Analysis & (Mis)information regarding Trump's Indictment

[Akita Suggagaki]

Thus putting an end to NATO.

Also undo any efforts to deal with climate change.

 

[stevil]

Then the Republican voters are hoping to vote him in as their president, he either pardons himself or he gives his VP the presidency for 10 minutes and they pardon him. He then goes to work dismantling the FBI, CIA, DOJ, Judicial system, Election system and starts arresting Democrats, media personalities, etc.Then he arrests the Republicans he sees as a threat (Pence, De Santis etc), he installs his family as top ranking members of government, perhaps even replaces his own VP with a family member.
Those that voted for him rejoice in all of this of course.

They pull out of Nato, and declare war on Mexico. They lock up all Mexican immigrants, lock up all civilians with Mexican heritage. Ban Muslims entry, kick Muslims out.

In case anyone thinks what I was saying was outlandish and just made up.

Trump Asks Advisers for 'Battle Plans' to 'Attack Mexico' if Reelected

Trump and his MAGAfied Republican Party are pushing plans for military action against drug cartels in Mexico — with or without the Mexican government’s consent

www.rollingstone.com

Trump 2024: Bring Back the 'Muslim Ban' -- and Expand It

If he wins again, Trump wants to bring back one of the most vile parts of his first stint in office

www.rollingstone.com

Trump's unprecedented campaign pitch: Elect me to be your revenge on the government

Donald Trump declared to his supporters earlier this year that "I am your retribution" and his base's appetite for that promised vengeance hasn't waned

abcnews.go.com

 

[NxNW]

Also undo any efforts to deal with climate change.

And ending Social Security and Medicare.

 

[Aaron112]

A conspiracy requires two or more people who agree to participate.

Ahhh.... hmmmm.... Congress!

 

[Always in His Presence]

NYT: What Makes Jack Smith’s New Trump Indictment So Smart

Mr. Smith has avoided some potential land mines that could be lurking in other charges. One charge that was not included in the indictment falls under 18 U.S.C. Section 2383, which makes it a crime to incite, assist or engage in a rebellion or insurrection against the United States or to give aid and comfort to such an insurrection. This charge was part of the referral from the Jan. 6 committee.

It would have faced some potentially tricky First Amendment issues, to the extent it would have relied on Mr. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6 to allege that he incited the riot. I believe those issues could be overcome, but the free speech battles over that charge would have been time-consuming and distracting because the speech could be easily characterized as a political rally. Seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. Section 2384 is also absent. A number of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have been convicted of violating that law, which prohibits conspiracies to overthrow the government. But violating the statute requires the use of force. Conviction presumably would require proof that Mr. Trump intended the Capitol riot to take place and that it was not just a political protest that got out of hand. That proof may be there, but the issue could easily become a major distraction.

A conspiracy requires two or more people who agree to participate. This indictment lists but does not yet charge or formally identify six Trump co-conspirators. Mr. Smith clearly has enough evidence to charge those unindicted co-conspirators but has chosen not to — for now. This, too, is a smart tactical decision. Proceeding against Mr. Trump alone streamlines the case and gives Mr. Smith the best chance for a trial to be held and concluded before the 2024 presidential election. It’s possible some of the unindicted co-conspirators will cut a deal and testify for the prosecution. If not, there is plenty of time to charge them later.

Wapo: 4 things that stand out from the Trump Jan. 6 indictment

It’s a question that has long stalked Trump: whether he knew that the false things he said were false. It’s also a threshold question when it comes to the case ahead, given that Trump’s defense will apparently rely on the idea that he somehow believed his claims about a stolen election and thus didn’t act corruptly.

Smith is unambiguous: Trump knew better. “The Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” the indictment says. “These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.” Smith cites examples — many previously known — of those around Trump directly informing him that his claims were false and his schemes dubious. They included Vice President Mike Pence, top Justice Department officials, top White House attorneys and campaign staff members, key state legislators and officials, and state and federal courts.

The indictment cites examples of Trump’s being informed that specific claims were false and then proceeding to lodge them anyway. Smith makes a point of isolating a single claim from each of five key states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania — each time punctuating the example by saying that Trump “repeated his knowingly false claim” on Jan. 6 itself.

MSNBC: Trump's 2020 election indictment is not about politics. It’s about accountability.​

If the DOJ was weaponizing its investigative powers for political purposes, surely it would not be giving Trump the fodder to gain media attention and raise enormous sums for his 2024 presidential campaign. This isn’t about politics. It’s about accountability, even if holding Trump accountable actually could help his political campaign.

Trump’s joint fundraising committee reported bringing in more than $35 million in the second quarter of 2023 — the quarter during which Trump was indicted by both Smith (in the classified documents case) and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (in the hush money case). This is up almost 100% from the $18.8 million he brought in during the first quarter of the year, and reflected a massive amount of fundraising around the legal cases. It doesn’t take a political genius to see that the DOJ’s investigations are in some ways entirely against the political interests of Joe Biden. And that is one of the commendable things about the investigations and indictments. They are not political.

The DOJ does not make prosecutorial decisions based on whether those decisions will benefit the president politically. It makes decisions according to DOJ’s principles of prosecution, which require prosecutors to consider whether “substantial federal interests” support a prosecution and which are designed to ensure the “fair, evenhanded administration of federal criminal laws.” In Smith's 2020 election probe, the federal interest is obvious . . .

People Are Lying To You About The Trump Indictment. National Review Is Lying, For Instance. There Will Be More. Keep An Eye Out.​

The National Review flat-out lies. It says:



But National Review is lying to you about the Supreme Court and about what’s charged here. The Special Counsel charged Trump with defrauding the United States under Section 371. The Supreme Court and lower courts have repeatedly and specifically ruled that Section 371 doesn’t require a scheme to take money or property. National Review is referring to the latest in a line of cases interpreting a completely different statute, the wire fraud statute, that includes a “money or property” requirement in its text...

Justice Thomas, in the 2023 case to which National Review alludes, expressly relies on that language to find that the wire fraud statute requires a scheme to take money or (as traditionally defined) property. He does not even mention Section 371, which does not include the “money or property” language and which has a long history of Supreme Court and lower court cases holding that the object of the fraud need not be money or property, but can be interfering with government function. That’s not just misleading; it’s a flat-out lie about the law.

The only thing they’re missing is evidence.

The NYT is perhaps one of the worst IMHO, purveyors of shear political garbage I have seen in a long time.

Through his presidency they have seem to have shown themselves to be little more than acolytes of the DNC propaganda machine. I believe that is easily shown by their 98% negative reporting.

I could be wrong, but that’s what I see when reading multiple sources on the same story.

 

[Always in His Presence]

And ending Social Security and Medicare.

Sorry, that is a complete fabrication, a biline trotted out every election cycle

Republicans have been accused of wanting to end SSI for close to 30 years, yet there has not been one proposal brought to the floor and no one is enforcing one currently.

It is little more than fear mongering in my observation.

 

[NxNW]

The only thing they’re missing is evidence.

Read the indictment.

The NYT is perhaps one of the worst IMHO, purveyors of shear political garbage I have seen in a long time.

Through his presidency they have seem to have shown themselves to be little more than acolytes of the DNC propaganda machine. I believe that is easily shown by their 98% negative reporting.

I could be wrong

Yes, you are wrong.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Read the indictment.

That isn't evidence - it is accusation - unproven at this point and Trump is innocent until proven guilty - this is the US, not some Socialist dictatorship

Yes, you are wrong.

And I believe you are.

Where do we go from here?

 

[childeye 2]

NYT: What Makes Jack Smith’s New Trump Indictment So Smart

Mr. Smith has avoided some potential land mines that could be lurking in other charges. One charge that was not included in the indictment falls under 18 U.S.C. Section 2383, which makes it a crime to incite, assist or engage in a rebellion or insurrection against the United States or to give aid and comfort to such an insurrection. This charge was part of the referral from the Jan. 6 committee.

It would have faced some potentially tricky First Amendment issues, to the extent it would have relied on Mr. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6 to allege that he incited the riot. I believe those issues could be overcome, but the free speech battles over that charge would have been time-consuming and distracting because the speech could be easily characterized as a political rally. Seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. Section 2384 is also absent. A number of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have been convicted of violating that law, which prohibits conspiracies to overthrow the government. But violating the statute requires the use of force. Conviction presumably would require proof that Mr. Trump intended the Capitol riot to take place and that it was not just a political protest that got out of hand. That proof may be there, but the issue could easily become a major distraction.

A conspiracy requires two or more people who agree to participate. This indictment lists but does not yet charge or formally identify six Trump co-conspirators. Mr. Smith clearly has enough evidence to charge those unindicted co-conspirators but has chosen not to — for now. This, too, is a smart tactical decision. Proceeding against Mr. Trump alone streamlines the case and gives Mr. Smith the best chance for a trial to be held and concluded before the 2024 presidential election. It’s possible some of the unindicted co-conspirators will cut a deal and testify for the prosecution. If not, there is plenty of time to charge them later.

Wapo: 4 things that stand out from the Trump Jan. 6 indictment

It’s a question that has long stalked Trump: whether he knew that the false things he said were false. It’s also a threshold question when it comes to the case ahead, given that Trump’s defense will apparently rely on the idea that he somehow believed his claims about a stolen election and thus didn’t act corruptly.

Smith is unambiguous: Trump knew better. “The Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” the indictment says. “These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.” Smith cites examples — many previously known — of those around Trump directly informing him that his claims were false and his schemes dubious. They included Vice President Mike Pence, top Justice Department officials, top White House attorneys and campaign staff members, key state legislators and officials, and state and federal courts.

The indictment cites examples of Trump’s being informed that specific claims were false and then proceeding to lodge them anyway. Smith makes a point of isolating a single claim from each of five key states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania — each time punctuating the example by saying that Trump “repeated his knowingly false claim” on Jan. 6 itself.

MSNBC: Trump's 2020 election indictment is not about politics. It’s about accountability.​

If the DOJ was weaponizing its investigative powers for political purposes, surely it would not be giving Trump the fodder to gain media attention and raise enormous sums for his 2024 presidential campaign. This isn’t about politics. It’s about accountability, even if holding Trump accountable actually could help his political campaign.

Trump’s joint fundraising committee reported bringing in more than $35 million in the second quarter of 2023 — the quarter during which Trump was indicted by both Smith (in the classified documents case) and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (in the hush money case). This is up almost 100% from the $18.8 million he brought in during the first quarter of the year, and reflected a massive amount of fundraising around the legal cases. It doesn’t take a political genius to see that the DOJ’s investigations are in some ways entirely against the political interests of Joe Biden. And that is one of the commendable things about the investigations and indictments. They are not political.

The DOJ does not make prosecutorial decisions based on whether those decisions will benefit the president politically. It makes decisions according to DOJ’s principles of prosecution, which require prosecutors to consider whether “substantial federal interests” support a prosecution and which are designed to ensure the “fair, evenhanded administration of federal criminal laws.” In Smith's 2020 election probe, the federal interest is obvious . . .

People Are Lying To You About The Trump Indictment. National Review Is Lying, For Instance. There Will Be More. Keep An Eye Out.​

The National Review flat-out lies. It says:



But National Review is lying to you about the Supreme Court and about what’s charged here. The Special Counsel charged Trump with defrauding the United States under Section 371. The Supreme Court and lower courts have repeatedly and specifically ruled that Section 371 doesn’t require a scheme to take money or property. National Review is referring to the latest in a line of cases interpreting a completely different statute, the wire fraud statute, that includes a “money or property” requirement in its text...

Justice Thomas, in the 2023 case to which National Review alludes, expressly relies on that language to find that the wire fraud statute requires a scheme to take money or (as traditionally defined) property. He does not even mention Section 371, which does not include the “money or property” language and which has a long history of Supreme Court and lower court cases holding that the object of the fraud need not be money or property, but can be interfering with government function. That’s not just misleading; it’s a flat-out lie about the law.

For what it's worth, I liked your post. I found it to be a fair analysis. I study semantics particular to psycholinguistics. Any reasoning based on a falsehood will end in a contradiction to where a person ends up claiming two opposing things that can't both possibly exist. In this instance it is the difference between speaking about observable facts, and speaking from one's imagination, which goes to show an intention to subvert the truth. So, the question of whether Trump lied or not was never an issue for me. Based on Trump's own words he was lying when he indicated that the election was stolen. In reality, he intended to convince others that it was a fact and not his belief. There's a difference between knowing something is true and believing something is true, and Trump was intentionally speaking as if it were true and not a theory.

For example, Trump from the outset had definitively claimed that he knew for a fact that the election had been stolen through fraud and he generally blamed Democrats and the media. To state this as a fact rather than an accusation requires knowing how it was stolen and by who, which necessarily means you would have already seen the evidence and could articulate it. Honest people don't just recklessly slander others like Trump did. It would have been different had he indicated that it was his "belief" it was stolen which qualifies as an opinion.

For Trump to not be lying, he would have had to see conclusive evidence that was objectively observable by any honest person. I therefore knew right away that Trump was lying because he made a definitive claim that he knew it was stolen even though he couldn't say how, and the claim was being made before the election had even been called. It was therefore predictable that observable evidence would show up to prove that he was lying. For example, we could expect him to start introducing as "evidence" what in reality were only "theories" of how it might have happened, and these theories would therefore appear as shots in the dark ranging from poll observers having to stand too far away, to the hacking of voting machines to change votes, to destroying ballots, to dead people voting, to more people showing up to his rallies than showed up at Biden campaign events, etc...

 

[childeye 2]

That isn't evidence - it is accusation - unproven at this point and Trump is innocent until proven guilty - this is the US, not some Socialist dictatorship

And I believe you are.

Where do we go from here?

The problem with your reasoning is that the provable sequence of events begins with Trump, who was the incumbent candidate, and who also is the "one guy" who actually voiced the "accusation" that the election was stolen when he admittedly began seeing that "he" was starting to lose. This is why everything you say about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt will ultimately end in a contradiction if you don't factor that in.

For example, those who are being accused of stealing the election are the one's presumed innocent until proven guilty, not their accuser. Trump's definitive claim, that America as a whole was being defrauded, was intended to stoke anger in his supporters who are misguided because, as Trump has asserted, they will believe whatever he says, because they believe in Trump. And this is why Trumpism is considered to be a cult and a danger to democracy.

 

[NxNW]

That isn't evidence - it is accusation -

The indictment lists some of the evidence.

unproven at this point and Trump is innocent until proven guilty - this is the US, not some Socialist dictatorship

Nobody claimed otherwise.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The indictment lists some of the evidence.

None of which has been proven in a court of law - they are accusations.

 

[NxNW]

None of which has been proven in a court of law - they are accusations.

Evidence can exist before the trial happens.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Evidence can exist before the trial happens.

Not proven. That makes it an accusation.

 

[USincognito]

None of which has been proven in a court of law - they are accusations.

You appear to be confusing evidence with accusations.

Photos of boxes stored in the bathroom at MAL is evidence.
That Donald and Nauda moved the boxes in there to hide them from DOJ is an accusation.
Evidence is presented, not proven. Accusations are proven or not during the trial.

 

[Pommer]

None of which has been proven in a court of law - they are accusations.

That’s a screenshot.

 

[childeye 2]

Not proven. That makes it an accusation.

You are mixed up. The unproven accusation was made by Trump as seen here: Trump:
"All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing. And stolen by the fake news media. That's what they've done and what they're doing. We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved".

Please note above that Trump is using definitive language when stating that the election was stolen, and therefore Trump is NOT expressing that it is his belief or opinion that it was stolen.

As for what does count as factual evidence, at the same speech Trump admitted publicly his intention to overturn the official election results by trying to get Pence to not recognize the official electoral count so that Trump could remain President. And that does not qualify as an unproven accusation; it qualifies as factual evidence of an attempt to overturn the official results of a Presidential election that Trump had officially lost. Here are his own exact words admitting to that intention:

Trump: "I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so.

Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We're supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people".

 

[NxNW]

Not proven. That makes it an accusation.

Evidence is not something you prove.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Evidence is not something you prove.

LOL! You are joking, right?

 

[NxNW]

Evidence is not something you prove.

I think you're confusing evidence with the accusation. They are two different things.