If you're one of the people who thinks the Jan 6 Indictment is a witch hunt or similar, I strongly urge you to actually read it for yourself. Don't read a synopsis or listen to a news outlet, actually read the source document. Roughly 45 page timeline of Republican sources stating he knew he had lost and then tried repeatedly to overturn the election results. A PDF version is available here https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a7503af-fde7-4061-818c-7d7e0ee06036.pdf. #uspolitics
When I browsed it I didn't see many sources stating that Trump knew, though, unless I missed it.
There were a lot of people who told him things, but that doesn't mean he actually believed them.
That question of his believing his detractors is unfortunately critical to the case on which they chose to indict him, though, so it might be difficult to prove.
@volkris @allpoints This is why you should read it.
The indictment mentions (pp30-31) a meeting Trump had with military brass about some international crisis or other. The generals asked him if he wanted to deal with the issue or leave it to Biden, and he said, "Yeah, you're right, it's too late for us. We're going to give that to the next guy."
And on p. 33: Pence tells Trump he sees no constitutional way to block the Jan6 vote. Trump responds, "You're too honest."
Such an indictment is, as per the process in the US, unvented allegation, and even overlooking that, I think you're giving Trump a whole bunch more credit than I would, with his constant verbal vomiting that makes absolutely no sense and his apparent complete disinterest in how the world actually works.
So there are two problems with what you are saying, first the allegations might not be true, and second even if they are true, Trump is such a goddamn idiot that they don't prove that he's communicating anything that he knows at all.
So I've read the indictment. It comes across as amateurish and a bit baffling. Nobody has the high ground in that whole mess.
I think people are often too quick to say they don't understand the law so they'll just let others figure it out for them.
That's especially troubling in a society that values transparency and democratic values, as it effectively gives up on knowing what rules for us are, allowing a different class of people to argue among themselves post-hoc whether we should face punishment.
And it prevents us from holding lawmakers accountable if we decide we can't understand their work.
So yeah, I'm pretty against the idea of relying on lawyers. We should understand the laws ourselves in part so that we can hold the lawyers themselves accountable
@volkris @allpoints Oh, don't get me wrong, I still want such a lawyer to explain to me _why_ the indictment is strong or weak, just like I'd want an oncologist to explain to me _why_ she's treating my cancer the way she does.
One thing I've learned by listening to lawyers, though, is that the law in practice is very different from the law on paper. For example, non-lawyers often fantasize about bringing RICO charges against someone they don't like, when a RICO charge rarely sticks.
@volkris @allpoints I’m not a lawyer, so I rely on lawyers (specifically American federal lawyers in this case) to tell me how solid the indictment is. I think a lay person like me can’t really assess its strength or weakness.
That said, “Your Honor, my client is an idiot” is a defense that has worked in the past. I’m just hoping that just this once, Trump’s gigantic ego will be a good thing, and that he won’t allow his lawyers to present him like that.