Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Republicans are forced to admit Democrats (including Joe Biden) are smarter.
Opinion by Curt_Anderson     March 3, 2024 12:11 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (1 comments) [30 views]


Voters Doubt Biden’s Leadership and Favor Trump, Times/Siena Poll Finds
President by HatetheSwamp     March 3, 2024 4:06 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [57 views]


The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (40 comments) [374 views]


US says Israel has agreed to the framework for a Gaza cease-fire. Hamas must now decide
Military by HatetheSwamp     March 3, 2024 3:30 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [12 views]


James Comer is not sure an impeachment of Biden is warranted
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 4:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (12 comments) [124 views]


James Comer has been big on promises, short on delivery. MAGA is feeling let down.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 1:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [87 views]


Bad news for the Doddering Old Fool: Polls stagnant since the Hur Report
President by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 4:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [36 views]


Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (11 comments) [176 views]


Ex-Jim Biden business partner disputes loan testimony before Congress
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 3:07 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [26 views]


So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [121 views]


Law selectors, pages, etc.
Criminal Law 101: Trump’s J6 Indictment
By islander
August 6, 2023 6:15 am
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


Legal expert Teri Kanefield clearly explains what the J6 indictment does, doesn’t do, and what it means. Teri lays to rest some of the most common erroneous assumptions and arguments we’ve seen being put forth by the Maga crowd and fostered by much of the mainstream media.

”Question #1:  Major outlets are reporting that the allegations against Trump require proof of Trump’s state of mind, specifically, that he knew he lost the election, but pursued his various criminal acts anyway.”

“Nope. This is mostly wrong, but I totally understand why so many people are confused. This stuff can trip up first-year law students.

Before I get started with legal terms, think of it this way: Trump’s motive for committing the crime doesn’t matter because a good motive does not get a person off the hook for committing a crime. “I hit my neighbor with a baseball bat because I genuinely believed he robbed my house” will not fly. I can genuinely believe my neighbor doesn’t have the right to vote, but that doesn’t allow me to go into her mailbox, steal her ballot, and tear it up.

If I think I have been the victim of a crime or there has been injustice, I have the right to pursue legal means. I can call the police. I can file a lawsuit. I cannot take it upon myself to be a vigilante.
 
That doesn’t mean the prosecution does not have to prove state of mind. They do. But they don’t have to prove that Trump lied about election fraud.

Okay. It’s time for Criminal Law 101. Take out your notebooks and let’s begin.

All crimes have an actus reus (conduct) and a mens rea (intent) component. (There are rare exceptions called strict liability crimes.) The actus rea requirement prevents us from criminalizing thoughts. The mens rea requirement prevents us from criminalizing accidents. Different crimes have different mens rea requirements.

Now let’s look at the crimes Trump was charged with.” *



* To be continued...or just check out the link.


Cited and related links:

  1. terikanefield.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Criminal Law 101: Trump’s J6 Indictment":

  1. by islander on August 6, 2023 6:33 am
    OK. Here we go...

    18 USC 1512(c) (2): Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding

    For this one, the government has to show that Trump corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded any official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

    18 USC 1512 (c) is a variation of what is called a specific intent crime, as opposed to a general intent crime.

    To prove a general intent crime, the prosecution only needs to prove that the person intended to commit the action. Battery is an example of a general intent crime.

    Hypothetical:

    Person A steps on Person B’s toe.
    Person A gets arrested for battery

    Because this is a general intent crime, one way to negate the mens rea requirement would be to show that Person A stepped on Person B’s toe because someone shoved him, and thus he never intended to step on a toe.

    To prove a specific intent crime, the government has to prove an actual intent to perform the act along with the intention for the consequence resulting from that act. Burglary (entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime) is a specific intent crime. Burglary requires entering a building or dwelling for the purpose of committing a crime.

    Hypothetical:

    Person A goes to a stranger’s house when nobody is home. He opens the door and goes in.

    Because burglary is a specific intent crime, the prosecution has to show that the person (1) entered the home and (1) had the intention of committing a crime.

    But Teri! How do you prove what someone intended? How can the jury know what was in a defendant’s mind?

    Intention is generally proven through circumstantial evidence. If it was not possible to prove intent from circumstantial evidence, the only way to convict a person would be if that person confessed — and even that is problematic because what if the confession was coerced or the person is a pathological liar and will confess to anything?

    Possibility #1: Person A enters someone else’s house. In Person A’s pocket is an invitation to the neighbor’s house with a note that says, “The door is open. Come on in! We will be in the backyard.” Person A explains that he got the address wrong and thus didn’t enter with an intent to commit a crime.

    Possibility #2: Person A has, in his pocket, tools for picking the lock on a safe. (This guy is in trouble.)

    Here is an example of a crime (and criminal intent) proven through circumstantial evidence: Someone ate my lunch when I wasn’t looking. Although there were no eyewitnesses, there were crumbs on the table and the floor, and a chair had been left out giving JJ access to the table.

    I took the photo shortly after the crime was committed so I have a timestamp that the suspect was in the vicinity of the crime scene–and no other suspects were in the house. I’ll add that this suspect also has a history of committing (and attempting to commit) this particular crime. Regarding mens rea: JJ is a dog, but capable of forming criminal intent. The evidence: he waits until nobody is looking before trying to get on top of tables. Consciousness of guilt!! (I know my readers will come to JJ’s defense, but I am quite certain that I could persuade an impartial jury to convict.)


    To be cont...


  2. by HatetheSwamp on August 6, 2023 6:49 am

    Wow, isle. Thanks. I was turning blue, holding my breath, waiting for you to cite Heather, Teri, et.al.!

    Nope. This is mostly wrong, but I totally understand why so many people are confused. This stuff can trip up first-year law students.

    First year law students...AND pb's Legal Advisory Council of Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley and Andy McCarthy. Bahahahahahahahahahaha Baha baha.

    Yeah. Guess I'm confused. Luckily for you, you UNDERSTAND. You are perfectly clear minded. Keehee!


  3. by Curt_Anderson on August 6, 2023 7:34 am
    Dershowitz and Turley know better. (I don’t know McCarthy or what he thinks). These guys are Fox news pundits and are simply telling that audience what they want to hear. As I said, these guys know better, but they know their audience doesn’t.

    Both Dersh and Turley cited cases in which telling a falsehood is constitutionally protected speech (Sullivan v New York Times, and a stolen valor case both of which went to the Supreme Court). But if you had read the indictment, you would see that Jack Smith specifically says that Trump’s lying is protected speech.


  4. by Curt_Anderson on August 6, 2023 7:34 am
    Dershowitz and Turley know better. (I don’t know McCarthy or what he thinks). These guys are Fox news pundits and are simply telling that audience what they want to hear. As I said, these guys know better, but they know their audience doesn’t.

    Both Dersh and Turley cited cases in which telling a falsehood is constitutionally protected speech (Sullivan v New York Times, and a stolen valor case both of which went to the Supreme Court). But if you had read the indictment, you would see that Jack Smith specifically says that Trump’s lying is protected speech.


  5. by HatetheSwamp on August 6, 2023 8:09 am

    Dershowitz and Turley know better. (I don’t know McCarthy or what he thinks). These guys are Fox news pundits

    Noop.

    Turley is a Fox News Contributor. Dershowitz ain't. He appears on Fox and elsewhere. Many elsewheres.

    Clearly, Curt, you are a constitutional scholar. I am not. But, I've learnt, over the years, that Turley and Dershowitz are usually proved right when all is said and done...

    ...and, they agree on this'ne.


  6. by Ponderer on August 6, 2023 8:25 am

    Bill, why aren't you still touting what Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell have been saying all along? Why aren't you out championing them for their brave stance against The Swamp and the rule of law? They are both lawyers too!

    Well, in most states they still are I think.


  7. by islander on August 6, 2023 8:47 am
    Hate wrote: ”Yeah. Guess I'm confused. Luckily for you, you UNDERSTAND. You are perfectly clear minded.”

    True, you are confused but that can be attributed to years of listening to Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, and all your other right wing pundits. If you actually pay attention to the real legal scholars like Teri, or true scholars of American history like Professor Richardson and you spent a little more time reading Marcy Wheeler (Empty Wheel) and read the legal experts who discuss these matters on her site, you too will have a better understanding of all of this because you too will be able to think with a clearer mind. 

Now that you have a little better understanding of the fallacy of your argument that the prosecution has to prove Trump’s state of mind, here’s a little more info that will help you immensely in recognizing and overcoming your very confused MAGA mindset.

    The mens rea requirement for 1512(c)

    "The mens rea requirement for § 1512(c) is given here. This crime requires an intent to achieve specific results. The example offered is that a defendant accused of witness intimidation has to show that the person actually intended to affect the witness’s behavior.


    This means that to meet the mens rea requirement for 1512(c), the government has to show that Trump intended to interfere with the Congressional proceeding on January 6. It doesn’t matter why he did it. It doesn’t matter if he did it because he sincerely thought he won the election and Biden lost. What matters is that he intended to disrupt the business of Congress.

    Here are some hypotheticals to illustrate:

    A visitor at the Capitol who is a little bit ditzy sees a red switch on the wall and doesn’t understand that it is a fire alarm. The person thinks, “I wonder what this does?” He pulls the switch and sets off the fire alarm. All of the members of Congress run out of the building. (This person did not have the requisite intent for conviction under 1512(c)).

    A person genuinely believes that Congress is engaging in an activity that is unconstitutional so he sneaks into the building and sets off the fire alarm. The members of Congress run out of the building. (He did have the requisite intent.)


    There is lots of evidence offered in the indictment that Trump intended to interrupt the workings of Congress. The DOJ secured text messages, emails, and the contents of private phone calls demonstrating that Trump knew Congress was poised to certify the election and declare Biden the winner–and at the very least, Trump wanted to interrupt and delay the proceedings. Without this direct evidence, we would have to make assumptions from his behavior. But the DOJ has secured private correspondence that amounts to confessions and contemporaneous statements by eyewitnesses.


    The president has no role in counting votes, tabulating votes, selecting electors, certifying electors, or certifying the election. This is up to the states and Congress. Even if Trump didn’t understand the meaning of separation of powers and genuinely believed it was the president’s job to correct the errors made by Congress, it wouldn’t matter. All the government has to show was that he intended to interrupt the workings of Congress. Similarly, it doesn’t matter why he tried to pressure Pence into rejecting the electoral votes. It doesn’t matter why he approved the memo to appoint an alternate slate of electors. It only matters that he did these things with the intention to disrupt the January 6 proceeding.
    In fact, Trump’s defense is actually an admission.  If Trump says, “I tried to get Pence to throw out the electoral votes because I sincerely believed I won the election,” he admitted that he tried to get Pence to throw out electoral votes, which is an admission of the mens rea requirement for conviction.

    
For Trump not to have the requisite mens rea he’d have to say, “I was totally cool with Congress certifying the election for Joe Biden. Who said I wasn’t cool with that?” (And everyone would roll on the floor laughing.)

    18 USC 1512(k): Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding (The attempt to interfere with the January 6 counting of votes).
    This is a conspiracy statute. The allegation is that Trump conspired with others to interfere in the counting of votes on January 6.

    To meet the mens rea requirement, the government has to prove that Trump intended to enter the conspiracy to stop the counting of votes and that someone took a step in furtherance of that conspiracy. (Again, it doesn’t matter why he did it, but he had to intend for the conspiracy to disrupt Congress.)"

    To be continued...



  8. by HatetheSwamp on August 6, 2023 1:29 pm

    Bill, why aren't you still touting what Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell have been saying all along? Why aren't you out championing them for their brave stance against The Swamp and the rule of law? They are both lawyers too!


    To what are you referring?


  9. by Donna on August 6, 2023 1:40 pm

    "That Trump will be tried for his coup attempt is not a violation of his rights. It is a fulfillment of his rights. It is the grace of the American republic. In other systems, when your coup attempt fails, what follows is not a trial.”

    - Timothy Snyder, historian



  10. by HatetheSwamp on August 6, 2023 1:45 pm

    Timothy Smith is insane. Trump sent the people who attended the J6 rally off to the Capitol to march "peacefully and patriotically."

    What's the definition of a coup?


  11. by Donna on August 6, 2023 1:48 pm

    Go jack off of something.


  12. by Donna on August 6, 2023 1:48 pm

    or


  13. by Donna on August 6, 2023 1:58 pm

    "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." - DJT, January 6, 2021

    Right - send it back to the states where they had fake electors all set up and ready to go. Btw, some 30 fake electors have been indicted

    That ^ is a coup attempt, because Biden had already won.

    If you had read the transcript of the indictments, though, you'd know that Jack Smith isn't indicting DJT for inciting an insurrection because of what you pointed out, Hts. Jack went about the indictments very smartly.



  14. by Donna on August 6, 2023 2:09 pm

    Actually there were 84 (alleged) fake electors.

    The 16 in Michigan have been charged with crimes. There's a lawsuit against the 10 alleged fake electors in Wisconsin. The remaining 58 in Arizona, Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, and Pennsylvania are still being investigated.


    newsweek.com


  15. by HatetheSwamp on August 6, 2023 2:26 pm

    One statement and one question.

    You are the one who brought up the charge that Trump led a coup.

    What did Trump or the GOPs do that violated the law, i.e., The Electoral Count Act?


  16. by islander on August 6, 2023 5:01 pm

    Hatee wrote: "What did Trump or the GOPs do that violated the law, i.e., The Electoral Count Act?"

    LoL !!! Obviously you're still refusing to read the indictment !!! All your foolish questions have already been answered !

    Tomorrow I'll be continuing to post Teri's answers to your questions because I doubt you'd actually go to her site to read them (If you did you'd already know the answers). 🤣


  17. by HatetheSwamp on August 7, 2023 1:10 am

    No. I splained why I won't read the indictment. So, just tell me...if you can.


  18. by Ponderer on August 7, 2023 7:41 am

    "I splained why I won't read the indictment." -Hate


    I hate to bother you about it, but I don't recall you ever explaining why you won't read the indictment. Forgive this medically induced fogginess of mine. Damn pain meds.

    Would you be so kind as to repeat for me why you won't read the indictment?








  19. by HatetheSwamp on August 7, 2023 7:58 am

    If I can find the post, I'll copy and paste.


  20. by Ponderer on August 7, 2023 8:04 am

    Oh I don't need an exact quote. Since it's something that you said, you should be able to remember the basic gist of it at least. One would think.


  21. by islander on August 7, 2023 8:15 am

    Continuing to post the answers to Hate's questions since he won't go to Teri's site to read them. Teri does an exquisite job of clearly and concisely telling him those answers but it's not what Hate wants to hear

    "18 U.S. Code § 241: Conspiracy against rights

    This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of his or her having exercised such a right.

    So the prosecution has to show that Trump intended for some votes not to be counted. Again, it doesn’t matter if he genuinely believed the votes were not legitimate. (It isn’t his job to decide. We have democratic and legal processes for counting the votes and testing the legality.)

    The allegation is that, in bypassing those legal routes, he was conspiring to deprive voters of their legal rights.

    18 USC 371 Conspiracy to defraud the United States).

    This is a fraud statute, and defrauding someone requires knowing that you are defrauding them.

    * The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent to defraud

    * to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain the property of the government,

    * or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government.

    It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made.

    The government does not have to show that Trump knew he lost the election, but they do have to show something like this:

    * He knew that the alternate slates of electors were not the ones selected according to existing law.

    * He knew that he wasn’t supposed to be strongarming Pence into voting in a way that Pence didn’t want to vote.

    This can also be done by showing that Trump knew there was no fraud (and there is tons of evidence that he knew there was no fraud) but the DOJ is not required to show that in order to secure convictions on each of the counts. There are other ways.

    Question #2: Why, then, does the indictment make so much fuss about the fact that Trump knew he was lying?

    This is a speaking indictment, which means the DOJ wants everyone to know the truth. The fact that there is so much overwhelming evidence that Trump knew he was lying, he knew he lost, and he knew there was no outcome-determining fraud is important for the country to know.

    In other words, Trump’s motive—that he wanted to overturn the election and stay in power even though he lost—should matter very much to American voters.

    Question #3: I read the transcript of Trump’s January 6 speech and it looked to my non-expert eyes like it met the Brandenburg test of being directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to do so. Why wasn’t he charged with inciting an insurrection?

    First, some background. Here is what the question is about:

    On January 6, when people were calling for Trump’s immediate arrest on the grounds that he obviously incited an insurrection, here was basically what we knew:

    On December 19, 2020, Trump summoned supporters to D.C. with his “Be there, will be wild” Tweet.

    During Trump’s January 6 speech on the Ellipse, he told the crowd: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Then, perfectly timed for when Congress was scheduled to certify the election, Trump directed his protesters to the Capitol and said he would accompany them.

    Reporting at the time of Trump’s second impeachment told us basically that about 50 minutes into Trump’s speech, some of his supporters began heading toward the Capitol where “unprecedented mayhem ensued.”

    Legal scholars at the time debated whether “be there, will be wild” and “fight like hell” was legally sufficient to prove that Trump incited violence given the difficult hurdle for proving that speech incited an insurrection under the Brandenburg test. Given what we knew on January 6, it looked like Trump’s speech did incite the violence, but it would have been a difficult argument, and Trump would have been able to offer a First Amendment defense.

    Over time, it became clear from DOJ filings that the paramilitaries that led the attack on the Capitol (1) were not at the Ellipse when Trump gave his speech; they skipped the rally and went straight to the Capitol, (2) they came prepared for military action on January 6, and (3) they did much to rile the crowds after Trump sent them to the Capitol.

    In other words, had the government gone with “his speech incited the riot” theory, the defense would have offered evidence that the people who planned and carried out the violence were not at the speech and didn’t hear the speech. See the problem? The standard “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a difficult standard to meet. If the people who planned and carried out the violence were not at the speech and had their plan in place beforehand, the prosecution would have been left feeling stupid.

    Trump would love for this trial to be about his First Amendment right. Given that the Indictment says this, I suspect the DOJ is happy that they are able to bring charges for which he doesn’t have a First Amendment defense:

    The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures.


  22. by Ponderer on August 7, 2023 8:19 am

    Hate seems to be of the opinion that if you truly believe that what you are doing is not a crime, then you can't be convicted of committing the crime you committed.

    I know it's really really stupid to think that, But that seems to be the defense he is supporting, as if it will exonerate Trump.


  23. by HatetheSwamp on August 7, 2023 8:28 am

    No, po. Not at all.


  24. by Ponderer on August 7, 2023 8:58 am

    Yes, Bill. In totality.


  25. by HatetheSwamp on August 7, 2023 9:30 am

    po. You understand that, for instance, what the guilty person has in their mind makes the difference between first and second degree murder and manslaughter.

    What a person does and why they do it is critical in criminal justice.

    What objective and informed legal analysts can be understood to say is in terms of the fact that Jack Smith won't be able to prove crime and state of mind. But, we'll see.


  26. by Curt_Anderson on August 7, 2023 10:08 am
    HtS,
    You are alluding to the legal concept of mens rea or guilty mind. You seem to think that because Trump sincerely believes he won his election that all subsequent actions he took, are not a crime because of his erroneous beliefs.

    He still had no legal right to use forged electoral certificates or to pressure election officials in Georgia to “find 11,780 votes” that did not exist, or to engage in other extralegal means to try to hold onto power. That includes pressuring the vice president to assume powers he didn’t have. State and federal criminal laws prohibit these things. Vigilante justice is against the law, even if you (wrongly) believe you are a victim.

    You point out that there is a difference between first-degree murder and manslaughter. Manslaughter implies that there was next to no forethought or planning before the murder was committed. I’m not sure that argument would work for Donald Trump. But even those people convicted of manslaughter are sent to prison. What you were really hoping for is that Trump will be found to have committed the equivalent of justifiable homicide. Good luck with that!


  27. by HatetheSwamp on August 7, 2023 10:19 am

    You are alluding to the legal concept of mens rea or guilty mind. You seem to think that because Trump sincerely believes he won his election that all subsequent actions he took, are not a crime because of his erroneous beliefs.

    Men's rea. Yeah. To make the theoretical point to po...that state of mind is crucial. But, of course, what separates first degree murder from second or manslaughter is more than mens rea.

    But. Based on what we know, Trump send his rally attenders off to the Capitol to March "peacefully and patriotically." Beyond that, his most serious crime was to do nuthin for 187 minutes.

    So, subsequent actions. I see no crime there.


  28. by Curt_Anderson on August 7, 2023 10:25 am
    HtS,
    You are proving once again that you did not read the transcript of the indictment. What Donald Trump did or did not do on January 6 is not even part of the case against him.


  29. by HatetheSwamp on August 7, 2023 10:59 am

    I did not read the indictment and I won't. But, c'mon man. The Georgia votes WERE a J6 thing?


  30. by islander on August 7, 2023 11:01 am

    Simple question for Hate, what crime is Trump being charged with that you think the prosecution needs to prove intent?

    Lets start with this one, Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.

    Is that a general intent crime or a specific intent crime?

    Do you know the difference?


  31. by HatetheSwamp on August 7, 2023 11:11 am

    Intent?


  32. by islander on August 7, 2023 11:19 am

    Hate responded with to the question with: "Intent?"

    You don't know how to answer the question. 🤣

    I doubt you even understand the question.


  33. by HatetheSwamp on August 7, 2023 12:04 pm

    I don't understand the question. You might want to ax it of po. po's the one who created the strawman.


  34. by Ponderer on August 7, 2023 1:26 pm

    "what crime is Trump being charged with that you think the prosecution needs to prove intent?" -Isle

    "I don't understand the question." -Hate

    "Intent?" -Hate


    It was an easy fuckingquestion, Bill. I hate it when you play this obtuse moron act to get out of answering incriminating questions. I swear you're such a fuckingasshole most of the time.



    Islander:

    You've gotta be really careful with the way you ask Hate a question. You need to try to only have one question per post. If there's more than one question in a single post, even if they all have the same answer, it gives Hate the opportunity to pretend that he's an obtuse moron who can't understand what you are trying to ask him.

    Not that I'm any expert at getting him to answer questions that he doesn't want to answer or anything. JFYI.


  35. by islander on August 7, 2023 2:36 pm

    Hate ~ I’ve read Pondy’s posts and I can tell you that she clearly understands what ‘intent’ means and she knows your belief that the prosecution needs to prove intent for the crimes Trump is being charged with in this indictment is wrong and she knows why you are wrong.

    This is why your refusal to read the indictment results in your ignorance with regards to the charges against Trump. It also demonstrates that your ignorance is willful ignorance.

    You also refuse to read Teri’s explanation those charges, if you had read them you’d understand the question I asked and then you’d be able to argue intelligently with the rest of us. For someone who claims to be a student of court decisions for decades you should be able to answer the simple question I asked. 



    PONDY:

    Apparently Hate doesn't even watch or understand the videos he posts as 'evidence' for his arguments. However I do watch them. He is now pretending that he doesn't understand why we are bringing up 'intent'. My advice to him is to go back and actually watch the video he posted on Aug 2, under the heading, ANDY MCCARTHY ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED THE JACK SMITH J6 INDICTMENT LoL !! Then he will know why we're talking about intent which was something Hate thought the prosecution would have to prove. But I think he knows better now which is why he's playing dumb. 🍻


  36. by oldedude on August 7, 2023 6:36 pm
    I'm just gonna jump in with the same argument I had earlier. The law is open to what you want it to say. That's why, in college, we argued the same law equally. Honestly, I see this a fanfare to bully. Ergo, I haven't said shite. Lead, if you really want to step into this no-win, go right ahead. but it's like being coaxed into a firing squad (I'm sorry, I'm belittling firing squads world wide).

    The idea is here, that if you read it, you'll agree with "us." That's bullshit. I know I didn't. I'd see flimsily excuses for the law that doesn't raise to the level of putting a person in prison. Y'all hate trumpster. I got that. Find something that isn't made up by a jackboot agency (DOJ/FBI) that has been proven to LIE to the courts. The merits of these cases MUST be in black and white. NOT what "he said" vs what "he said." are there telephone calls. Is there financial transactions between them? What was the outcome?

    PLEASE SOMEONE! list the crimes, and what they are in reality!. FUKKING START THERE!


  37. by islander on August 8, 2023 6:48 am

    Continuing on with Teri's Criminal Law 101...

    Question #4: What are the implications of the DOJ’s choice to describe Trump’s role on January 6 as “exploiting” rather than “inciting” the violence?

    The DOJ is taking care to allege only what they can prove. (This is what they are supposed to do, according to the guidelines.)

    Question #5: Can charges at this point be dropped? I expect his lawyers and Republican Party to push for at least some of the charges to be dropped as a goodwill appeasement

    This will not happen.

    Question #6: Why weren’t the Members of Congress charged with a crime? They voted to delay the proceedings. There were many who voted against certifying the correct slate of electors, and thereby engaged in the fraud.

    Members of Congress vote on the wrong side of things all the time. If this were criminalized, you would have the DOJ scrutinizing the motives for each vote cast by a member of Congress and bringing charges if their motives were corrupt. See the problem? Check out this example of Democrats in Congress objecting to Ohio’s electoral votes.

    maintain that to charge a member of Congress with a crime, you need more than a member of Congress voting a particular way.

    Question #7: Why wasn’t ___ charged?

    When Jack Smith delivered his brief remarks after Trump’s indictment, he said, “our investigation of other individuals continues."

    Because we don’t know what evidence the DOJ has (there can be exculpatory evidence about people that we don’t know about) and because we don’t know who is cooperating, all we can do is wait and see.

    I do, however, expect the 6 unindicted co-conspirators to be indicted. (But I cannot say for sure that they will, of course.)


    Question #8: The fake elector scheme was detailed for every state except Nevada. Why do you think that is?

    I have no idea. An indictment doesn’t have to (and in fact, really can’t) contain all the evidence. The DOJ decides which facts to include.

    Question #9: Will any of these charges keep him from holding office?

    I don’t see any of the crimes under which Trump was charged invoking section 3 of the 14th Amendment clause that says:

    ..."No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability"...

    I also don’t think it matters. If enough American voters would vote for Trump to put him back in the White House after being presented with all of this evidence that he tried to overturn the election and stay in power, a clause in the Constitution will not save us.


    #10: Would Trump’s badmouthing DC get him a change of venue because DC jurors can’t be impartial — cuz he badmouthed their city?

    If this worked, any defendant would be able to get a change of venue by badmouthing the place. A defendant’s bad behavior should never be used to benefit the defendant. If Trump wants to make all the jurors hate him, that’s his right. Generally insulting the jury is not a good idea [understatement].

    Question #11: Will it be a strong defense for Trump to say that he relied on his lawyers’ advice?

    Sort of interesting that six of his own lawyers are co-conspirators.

    I don’t see how an “I relied on my lawyers” defense will help him. He had enough lawyers giving him good advice, and he ignored it. He ignored White House counsel and followed the advice of someone he privately admitted was putting forward “crazy” ideas. He clearly made his own choices about who to listen to.

    If he tries to blame his lawyers, 6 of whom are unindicted co-conspirators, you have a situation of defendants and potential defendants pointing their fingers at each other, a lovely situation for the prosecutors.


    Question #12: What is the likelihood that Trump will be convicted?

    Here is how you know Trump is likely to be convicted on these charges: He and his supporters are already making a lot of noise about how it would not be possible for Trump to get a fair trial in Washington, D.C. because the jurors will be biased against him. His judge has been tough with January 6 insurrectionists. She is not sympathetic to Trump.

    I didn’t get to all of the questions, but this was long enough, doncha think?

    Thanks, Teri 👍













  38. by HatetheSwamp on August 8, 2023 7:52 am

    Lead, if you really want to step into this no-win, go right ahead. but it's like being coaxed into a firing squad (I'm sorry, I'm belittling firing squads world wide).

    OD,

    I stopped with this at the beginning of Teri's rant when I saw this arrogance and strawmanizing:

    "Nope. This is mostly wrong, but I totally understand why so many people are confused. This stuff can trip up first-year law students."

    That's Sanctimony 101. Except Teri's sending Alan Dershowitz back to the beginning of law school. Bahahahahahahahaha.

    I don't think so.

    As I've noted many times, all of us bring our preferences and prejudices to every moment of our lives.

    isle merely lives life seeking ways to sharpen his prejudice.

    Neither you nor I do that. Go for this if you like, but I don't waste my time.


  39. by Ponderer on August 8, 2023 8:53 am

    "The law is open to what you want it to say." -olde dude


    That is precisely the assertion that Trump's lawyers are going to try to defend him with.

    And also why they are going to fail not just miserably, but hysterically.


  40. by islander on August 8, 2023 9:05 am

    Hate makes the same fatal mistakes here as he does so often, Hate tries to argue his case with the logical fallacy's of “appeal to authority" and "ad hominems".

    Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when we accept a claim merely because someone tells us that an authority figure supports that claim. Appeals to authority play on people’s feelings of respect or familiarity towards a famous person in order to bypass critical thinking. It’s like someone is telling us “accept something because my favored authority said it”. It’s not a valid argument since it doesn’t address the content of the argument.


    Notice how Hate was unable refute or even address any of Teri’s positions, nor was he able to compare Dershowitz's positions to Teri’s. Hate thinks Dershowitz is more of an authority than Kanefield while I think Dershowitz is a washed up attorney long past his prime. But neither belief is useful in this debate since it is the content of their positions that we are debating.



    Then of course Hate brings out his other favored flawed debating technique, the “Ad Hominem” which is to attack and attempt to denigrate and insult his opponent instead of his opponent's argument. In this case it’s me, and Hate’s claim that I merely live my life seeking ways to sharpen my prejudice is the perfect example of an ad hominem. Notice how he never addressed or tried to refute anything Teri or I said. LoL !!!



  41. by HatetheSwamp on August 8, 2023 10:58 am

    Notice how Hate was unable refute or even address any of Teri’s positions, nor was he able to compare Dershowitz's positions to Teri’s.

    Baha.

    Notice how Teri tried to lump Alan effin Dershowitz with the next crop of kids about to enter law school.

    I have no respect for Teri's rantings.

    Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when we accept a claim merely because someone tells us that an authority figure supports that claim.

    *****

    CURT, pb nominates this comment from isle for inclusion in the SS Hall of Fame.

    *****

    isle, you never, ever introduce an original thought here. This whole effin thread is you doing a copy and paste appeal to authority. Yikes, buddy. Try on some self-awareness.

    This'ne is cringe material.


  42. by islander on August 8, 2023 11:54 am
    Notice how Teri tried to lump Alan effin Dershowitz with the next crop of kids about to enter law school.

    I have no respect for Teri's rantings.


    Nope ! Teri never did that. Teri never said or implied anything about Dershowitz. You just made that up.

    That is one of the reasons I have no respect for you, it's your shameless dishonesty.



    Nope ! No appeal to authority from me, I presented the content of Teri’s argument. I never said anyone must accept it because Teri Kanefield said it. I expect people to use their critical thinking skills to determine whether to accept or deny what Teri said.

    You obviously still don’t know what an appeal to authority means. I explained it to you in my last post but you didn’t understand what I said or maybe you didn’t read what I said.

    I’ll post it once again...Think carefully about it.


    “Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when we accept a claim merely because someone tells us that an authority figure supports that claim. Appeals to authority play on people’s feelings of respect or familiarity towards a famous person in order to bypass critical thinking. It’s like someone is telling us “accept something because my favored authority said it”. It’s not a valid argument since it doesn’t address the content of the argument.”




  43. by oldedude on August 8, 2023 9:00 pm
    Isle- I have no respect for Teri's rantings.

    “Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when we accept a claim merely because someone tells us that an authority figure supports that claim. Appeals to authority play on people’s feelings of respect or familiarity towards a famous person in order to bypass critical thinking. It’s like someone is telling us “accept something because my favored authority said it”. It’s not a valid argument since it doesn’t address the content of the argument.”

    I do all the time. Thusly is my issue with you and "muffie" or o daisy, or WTHF you're listening to now. There is a difference between someone "relating your thoughts," vs. you believing another person's thoughts.


  44. by islander on August 9, 2023 7:05 am

    First of all, Od, I never said “I have no respect for Teri's rantings.” It was Hate who said that.

    Sad to say, your post is very convoluted making it very difficult to know what you are trying to say.

    When you say that you "do it all the time", do you mean you try to justify your arguments using a logical fallacy? What we are talking here about is the fallacy of appealing to authority rather than justifying your argument with the content of the argument.

    You Write: There is a difference between someone "relating your thoughts," vs. you believing another person's thoughts.”

    What you said has absolutely nothing to do with ‘the appeal to authority argument’, in fact, I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say.

    In a debate, I’d never say something must be true if Teri says it based simply on the fact that Teri is a legal scholar. It should be by examining the content of what she said, and using critical thinking, we can then judge the truth of falsity of her argument.

    

In a disagreement between Teri and an undergraduate student for example, it would not be Teri’s credentials that determine the truth or falsity of her position...We should make our judgement based on the evidence and strength of each one’s argument.



Go To Top

Comment on: "Criminal Law 101: Trump’s J6 Indictment"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page