He refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, and then it turned out he wasn't interested in a peaceful transition of power. The dude basically announced his intentions well ahead of time. If someone tells me they're gonna stab someone, and then I see them later with a bloody knife in their hands, why wouldn't I believe them?

I don't think you should let the "victimless" angle go unchecked. It's only arguably victimless because he failed. "Attempted murder" is a crime still, even if no one got hurt.

He failed to make a victim (arguably), should his failure count in his favour?

The whole victim shtick is a red herring. It's irrelevant. Euthanasia doesn't have a victim either but is still illegal. Attempts at crimes are victimless as well, still prosecuted. Jaywalking, not wearing a seat belt, speeding etc. All victimless, all prosecuted. You see a conspiracy this quickly then you should certainly see one with Trump. But you don't which is just a sad consequence of your boring biases.

He didn't say something others wanted him to say. That appears to be the extent of his crimes in the minds of his detractors.

Euthanasia is legal where I live.

Yeah, I am aware they are illegal according to law and will be prosecuted by lawyers. According to law it was once legal to own human beings. That's why its a fallacy to appeal to law, and you're consistently guilty of it.

blah blah. Just another red herring. The question is whether Trump committed a crime, which is a legal question, not whether what he did was a crime. I'm not appealing to the law. I'm explaining it to you so your tiny reptilian brain can reason it's way to a sensible position instead of verbally tossing Trump's salad all the time.

The conspiracies noted in the indictment claim that efforts were made in many states, coordinated nationally by specific people. These are referred to in the indictment as co-conspirators. Those parts of the charge concern a deliberate effort to build alternative slates of electors outside the view of the legal process and have them being sprung upon the 1/6 proceedings through Pence claiming the right to do that and throwing the votes back to state legislators.

To that point, the case does not depend upon the intent of the POTUS but to proving whether this planned activity was carried out as planned as evidenced by the words and actions of the operators.

If the prosecution is able to convince a jury that these are the facts that have to be accepted, then the intent of POTUS is either seen as integral to those actions or an unfortunate misunderstanding of what was done in his name. In that context, what the accused truly believed is not sufficient proof by itself of his degree of involvement. That state of mind can only be presented as likely or unlikely given evidence of his words and actions in a plot to illegally overturn the election results.

The indictment starts by noting that the accused has the right to lie to people. That obviously includes himself. The argument that he knew better is part of establishing to what degree he was involved in the scheme, not a question of whether the scheme was put into action.

blah blah. Just another red herring. The question is whether Trump committed a crime, which is a legal question, not whether what he did was a crime. I'm not appealing to the law. I'm explaining it to you so your tiny reptilian brain can reason it's way to a sensible position instead of verbally tossing Trump's salad all the time.

I get it. It's illegal because it's illegal. It's a crime because it's a crime. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for your input.

Obviously you don't "get it" because that's a misrepresentation of what I said.

You can't make this stuff up.

Disgraced FBI official who probed Trump-Russia ties set to plead guilty to illegally working for Russian oligarch

Disgraced FBI agent Charles McGonigal — who investigated the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Moscow in 2016 — is slated to take a guilty plea in the case accusing him of illegally working for a Russian oligarch.

“The court has been informed that defendant Charles McGonigal may wish to enter a change of plea,” Manhattan federal Judge Jennifer Rearden wrote in a brief order filed Monday, scheduling a hearing for Aug. 15.

McGonigal, 54, — a former top FBI counterintelligence agent based in New York — was indicted in January on charges including money laundering and violating US sanctions by working for Russian billionaire and business magnate Oleg Deripaska, including trying to get him taken off of the US sanctions list.

McGonigal was legally required to report to the FBI his contact with foreign officials, but instead allegedly hid the ties, pursing business and overseas travel that conflicted with his job.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/07/ex-fbi-official-slated-to-plead-guilty-in-corruption-case/

Yeah, I am aware they are illegal according to law and will be prosecuted by lawyers. According to law it was once legal to own human beings. That's why its a fallacy to appeal to law, and you're consistently guilty of it. — NOS4A2

It's a fallacy to appeal to the law when arguing over whether or not someone broke the law?

What are you smoking?

I said it didn’t seem like much of a crime and gave reasons why.

You want a puff?

How much of a crime would it seem like if Biden loses the election and does all the same shit Trump did though?

I said it didn’t seem like much of a crime — NOS4A2

Meaning he only broke the law a little? Or that the laws he broke shouldn’t be laws at all?

Either way it isn't a fallacy to appeal to the law when discussing whether or not Trump broke the law.

How much of a crime would it seem like if Biden loses the election and does all the same shit Trump did though?

Like the Russia hoax. It embroiled the world in a fake scandal for many years and deceived the American people, even the world, so much so that it reached the highest echelons of the government.

I don't think a word of that responded to the question I asked.

You'd have to be an idiot to think he believed the election was stolen. This is a recurring strategy he uses: "If I win I'm great, if I lose it was rigged against me." It's the sore loser strategy and we all remember it from childhood -- but Trump never outgrew it. — GRWelsh

Yes.

But on the other hand, he’s such a deeply pathological liar that he may have convinced himself somewhere along the way that what he was saying was true.

So if the charges rely on him being something other than a pathological, sociopathic, narcissistic liar— I think it’s doomed to fail.

But on the other hand, he’s such a deeply pathological liar that he may have convinced himself somewhere along the way that what he was saying was true. — Mikie

Not relevant with respect to the intent that matters. It's not what he believed to be true. I can believe you're part of a Martian invasion and kill you, it's still going to be murder because my intent was to bring about your death. The reason for that could be a mitigating circumstance but in itself is not relevant for establishing intent.

Is anyone else just completely amazed that a man could try to brazenly steal an election and still a third of America wants to vote for him again?

I'm not entirely sure I know how to process the extreme fucked-upness of this situation. It's absurd, is surreal. There's no way anybody who values democracy could consider him getting power again would be an acceptable outcome.

America's fucked.

My theory is that with only two parties, political identity becomes much more entrenched. Part of that identity is hating the other party so even if an amoeba runs for your side, you're still going to vote for it because it's not the other side.

My theory is that with only two parties, political identity becomes much more entrenched. Part of that identity is hating the other party so even if an amoeba runs for your side, you're still going to vote for it because it's not the other side. — Benkei

Here's an alternative hypothesis. that when two patties are 99% politically identical, matters of style become all important: back to the future v forward to the good old days hatred of tolerance v tolerance of hatred. When there is nothing to choose between the parties, the monsters of mythology must be invoked on each side to create a significant difference, otherwise no one will bother to vote at all.

Very good. I like it. Probably multiple causes any way, not least of which the actual material circumstances of its citizenry.

I don't buy the 'both parties are corrupt' line. American politics has been considerably worse since first the Tea Party and then the Trump-MAGA movement have appeared in it. And Biden's Presidency has actually managed an effective legislative agenda, despite the immense amount of time wasted by the 'radical right' who are only interested in acting for big business and corporate sponsorship.

They say that Trump could run or govern from a jail cell, but let's see how that works out in practice.

I think they're both corrupt, as in they both have corruption in the ranks, but I don't believe the corruption is the same. I don't believe the scale of it is the same.

It seems to me like you can buy the occasional democrat representative. It seems to me that republican representatives exist to be bought.

Those with morals are always at a disadvantage with regard to those who are amoral, because they limit their own options. Join the forces of evil now!

:up:

I would hope so.

I don't think it much matters what Trump believes or believed. It's like when you catch a snake oil salesman selling poison to people and telling them it is medicine. It doesn't really matter if he admits that he knows what he's doing -- what is important is that he is stopped from doing it. He's committing fraud, whether or not he admits it to others or to himself.

This may be important for a few reasons:

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

It is important not only for Trump's campaign, but for Federalist Society, conservatism, and the constitution,

Thanks. There is something both absurd and deeply menacing about DJT being considered 'the leading contender' given all that has happened and is happening. I understand why Biden has to be seen not to be trying to politicize the indictments, but someone with bi-partisan authority really needs to tell the American electorate to wake up from this ridiculous fantasy of Trump as contender. Of course, the fact that the Republican senate acquitted him after the second impeachment will forever be a stain on both the party and the nation, as if he had been convicted then he would no longer be eligible to run. But his eligibility must be ruled out urgently as a matter of extreme importance considering everything that is at stake. He's literally trying to enrol the electorate in the overthrow of the Constitution - the coup attempt of Jan 6th 2021 is ongoing.

The intended victims of Trump's felonies were the American voters. If you voted for Biden, and in particular if you sent a mail-in ballot that wasn't counted by election night, you were one of Trump's intended victims. He wanted to make your vote not count by throwing it out as illegitimate, even if it was. It didn't matter if you were an elderly shut-in, an invalid, if you had Covid or some other illness, or if you were simply exercising your legal right in your state to mail in your vote. Trump conspired to make your vote not count, arguing that you were part of the "steal." Defrauding the American gov't is the same as defrauding the American people. If you are an American who voted for Trump, you may think "So what? He wasn't targeting ME or MY vote!" But I would argue he was also targeting you in the sense that if he had succeeded in getting Biden votes thrown out or discounted, it would have given him a precedent for in the future. So, even if you support Trump NOW, he would be effectively be taking away your power to vote someone else into power in the future. This is why many American conservatives are supporting the installation of an authoritarian regime without even realizing it. By supporting Trump's crimes or denying they are crimes, you help erode law, the democratic process, and the rights of the American voter -- and in the long run that eventually includes you.