🏳️🌈🖖🏽
If I’ve understood 45’s argument, it’s that he found some lawyers who told him it was legal to overturn the entire election, which he really wanted to do. Then he spread lies about the election being stolen so others would be duped into helping him. So that means he’s…not guilty?
Sorry, that’s not going to fly, Donald.
No, you misunderstand his argument.
Firstly, it wasn't a question of overturning the election. The election hadn't happened yet, as it was legally scheduled to happen in January.
However, the Electoral Count Act, and various state laws, did provide Trump with legal opportunities to raise concerns over procedures that states used to pick their electors going into the election. Which he botched.
So his longtime legal advisors gave him legal advise that he was too stupid and ignorant to judge properly, so he really screwed things up.
But the fact remains: he was acting on legal advise about what laws said ahead of the upcoming January election, even if he really botched things in the process.
@volkris @georgetakei The key is conspiracy to commit fraud: the fake elector scheme. It's not a free speech issue at all. Speech in service of committing a crime isn't covered by the 1A.
So firstly, it's really relevant that you make this distinction since so many, including legal people involved in the case, muddle that distinction kind of going both ways with it.
But directly to the point, that was a legal strategy provided for by statute and by precedent.
Even if it was boneheaded, it was not fraudulent as it was a legal way of engaging with the laws that had been passed to govern the January election.
@volkris @georgetakei It was actually fraudulent, though. The fake electors signed paperwork attesting that they were something they weren't: the official electors of the state in question. The plan was to disrupt the electoral count proceeding, declare the fraudulent electors as the real ones, and thereby overturn the will of the voters in those states. The objections raised during the proceedings were allowable parts of the process, but the fake electors and switching to them? Nope.
@volkris @georgetakei The objection process exists when there are legit issues with whether an elector or slate of electors are the official ones. But there was no such situation here. There were the real ones, certified by the states, and the fraudulent ones. The latter were never legit. Ever.
But that stance begs the exact question that the objection process exists to adjudicate.
The objection process existed. Trump used it, poorly, because he is a moron.
But regardless, the objection process existed, and we'd be much better off to recognize that and call the guy out on having failed honestly instead of promoting his claims by revoking his access to the reasonable adjudication process.
@georgetakei
@volkris @georgetakei Again, the problem here isn't the objection. It the fraudulent electors, and the plan to use a legit process to install non-legit electors.
And again, the process was to determine who are and aren't legit electors!
You're assuming the end of the process that is itself set up specifically to determine who is and isn't legit.
It's somewhat akin to charging a guy with criminal activity for having claimed that he was innocent before a trial.
We have a process for sorting disputes out, and the act of engaging that process is legally sanctioned. it's silly to skip to the end and proclaim that a person engaging that legal process is doing something illegal by engaging the law.
@georgetakei
@volkris @georgetakei If you try to pass off a fake Rembrandt as the real thing, it doesn't matter whether the potential buyer correctly clocks that you're offering a fake. You still created the fake and tried to make money by misrepresenting what it is.
In this case: the outcome of the objection process is not the beginning and end of the legal issue here. It's the creation and presentation of the fraudulent electors you hope will pass the process.
Except that by law they were not fraudulent electors, but were instead the ballot being presented to the Congress for Congress to judge.
So your argument really goes in the other direction.
It is because the outcome of the objection process is not the beginning end of the legal issue that the charge against Trump doesn't make sense and can't be judged based on that.
Trump
@textualdeviance @volkris @georgetakei
Wasn't that the same thing with Don Jr, Kushner, and the Russians wanting "adoption laws" to be changed (i.e. lift the sanctions on Putin's oligarchs), in exchange for dirt on Hilary?
They didn't receive the dirt they'd been promised so they didn't do anything wrong.
I'm sure these people have borderline personality disorders and are malignant narcissists.
Trump
I really don't know what connection you are trying to make there, I don't know what the similarity is.
Trump
@volkris @textualdeviance @georgetakei
I meant the intent to do something wrong, even if unsuccessful, is wrong.
Trump
Well I guess that gets into the specific laws being brought up.
Some laws do involve intention, and some laws don't..
But in short I'm not convinced there was an intent to do something wrong here. I generally believe Trump thought he had won, because he's an idiot, and it's kind of hard to prove that he wasn't acting on that intention without some smoking gun message where he said otherwise. And so far nobody has produced one, that I've seen.
@volkris @georgetakei Conspiracy to commit fraud is a crime regardless of whether it was successful, though.