EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
There has been a lot discussion in the media to the effect that the criminal cases will not impact Trump's support among Republicans. Based factual poll evidence, a felony conviction would have a significant negative impact in the general election.

>>>WASHINGTON, Aug 3 (Reuters) - About half of Republicans would not vote for Donald Trump if he were convicted of a felony, a sign of the severe risks his legal problems pose for his 2024 U.S. presidential bid, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Thursday. . . . The two-day Reuters/Ipsos poll asked respondents if they would vote for Trump for president next year if he were "convicted of a felony crime by a jury." Among Republicans, 45% said they would not vote for him, more than the 35% who said they would. The rest said they didn't know.<<<

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-about-half-of-us-republicans-could-spurn-trump-if-he-is-convicted-reuters-ipsos

People are of course free to ignore factual evidence if it contradicts their beliefs.
Imagine it's how you interpret the stat. There's plenty that would not vote for Trump, but is it enough to beat him in the primary?
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Back in June 1972, Nixon's Plumbers broke into the Democratic Party HQ in the Watergate and bugged the phones. In the November 1972 election Nixon still won.

During most of the lengthy Watergate investigation, public opinion narrowly supported Nixon. Only sometime in the early summer of 1974 did public opinion rapidly shift from 'let him finish his 2nd term' to 'run that lying SOB out of Washington'. People forget this.

Gerald Ford made a huge mistake in pardoning Nixon before he was ever charged with a crime. A strong public outcry followed this, resulting in Ford becoming a care-taker president in his remaining 2-years in the White House. He badly misjudged how rapidly public opinion had shifted.

I certainly can't predict how the criminal trials of Trump will turn out. But I will predict that public opinion will take a long time to change, if it changes at all. That's another reason why I ignore such polls as the recent one mentioned by Mr._Clark.
The poll you are ignoring asked the following question:

>>>If Donald Trump were convicted and sentenced to jail for his
handling of classified documents, would you support or
oppose a president pardoning him in the interest of national
unity?<<<

Nixon was not convicted and sentenced to jail.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
The poll you are ignoring asked the following question:

>>>If Donald Trump were convicted and sentenced to jail for his
handling of classified documents, would you support or
oppose a president pardoning him in the interest of national
unity?<<<

Nixon was not convicted and sentenced to jail.
The reason why I'm ignoring that poll is entirely due to when the poll took place. It's a fact, known by pollsters, that most Americans don't bother to think seriously about such a question unless an election is looming. Some never do.

If any ex-president or president were convicted and sent to jail, for any valid criminal charge, I'd oppose pardoning him in the interest of national unity. And, I'd like to think any rational person would agree. However, I've been around long enough to know that this nation's politics is far from rational.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Ninja
Interesting article in Canada's National Post today. It states that prosecutors will have a difficult time because they have to prove "mens rea" - a "guilty mind" or criminal intent. What if the defense argues that Trump was truly convinced that the election was stolen and there was vast voter fraud? How then do you prove criminal intent? Are there any emails or voice recordings of Trump that indicate that he admitted defeat and was trying to overturn the result? He's been pretty consistent in his claims of voter fraud. Even if those claims were all lies, unless there is contrary evidence then criminal intent could be very hard to prove.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Interesting article in Canada's National Post today. It states that prosecutors will have a difficult time because they have to prove "mens rea" - a "guilty mind" or criminal intent. What if the defense argues that Trump was truly convinced that the election was stolen and there was vast voter fraud? How then do you prove criminal intent? Are there any emails or voice recordings of Trump that indicate that he admitted defeat and was trying to overturn the result? He's been pretty consistent in his claims of voter fraud. Even if those claims were all lies, unless there is contrary evidence then criminal intent could be very hard to prove.
That's for sure the type of arguments that Trump defence team will make but I would be very surprised if the Special Council don't have the "goods" to prove intent (where needed) during the trial.
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Overlord
I love that one of the orange one's crack legal team, on national television, admitted to Trump directing that his team pursue subverting the election.
*facepalm
I know it's kind of a nothing-burger as Drumphy had admitted this previously, however I didn't think that such a brash tactic as, "ya, he did it," would be employed.
SMDH
 
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja
Interesting article in Canada's National Post today. It states that prosecutors will have a difficult time because they have to prove "mens rea" - a "guilty mind" or criminal intent. What if the defense argues that Trump was truly convinced that the election was stolen and there was vast voter fraud? How then do you prove criminal intent? Are there any emails or voice recordings of Trump that indicate that he admitted defeat and was trying to overturn the result? He's been pretty consistent in his claims of voter fraud. Even if those claims were all lies, unless there is contrary evidence then criminal intent could be very hard to prove.
Agree, its going to be extremely difficult for the persecution. There are several ways Trump could walk free. They involve a delay, a jury, a judge, and legal arguments touching both procedure and substance. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-four-lines-defense-1.6875618

Its going to be a circus
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Overlord
It's looking like the Georgia indictment is happening soon. Previously, barricades had been installed around the courthouse. Today, street closure put in effect.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Interesting article in Canada's National Post today. It states that prosecutors will have a difficult time because they have to prove "mens rea" - a "guilty mind" or criminal intent. What if the defense argues that Trump was truly convinced that the election was stolen and there was vast voter fraud? How then do you prove criminal intent? Are there any emails or voice recordings of Trump that indicate that he admitted defeat and was trying to overturn the result? He's been pretty consistent in his claims of voter fraud. Even if those claims were all lies, unless there is contrary evidence then criminal intent could be very hard to prove.
As I see it, a lot of the media coverage concerning the intent issue is misleading.

Hypothetically, let's assume Trump truly believed the election was stolen and there was vast voter fraud (let's call this "the Easter Bunny"). His belief in the Easter Bunny would not give him legal immunity to knowingly and intentionally commit crimes to counter the fraud he believed had happened.

I've seen commentary from lawyers that goes the other way on this issue. Some do not appear to be biased in favor of Trump. In other words, I can't say with certainty that my interpretation of this issue is correct.

Granted, the government's case is stronger if the prosecutor can convince a jury that Trump's motive was corrupt.

Trump's lawyer has been floating the Easter Bunny defense:

>>>Barely hours after Donald Trump was indicted . . . his defense lawyer [Lauro] . . . said prosecutors cannot prove Trump truly “believed” he’d lost his 2020 presidential reelection, ensuring a not-guilty verdict.

That’s gotten lots of attention, most of it appropriately dismissive.<<<(emphasis added)


Trump's lawyer (Lauro) also floated the advice of counsel defense:

>>>[Lauro] declared that Trump merely acted on what he thought was reasonable advice from his lawyer, John Eastman.
“He had advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert,” Lauro said of Trump and Eastman. Lauro argued this convinced Trump that he could reasonably ask Vice President Mike Pence to halt Congress’s count of presidential electors to allow states to revisit voting irregularities.<<<

The advice of counsel defense strikes me as being somewhat more likely to get traction in court, but I'm skeptical that this would be successful. For one thing, it would more than likely waive attorney-client privilege:

>>>Invoking an advice-of-counsel defense typically waives the attorney-client privilege. Courts often invoke the principle of fairness and the sword/shield analogy when discussing privilege waiver. Judges view it as unfair for a party, on the one hand, to use privileged information as a sword in advocating a position or invoking the advice-of-counsel defense while, on the other hand, claiming privilege in withholding that same information from a discovery request.<<<


If all of the communications between Trump and Eastman were to be entered as evidence, I'm willing to bet it would include statements by Eastman to the effect that his legal theory was weak, untested, etc. which would undermine Trump's defense.
 
Last edited:
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Interesting article in Canada's National Post today. It states that prosecutors will have a difficult time because they have to prove "mens rea" - a "guilty mind" or criminal intent. What if the defense argues that Trump was truly convinced that the election was stolen and there was vast voter fraud? How then do you prove criminal intent? Are there any emails or voice recordings of Trump that indicate that he admitted defeat and was trying to overturn the result? He's been pretty consistent in his claims of voter fraud. Even if those claims were all lies, unless there is contrary evidence then criminal intent could be very hard to prove.
Honestly believing he was right didn't save this guy.
'Pizzagate' Gunman Sentenced To 4 Years In Prison : The Two-Way : NPR
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
This reminds me of another example I've heard/read since Trumps latest indictment: (Paraphrasing from memory so I could very well miss important nuances) You can can say that the US government printing of money is illegal and even tell others that printing their own money is legal. But if you start printing your own money you're doing something illegal: Making counterfeit money.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Could this be incriminating?

Trump’s lawyer John Lauro just got on Newsmax and Fox News and admitted that Trump pressured Mike Pence to break the law.

Lauro on Newsmax:
“He asked Mr. Pence to pause the voting for 10 days, allow the state legislatures to weigh in, and then they could make a determination to audit, or re-audit, or recertify. But what he didn’t do is, you know, send in the tanks, tell Mike Pence don’t go to Capitol Hill, or do anything that would obstruct the due process of government”

He continue to say similar on Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox News. This would be the very definition of “Conspiracy To Obstruct An Official Proceeding”•
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
One thing that is different about Trump's situation is that the president is responsible for the execution of the laws. Trump's lawyers would undoubtedly argue that he was trying to faithfully execute and enforce the laws based on his understanding of the laws as explained to him by his lawyers (and the Easter Bunny).
Trump is also required to execute the laws faithfully as a President, whatever that means in practice.

In the end: Will USA hold him accountable for his (alleged) failed coup attempt? Or will USA, to use Trumps crude label, join the league of “shithole” countries where coups are common?

Fortunately this does not appear to be the case.
 
Last edited:
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Trump is also required to execute the laws faithfully as a President, whatever that means in practice.

In the end: Will USA hold him accountable for his (alleged) failed coup attempt? Or will USA, to use Trumps crude label, join the league of “shithole” countries where coups are common?

Fortunately this does not appear to be the case.
Yeah, the Take Care Clause actually says "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." If Trump's lawyers invoke an advice of counsel defense, I'd expect them to tart it up with some take care language along the lines of what I suggested earlier "he was trying to faithfully execute and enforce the laws based on his understanding of the laws as explained to him by his lawyers" but this is just lipstick on a pig.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Hypothetically, let's assume Trump truly believed the election was stolen and there was vast voter fraud (let's call this "the Easter Bunny"). His belief in the Easter Bunny would not give him legal immunity to knowingly and intentionally commit crimes to counter the fraud he believed had happened.

I've seen commentary from lawyers that goes the other way on this issue. Some do not appear to be biased in favor of Trump. In other words, I can't say with certainty that my interpretation of this issue is correct.

Granted, the government's case is stronger if the prosecutor can convince a jury that Trump's motive was corrupt.
Here's an example of comments by someone who seems to have a different interpretation than I do with regards to the intent issue:

>>>The jury, as part of its instructions, has to determine whether things were done knowingly. There’ll be instructions with respect to each one of the charges. In these crimes, I wouldn’t necessarily say that there’s a legal duty to go do a certain amount of due diligence for Trump. But I think it really comes down to, again, ultimately a fact question. Did he actually believe there was fraud, or was he using that to try to be the basis for the schemes that are alleged in these conspiracies and indictments so that he could remain in power? And I think if everything in this indictment is proved, there’s pretty overwhelming evidence that he knew full well what he was doing and he did it anyway in order to stay in office. But, like I said, that’s a jury question.<<<(emphasis added)


This article is based on a phone interview with Mary McCord, the executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University and a former acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

I'm not wild about disagreeing Ms McCord as she is obviously not some crackpot lawyer, but I'm also not wild about going against my honest interpretation of the law on this issue. In short, I'm not so sure the jury instructions will require the jury to find that Trump "actually believed there was fraud."

I still think a belief in fraud is a possible motivation, not a mens rea element that needs to be proven for each and every act alleged in the indictment.

Ultimately the judge will decide what the jury instructions will say after an ungodly amount of arguing and litigation.

Also, it's entirely possible that a jury concludes that Trump knew he lost, so this (the precise mens rea requirement) might ultimately be a moot point.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top