Bannon will likely testify that Trump had a scheme in place to claim the election was stolen if he was losing. That Trump, Bannon, Stone, etc. all talked about it and went forward with it. Wouldn't you agree that would be very damning? What do you think a jury would think of such testimony? — RogueAI
It must be a quote from Donald Trump because he is the only one that can speak about his thoughts, intentions, and beliefs. If an eye witness can quote him then that would suffice for me. — NOS4A2
Bannon will likely testify that Trump had a scheme in place to claim the election was stolen if he was losing. That Trump, Bannon, Stone, etc. all talked about it and went forward with it. Wouldn't you agree that would be very damning? What do you think a jury would think of such testimony?
Only a confession by the accused counts as evidence of a crime. — Michael
??? is this a mis-type? Or maybe I'm not following you. You're not seriously suggesting that someone could commit murder but unless they confess then all other evidence does not count and they should be declared innocent by a jury? — EricH
Remember that we are not seeing Republicans arrested for wearing their Make America Great Again hats or their Don’t Tread on Me bumper stickers, both fine examples of free speech. The key difference is this: Speech that leads to crime has never been protected from prosecution. Wearing a Second Amendment shirt is not a crime, but conspiring to commit murder is a crime, separate from the murder itself. Lying to masses of Americans that their right to vote was taken away and encouraging them to take it back by any means — as Trump is accused of doing — can, based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, constitute a crime.
To suggest that special counsel Jack Smith’s latest indictment on the Jan. 6 assault is just an attack on free speech, as some Republican partisans are claiming, is itself an attack on the rule of law. If a private citizen had organized the events on Jan. 6, there is little doubt that they would have been arrested and prosecuted. The Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol should not be held to a higher standard than the former president. If we decide that presidents should never be charged with crimes after they leave office for actions committed while in office, we are no longer a democracy. — No, fellow Republicans, the Justice Department is not biased against us
He was jokinghe's specifically talking about crimes where intent matters, I guess. — flannel jesus
Predictions are one thing, but conspiracies are another. I'm just wondering how you’ve come to believe that him and Trump and Stone were engaging in a criminal conspiracy. — NOS4A2
joking or not, it's relevant to the argument NOS is making. If NOS thinks that trump can't be guilty here because you can't prove intent without a confession, then that means a lot of crimes that involve intent are also unprovable without a confession. — flannel jesus
yes, of course I agree. I don't personally need a confession to find a person beyond all reasonable doubt guilty of a crime involving intent. The same can't be said for every poster
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.