A victimless crime lacking any overt criminal act or criminal intent doesn't seem like much of a crime. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, to me.

I’m just curious as to why you believe it or not. If not for evidence or lack thereof, then what?

I still can’t figure out what particular act was the criminal one or who the victims were.

Contesting an election is legal.

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

In this case you do need a confession, or some substantial evidence, because all of the evidence points to Trump believing the election was stolen. I can provide pages of quotes, activities, and witnesses to prove this. All of it is documented. And you would provide…what exactly?

Bannon was saying that for months before the election as a part of a speaking tour. He also said that Trump would be inaugurated and Pelosi would invoke the 25th amendment so she could become president. 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.

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?

Is this conspiracy of yours a theory? Or is there some indication that these men met and discussed such ideas at some point before the election?

He didn’t quote Trump. I want to know Trump’s thoughts, not Bannon’s.

I'm looking for clarity on your response - must that be a quote from Donald Trump or can it be a quote from eye witnesses to the events?

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.

I've gone ahead and read the context as you've suggested.

Absolutely. Read the context. The purpose of the link was explicit - that it showed this fraud claim was false, and Trump clearly declined to see it.

In context the surmising is even worse. Trump and his lawyers made too many claims to mention them all, for one, so the idea that one statement about a link proved all his claims were false is itself false. All Raffersperger could do is tell them that they were wrong, without providing any of the evidence that Trump’s team was in fact requesting from the secretary of state. All they could say was “We looked into that”.

This remark by Trump’s lawyer makes the point:

“Mitchell: Mr. Secretary, Mr. President, one of the things that we have been, Alex can talk about this, we talked about it, and I don’t know whether the information has been conveyed to your office, but I think what the president is saying, and what we’ve been trying to do is to say, look, the court is not acting on our petition. They haven’t even assigned a judge. But the people of Georgia and the people of America have a right to know the answers. And you have data and records that we don’t have access to. And you keep telling us and making public statements that you investigated this and nothing to see here. But we don’t know about that. All we know is what you tell us. What I don’t understand is why wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest to try to get to the bottom, compare the numbers, you know, if you say, because - to try to be able to get to the truth because we don’t have any way of confirming what you’re telling us. You tell us that you had an investigation at the State Farm Arena. I don’t have any report. I’ve never seen a report of investigation. I don’t know that is. I’ve been pretty involved in this and I don’t know. And that’s just one of like , 25 categories. And it doesn’t even, and as I, as the president said, we haven’t even gotten into the Dominion issue. That’s not part of our case. It’s not part of our, we just didn’t feel as though we had any way to be able to develop —“

It showed the ballots were packed into the boxes by the election workers when they were told to end their day, and then they were told to stay and continue- so they opened them back up.

Trump’s lawyer made this claim following Trump’s “I have a better link” comment:

“I will tell you. I’ve seen the tape. The full tape. So has Alex. We’ve watched it. And what we saw and what we’ve confirmed in the timing is that. They made everybody leave, we have sworn affidavits saying that. And then they began to process ballots. And our estimate is that there were roughly 18,000 ballots.”

That video does not address this claim, nor could it. In response, Raffensperger could only say “We had GBI … investigate that”. His lawyer, Ryan Germany, stated further that “We had our law enforcement officers talk to everyone who was who was there after that event came to light.” Of course, “who was who” does not include anyone who signed sworn affidavits saying they made everyone leave.

If there was an investigation and a report, Trump’s team had clearly not seen it and Raffensperger wasn’t offering any.

The evidence was not offered. The lawyers and Mark Meadows requested many times that the two parties meet and compare the numbers, the data, the evidence. But apparently none was forthcoming.

Yes, criminality carries obvious risks, and Trump explicitly said they'd broken the law:

Trump: "Well, under the law you're not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You're not allowed to do that. And that's what you done."

This is your threat in context:

Well, you have to. Well, under the law you’re not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You’re not allowed to do that. And that’s what you done. This is a faulty election result. And honestly, this should go very fast. You should meet tomorrow because you have a big election coming up and because of what you’ve done to the president — you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam. And because of what you’ve done to the president, a lot of people aren’t going out to vote and a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative because they hate what you did to the president. Okay? They hate it. And they’re going to vote. And you would be respected. Really respected, if this thing could be straightened out before the election. You have a big election coming up on Tuesday. And therefore I think that it is really important that you meet tomorrow and work out on these numbers. 

People are going to vote negative. Oh dear.

I actually agree with this. Materialists often propose a brain/body dualism that is just as fraught as mind/body dualism, and for the same reasons.

1) The president of the united states refused to look at a link to a video, and you surmise this as Trump declining to view "refuting evidence". What about the video refuted Trump's claim?

2) It is not a lie because you do not know whether Trump believed otherwise. Did he or did he not believe that the secretary of state was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam?

3) He either insinuated such or you are surmising, without evidence, that he did make such threats. Criminal offenses are in fact big risks.

I said they were all incompetent, deep-state bureaucrats.

DeSantis was a JAG lawyer. For one, I don't like lawyers and think that profession is overrated and overrepresented in politics, to a ruinous degree. Two, his employment in the military industrial complex indicates that he will support all of their moves.

I don't, because the best you've shown is that he didn't believe the people he was talking to, that he didn't repeat their claims, and the effect such behavior could have.

None of the supposed corrupts acts you stated, even if true, rise to the level of corruption, or fraud, or any other criminal or corrupt activity. The best you've shown is that he didn't believe the people he was talking to, that he didn't repeat their claims, and the effect such behavior could have. There is no crime. There is no victim of any crime.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/827679

I did respond and you ignored it, or missed it, one or the other. Do you need me to quote it for you?

Do you only speak in questions? Is this an interview?

I have responded to your three points.

As for Russian active measures, the activities and impacts were largely overstated. The Mueller case against Concord and the Internet Research Agency, for instance, was dismissed with prejudice, with the Federal judge in that case rebuking Mueller for his insinuation in that report that they worked at the behest of the Russian government. They couldn’t support that claim in a federal court because they could not produce any evidence.

First, I want to direct the parties to abide moving forward by Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b), and I want to make clear that any willful failure to do so will result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.

I am also going to direct the government to refrain from making or authorizing any future public statement that links the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government or its agencies.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.144.0_1.pdf

In a later congressional hearing, Mueller probably lied to congress when he was asked if the judge’s threat to hold his prosecutors in criminal contempt was the reason for coming out in a press conference and fixing the record. He said “no”.

McCLINTOCK: Your report famously links Russian Internet troll farms with the Russian government. Yet at a hearing on May 28 in the Concord Management-IRA prosecution that you initiated, the judge excoriated you and Barr for producing no evidence to support this claim. Why did you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms, when in court you've been unable to produce any evidence to support it?

MUELLER: Well, I am not going to get into that any further than I -- than I already have.

McCLINTOCK: But -- but you -- you have left the clear impression throughout the country, through your report, that it -- it was the Russian government behind the troll farms. And yet, when you're called upon to provide actual evidence in court, you fail to do so.

MUELLER: Well, I would again dispute your characterization of what occurred in that -- in that proceeding.

McCLINTOCK: In -- in -- in fact, the judge considering -- considered holding prosecutors in criminal contempt. She backed off, only after your hastily called press conference the next day in which you retroactively made the distinction between the Russian government and the Russia troll farms. Did your press conference on May 29th have anything to do with the threat to hold your prosecutors in contempt the previous day for publicly misrepresenting the evidence?

MUELLER: What was the question?

McCLINTOCK: The -- the question is, did your May 29th press conference have anything to do with the fact that the previous day the judge threatened to hold your prosecutors in contempt for misrepresenting evidence?

MUELLER: No.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/full-transcript-robert-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216

That was Trump's government. Sessions recused himself over undisclosed conversations with the Russian ambassador. Republican Trump appointee Rod Rosenstein appointed Republican Bob Mueller as special counsel. Republican Trump appointee Chris Wray led the FBI that cooperated with Mueller. Why do you think so many of Trump's own people ended up investigating him?

Also, did Biden get more votes than Trump in the 2020 election?

My guess is because they are incompetent, deep-state bureaucrats. But maybe it was to clear their names from the blizzard of lies by then surrounding the hoax.

Wrong. Some errors were made, but the investigation was warranted. It exposed crimes, exposed corrupt activities by the Trump campaign, and hit a brick wall because of Trump's obstruction of justice.

Are you going to respond to the corrupt acts of Trump's that I referenced in my last comment to you?

It wasn't warranted. Even those who started it said there was nothing to it.

The information that the FBI learned in July 2016 was that a Trump campaign advisor had suggested to the Australian diplomats that the campaign "had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist" the campaign. The OIG Review found that the FBI met the requirements of the AGG-Dom because the "articulable factual basis" standard for opening the investigation is a "low" one and the information from Australia, at least when considered along with what was known about Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections, met that standard. We are not confident, however, that this is the case. Our investigation gathered evidence that showed that a number of those closest to the investigation believed that the standard arguably had not been met. For example, both
Supervisory Special Agent-1 and UK ALA T-1 described the predication for the investigation as "thin." Even Strzok, who both drafted and approved the Opening EC, said that "there's nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground." Strzok' s view would seem to dictate the opening of the matter as an assessment or, at most, as a preliminary investigation. In any event, there are a number of other reasons to be concerned about the predication of Crossfire Hurricane...

Durham Report

None of the supposed corrupts acts you stated, even if true, rise to the level of corruption, or fraud, or any other criminal or corrupt activity. The best you've shown is that he didn't believe the people he was talking to, that he didn't repeat their claims, and the effect such behavior could have. There is no crime. There is no victim of any crime.

John Durham’s report in combination with the IG report shows it was a hoax and an utter failure in bureaucratic competence.

Simply because there is no crime, no victim, no corrupt activity. He is the victim. They are the guilty party. The government perpetrated the greatest fraud against the US in modern history with the Russia hoax, thereby crippling the people’s elected representative, the will of the voters, and the proper function of the US presidency, arguably leading to the war-torn landscape we see today. With that hoax and their fraudulent efforts they directly pushed Trump to doubt the results of the election, and now they are framing him for non-crimes and for saying things they don’t like while remaining unaccountable to their malfeasance.

Trump said some things. I want to know what crime he committed, and what evidence there is that he did so corruptly. What act, which thought, and what combination of words was the crime? Who is the victim of said crimes?

What do you infer from the Georgia phone call and why?

I’m sure he does believe it. He also believed he turned over all evidence to Trump's legal team as required by law and falsely claimed that he had. These guys believe a lot of things, I just suspect that, given the indictments, he does not know the truth of the matter. He doesn’t cite one quote or give any evidence that he does know. The evidence suggests his inferences are utterly baseless.

I’m glad you caught that. I used Smith’s proof by assertion to make the same baseless accusation. The difference is I did it in jest. Smith did it to indict a political opponent for crime. Which is worse?

Are you therefore predicting the charges will be dismissed? If not, why not?

I don’t know. Unlike Benkei I don’t pretend to know the future.

That's precisely what the prosecution will try to do in court. They believe they have the evidence to do so, hence the indictment.

You seem to be suggesting that they must prove to the public their case before the trial even starts? That's not how the legal system works. You're putting the cart before the horse.

There is no probable cause. There is no evidence of any crime or criminal activity. They have to stretch the plain meaning of language to argue their case, and the indictment reads as if it was written by a breathless MSNBC reporter. Like the Russia scam, the impeachment efforts, the J6 committee, the lack of probable cause and the proliferation of imaginary crimes are ruinous to their credibility as reasonable people. Since there is no crime and no probable cause, you’ve put the cart before the horse.

They continued to count votes after election day, on days when there is no election, after the election was over, and magically Biden pulled ahead.

The illegality of the charges is that he intended to corruptly defraud the United States or deny people their rights. No one proved he defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, and they certainly didn’t prove he did so corruptly. On top of that it isn’t up to the government to determine what is true or false, what people should believe, and what they can say about it.

The president has the authority to fire who he wants, and for whatever reason. Zero corruption there. You have to show that he corruptly defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, all of which is piffle.

I never said they were applicable in court. So yours is a mischaracterization and thus an evasion of my argument.

So what evidence would convince you that Trump did the things he is accused of? Or put differently - are you open to the possibility that Trump did the things he is accused of?

You’d have to prove he did so corruptly. Any quote or admission would suffice, given proper context. Inference by projection or conspiracy theory just doesn’t cut it.

They are evidence that there was a plan to overturn the election results if Trump was losing or lost. Stone and Bannon were both confidants and advisors of Trump, and what they said in advance was exactly what Trump did on election night. This is in addition to Trump's own words leading up to the election. No one is saying Trump didn't have the right to doubt the election results or the fairness of the process, but he clearly had a plan ahead of time to declare victory regardless of the election results.

He said he would not concede and would contest the results if the election wasn't free or fair. He rightfully feared the dirty pool that occurred in the lead up to that election, with activists, their corporate overlords, and both social and legacy media engaged in a shadow campaign to fundamentally alter how elections were run, right beneath the nose of everyday Americans.

I’m sure you could find it if pressed. But comments from Stone and Bannon don’t mean much, I’m afraid.

The greatest conspiracy to defraud the United States this century was the Russian collusion narrative, which gripped American politics for a number of years and arguably altered American diplomacy, disrupted official business, and forever tarnished the standing of the intelligence community, leading to the war we see today. That episode and those kinds of people, like this indictment and Jack Smith, lays bare the incompetence of state bureaucrats and what they are willing to do to human rights in order to maintain deep-state power. Now they are criminalizing the contesting of an election and accepting of legal counsel; they are violating attorney/client privilege; and they a making a mockery of the bill of rights, all because their little “official proceeding” was protested. It’s all a joke.

And until this indictment dropped, deep-state supporters thought they had Trump dead-to-rights on insurrection and sedition, just like what their political handlers told them to believe. Now they are shown a shiny new charge and act like they knew it all along.

Juries can be wrong. How do wrongful convictions fit into your notion of democracy?

What if the jury finds him guilty based on evidence? Would that be enough to convince you that he did so fraudulently?

No. I am unable to pass off someone else’s judgement with my own, especially a Washington jury.

The way you frame it sounds criminal, but the alternate electors scheme has precedent in the JFK/Nixon election of 1960. The judge there seemed to think them legitimate. Would you call that scheme criminal? An effort to overthrow/subvert an election?

You don’t have to quote all of it. Just one would suffice. The first one was a swing and a miss.

Contesting an election isn’t criminal. But criminalizing political speech is.

Your description of evidence shows Trump did nothing except ask for a statement.

No, I’m quite sure he and his lawyers tried to contest the election. I’m not sure he did so fraudulently. The claims that he did so knowingly and fraudulently are without evidence and therefor bullshit. Maybe some evidence will drop in the future but here is nothing.

What it’s doing is criminalizing Trump’s beliefs and his legal counsel, so now the first amendment is thrown under the bus.