Another MAGA talking point shot down!

[Jarod]

Well if they didn't then they wouldn't be fake electors and there would be no conspiracy.

They would just be electors.

They would still not be the correct electors, they would still be fake. Do you understand what electors are and how they are chosen? If you try to put together a slate of electors that are not the officials and try to present them as the real ones, that is fraud, no matter who they intended to vote for. Geesh. Do you not understand out legal system?

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

What you think of me doesn't change how fucked up face the nation is. Why do you people use such faulty logic?

Reality is not Faulty Logic!

The Truth is not Faulty Logic!

The Democrats are the party of Truth and Reality!

Trump and his Trumptards are the party of Faulty Logic!

 

[Jarod]

Then why is he bringing in people who told Trump the election wasn't real if it doesn't have to do with what Trump thought?

To show motive, which is not required for a conviction, but often helps the jury understand the case. To tell the story of why he committed the crime.

 

[Yakuda]

Reality is not Faulty Logic!

The Truth is not Faulty Logic!

The Democrats are the party of Truth and Reality!

Trump and his Trumptards are the party of Faulty Logic!

Oh that's right I forgot your idiot leader said you morons prefer truth to facts. My bad.

 

[Jarod]

Trump got plenty of advice saying it wasn't legitimate also.

How is Smith going to weigh one side over the other in a court of law?

It's not a numbers game.

Believe me, if this is the argument Smith is making the legal defense is already lining up people who gave Trump the advice it was an illegitimate election,

Smith is going to bring in witnesses with strong credentials to say they told Trump and that he understood. What's Trump going to do to counter that, Bing in Rudy?

So Trump's defense will be that he was STUPID? Additionally its not a defense because it does not matter what Trump thought, even if the election had been stolen, disrupting the process is not a legal way of addressing such a thing.

 

[Jarod]

Trump didn't commit a crime.

Clearly he did.

 

[Jarod]

Well if they didn't then they wouldn't be fake electors and there would be no conspiracy.

They would just be electors.

No matter who they vote for they were fake electors. They were not chosen in the official proceding for choosing them. They were not certified in the way they were to be certified. They were not the real electors, who they were going to vote for is not relevant to that issue. You are not very well educated.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Oh that's right I forgot your idiot leader said you morons prefer truth to facts. My bad.

I believe Truth based on facts! And so does Joe Biden. Yes, Biden has been known to gaffe before. EVERY PRESIDENT HAS LOTS OF GAFFS!

It demonstrates they are human!

Rather than waste time trying to figure out what Biden may have meant by that, we'll simply stipulate that in another of his famous verbal gaffes, Biden flubbed the line he meant to say, "We choose truth over lies."

For context, here is the full run from Aug. 9, including gaffe: "We choose unity over division. We choose science over fiction. We choose truth over facts."

For comparison, here is that same run, from a speech Biden gave on March 16 of that year (before he had officially announced his candidacy for president): "We've got to understand that we Democrats, we choose hope over fear. We choose unity over division and we choose truth over lies."

Here it is again, in a speech he gave on April 30: "We choose hope over fear. We choose unity over division. We choose truth over lies and we choose science over fiction."

He was actually saying it as far back as October 2018: "We choose hope over fear. We choose unity over division. We choose allies over enemies. We choose truth over lies."

Did Biden once say, "We choose truth over facts"? Yes, the quote is correctly attributed to him. But the evidence shows that isn't what he meant to say.

Next!

 

[QP!]

Trump got plenty of advice saying it wasn't legitimate also.

How is Smith going to weigh one side over the other in a court of law?

It's not a numbers game.

Believe me, if this is the argument Smith is making the legal defense is already lining up people who gave Trump the advice it was an illegitimate election,

As POTUS you have your inner most trust circle of advisors you hand pick.

That is your VP, your White House Counsel, your Attorney General, your head of FBI and other departments. All of whom you pick.

ALL OF THEM told Trump this was BS and the election was not stolen.


he then went outside that circle and had to start searching for people who held a different view. The derp advisors.

Worse for Trump is him and his Derp advisors commissioned many studies to 'find fraud' in many States and they ALL said 'we find no fraud'. They buried those.


So while i get that you derps here would say 'that does not convince me Trump 'SHOULD HAVE KNOWN',', but a jury can certainly look at all that and find him guilty saying 'he should have known'.

 

[floridafan]

He hasn't been convicted of anything.

Right, but it wont be long...........

 

[Tinkerpeach]

As POTUS you have your inner most trust circle of advisors you hand pick.

That is your VP, your White House Counsel, your Attorney General, your head of FBI and other departments. All of whom you pick.

ALL OF THEM told Trump this was BS and the election was not stolen.


he then went outside that circle and had to start searching for people who held a different view. The derp advisors.

Worse for Trump is him and his Derp advisors commissioned many studies to 'find fraud' in many States and they ALL said 'we find no fraud'. They buried those.


So while i get that you derps here would say 'that does not convince me Trump 'SHOULD HAVE KNOWN',', but a jury can certainly look at all that and find him guilty saying 'he should have known'.

Presidents always have advisors, FDR was notorious for not trusting them.

He would actually play them off one another just to watch them fight.

Having an inner circle doesn't mean you trust them and as we have seen with many of Trumps advisors, they weren't trustworthy.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

No matter who they vote for they were fake electors. They were not chosen in the official proceding for choosing them. They were not certified in the way they were to be certified. They were not the real electors, who they were going to vote for is not relevant to that issue. You are not very well educated.

What happened to the real electors that were chosen by the proper method then?

Did they just stay home and forget to show up?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Smith is going to bring in witnesses with strong credentials to say they told Trump and that he understood. What's Trump going to do to counter that, Bing in Rudy?

So Trump's defense will be that he was STUPID? Additionally its not a defense because it does not matter what Trump thought, even if the election had been stolen, disrupting the process is not a legal way of addressing such a thing.

How do they know he understood unless he admitted it and they have record of it?

Remember that Smith needs to prove this in a court of law.

Trump has a three year history of denying the election results plus all of the action he took against the results.

That tells me he didn't understand that the election was legitimate.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Right, but it wont be long...........

Actually it will be, his first trial date isn't until May and that is likely to be pushed back.

He has the New York case but that's not related to this.

 

[QP!]

Presidents always have advisors, FDR was notorious for not trusting them.

He would actually play them off one another just to watch them fight.

Having an inner circle doesn't mean you trust them and as we have seen with many of Trumps advisors, they weren't trustworthy.

That is for a jury to decide.

The idea that a POTUS hand picks advisors he does not trust and does not just fire and replace them with ones he does trust is certainly something that can lead them to a guilty verdict over 'should have known'.

POTUS using your line of 'just playing a game with ones i never trusted' begs the question 'why keep them around'?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

That is for a jury to decide.

The idea that a POTUS hand picks advisors he does not trust and does not just fire and replace them with ones he does trust is certainly something that can lead them to a guilty verdict over 'should have known'.

POTUS using your line of 'just playing a game with ones i never trusted' begs the question 'why keep them around'?

In a criminal case you have to prove reasonable doubt.

How can Smith possibly do that?

He has no idea what Trump was thinking.

There are so many ways his defense can argue out of this it's laughable.

For instance, Trump could argue that they were not experts on election laws.

Done deal.

He could say they weren't appointed to give him advice on election results.

Done deal

He could say he didn't trust them on things they were not hired to perform.

Done deal.

Here is the kicker though.

A president doesn't need to take the advice of their advisors and they often do not when they disagree with them. There is a very long history of this.

Bush didn't, Clinton didn't, Kennedy didn't, FDR most certainly didn't.....the list is virtually endless.

 

[floridafan]

Actually it will be, his first trial date isn't until May and that is likely to be pushed back.

He has the New York case but that's not related to this.

How many times, handjob, must we go over this. The DC case, the most important of the 4, will be adjudicated very quickly. This judge will not stand for unnecessary delays.

 

[QP!]

How do they know he understood unless he admitted it and they have record of it?

Remember that Smith needs to prove this in a court of law.

Trump has a three year history of denying the election results plus all of the action he took against the results.

That tells me he didn't understand that the election was legitimate.

Again the requirement is NOT that they prove he knew but that he 'SHOULD HAVE known'.

- if all your hand picked top advisors say it is X
- if you go out and commission all sorts of independent studies that say it is X
- if you are telling others often it is X

- but you ignore all that and seek out other advisors who say it is Y


Then a jury can certainly find you 'should have known it was X'. 'A reasonable man would have found it to be X'.

If this defense passes then there is no criminal conspiracy ever charged that would win in court as long as they got one lawyer involved who simply said 'i think it is legal to do it'. Everyone could rightly say 'we trusted the lawyer advice'.

 

[QP!]

In a criminal case you have to prove reasonable doubt.

How can Smith possibly do that?

He has no idea what Trump was thinking.

There are so many ways his defense can argue out of this it's laughable.

For instance, Trump could argue that they were not experts on election laws.

Done deal.

He could say they weren't appointed to give him advice on election results.

Done deal

He could say he didn't trust them on things they were not hired to perform.

Done deal.

Here is the kicker though.

A president doesn't need to take the advice of their advisors and they often do not when they disagree with them. There is a very long history of this.

Bush didn't, Clinton didn't, Kennedy didn't, FDR most certainly didn't.....the list is virtually endless.

it is very easy for a jury to not have reasonable doubts.

- CEO asks corporate lawyers and board, can i take all this company money personally. They all advise 'no'.

- CEO seeks study saying he can take the money personally. They say 'no'.

- CEO keeps asking others until he finds someone who says 'yes'.

- CEO then takes the money but is charged with stealing money.

You argue no jury can prove he 'reasonably knew' because that last person creates doubt. If that is true than all anyone need do for any crime is find a lawyer willing to advise you, you can do it, and you have 'doubt' and can never be convicted.

But that is because you are a derp who trusts Trump more than anyone else.

A jury can absolutely decide based on those facts and they typically do with far less.

 

[Jarod]

What happened to the real electors that were chosen by the proper method then?

Did they just stay home and forget to show up?

No they showed up, and signed in early at a secret time and location because they knew what the others were trying to do. Just because they were not successful does not mean it was not a crime.

If you buy a gun and show up at a bank, you committed a crime, even if they bank had done a good job at hiding the money. You need to be better educated of the facts unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself.