overthrow the government

 

You broke like... all the laws.

 

 

...crazy you dont get that. Ohhhh yeah, forgot, you do. You just would rather the world be filled with yard shitters.

I hate to say it, but he's going to go with the full on 'I'm a retard' defense. It's his best option. And of course they'll lap it up. 

[ctm]

1 hour ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I hate to say it, but he's going to go with the full on 'I'm a retard' defense. It's his best option. And of course they'll lap it up. 

One good thing about that defense, he won't have to take the stand to convince people.

[ctm]

“As the indictment says, they are not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants, he can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better,” Barr said. “But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy.”

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/bill-barr-trump-arraignment-2020-election/index.html

[scine09]

Did anyone listen to that interview?  The guy trashed Trump the entire time and then at the end when pressed on whether he'd vote for Trump he basically said he wasn't sure.

[reo]

 

 

 

Better analysis than i expected on what Shapiro is trying to do.

[reo]

Why Trump’s Usual Defenses Won’t Work

 

Phil Rotner: “And while some of the overt acts alleged against Trump might look less damning if Trump could show he truly believed he won the election, others would not. Even a sincere, deeply held belief that the election had been stolen would not, for instance, give Trump license to participate in a fake-electors scheme. As I wrote over a year ago, none of Trump’s standard defenses can excuse this piece of dirty work. Trump can’t claim he didn’t know about it, and he can’t claim that forging election certificates and then attempting to pawn them off as official documents is just fine as long as you believe you won an election.”

 

“Think of it this way. You may be absolutely convinced that a charge on your credit card isn’t yours, but you can’t hack into the bank’s server to remove it. You may know with all your heart that your neighbor took your Rolex, but you can’t break into his house in the middle of the night to retrieve it (just ask O.J. Simpson about that one). You may hold it as an article of near-religious faith that the government is tyrannical, but you can’t blow up the federal building.”

 

https://politicalwire.com/2023/08/03/why-trumps-usual-defenses-wont-work/