The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
You think decades of telling tax authorities and creditors two drastically different evaluations doesn't provide the necessary mens rea? Or saying that an apartment that is 10,000 sq feet is 30,000 square feet doesn't either?

"Mens rea" doesn't mean the perpetrator knew what they were doing was a crime, but that their intent was to commit a particular action.

The question is did Trump know he was exaggerating? The answer based on available evidence is obviously yes.
Click to expand...

Oh no, Trump is toast (unless he gets a "bygones be bygones" get out of jail free card). I just meant that ignorance of the law can in fact be an excuse in certain tax law cases.

"Misstated objective facts" is not a phrase a defendant wants to hear in any context. It was the phrase that jumped out at me the most from all the others. It does not mean, "We think Trump lied", it means, "We know Trump lied and we can prove it in court."
 
Random said:
Oh no, Trump is toast (unless he gets a "bygones be bygones" get out of jail free card). I just meant that ignorance of the law can in fact be an excuse in certain tax law cases.

"Misstated objective facts" is not a phrase a defendant wants to hear in any context. It was the phrase that jumped out at me the most from all the others. It does not mean, "We think Trump lied", it means, "We know Trump lied and we can prove it in court."
Click to expand...

Well Trump Lying would certainly be a first, :rolleyes:
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The "alternate electors" signed their vote for Trump as the official State Electors - which is perjury and unlawful assumption of authority.
Just because you think you're a Sovereign Citizen doesn't mean you can declare yourself to be a legitimate State Elector.
Click to expand...

Perjury requires the person to believe the statement is untrue.
 
Stacyhs said:
Oh, please, please tell me they're going to make her testimony public!! :popcorn1
Click to expand...

I hope so. However, I hope they have former practicing lawyers on the committee like Swalwell or Jamie Raskin do the questioning (or staff counsel). Someone like her, with an agenda needs to be interrogated very methodically by someone who knows what they're doing. If you give her lots of open ended questions she'll use it as a national stage to spout her nonsense. It's hard to have that methodical approach when you're rotating the questioners every ten minutes.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Perjury requires the person to believe the statement is untrue.
Click to expand...

Trump's real problem here isn't perjury, it's conspiracy. If someone can establish Trump discussed the plan for the fake electors and members of the group he discussed said plan with did anything to further the crime, he's guilty of conspiracy. It's clear people engaged in the conspiracy to submit fake electors, what we can't establish yet is if Trump personally did so.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
If that counted, then any declaration of religious faith would be perjury.
Click to expand...

Craig4 said:
Trump's real problem here isn't perjury, it's conspiracy. If someone can establish Trump discussed the plan for the fake electors and members of the group he discussed said plan with did anything to further the crime, he's guilty of conspiracy. It's clear people engaged in the conspiracy to submit fake electors, what we can't establish yet is if Trump personally did so.
Click to expand...

I think conspiracy also requires thinking what you are doing is a crime.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That presumes the people think submitting themselves as electors is a crime. They can all think the process is legitimate.
Click to expand...

Aside from the principle that ignorance of the law is no defence. The idea that submitting a list of fake Electors is anything but wrong is very funny. Such procedures violate the integrity of the voting process obviously.

If the people doing this thought it was legitimate, then they would be the sort of idiots who think ballot stuffing is legitimate.

All sorts of people who commit crimes don't think of themselves has criminals it doesn't make them any less criminals. And submitting a sworn document claiming X is Y when in fact X is NOT Y is an attempt at fraud. In this case claiming So and so are Electors when they are not. The fraud is obvious.
 
Pacal said:
Aside from the principle that ignorance of the law is no defence. The idea that submitting a list of fake Electors is anything but wrong is very funny. Such procedures violate the integrity of the voting process obviously.

If the people doing this thought it was legitimate, then they would be the sort of idiots who think ballot stuffing is legitimate.

All sorts of people who commit crimes don't think of themselves has criminals it doesn't make them any less criminals. And submitting a sworn document claiming X is Y when in fact X is NOT Y is an attempt at fraud. In this case claiming So and so are Electors when they are not. The fraud is obvious.
Click to expand...

Well, ignorance of the law is a defense in several types of crimes. Tax law requires knowing you cant do something (sort of).
And I think conspiracy is one of the crimes that require knowing it is a crime.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Well, ignorance of the law is a defense in several types of crimes. Tax law requires knowing you cant do something (sort of).
And I think conspiracy is one of the crimes that require knowing it is a crime.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that the President of the United States was not aware that submitting a slate of electors not certified by the state government was not against the law? He has obviously demonstrated knowledge of how the electoral process works and electors are selected as he was a major party nominee twice and a serving president.
 
Craig4 said:
Are you seriously suggesting that the President of the United States was not aware that submitting a slate of electors not certified by the state government was not against the law? He has obviously demonstrated knowledge of how the electoral process works and electors are selected as he was a major party nominee twice and a serving president.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think Trump has an understanding of government beyond your average sovereign citizen.
 
I cannot believe I am joining a Bob argument on Bob's side.

Craig4 said:
Are you seriously suggesting that the President of the United States was not aware that submitting a slate of electors not certified by the state government was not against the law? He has obviously demonstrated knowledge of how the electoral process works and electors are selected as he was a major party nominee twice and a serving president.
Click to expand...
Don't underestimate how stupid Trump is prepared to appear if it serves him to do so. Consider how stupid he looks when he's trying to look smart.

None of this matters until charges are filed (which I don't think they ever will be), but on that blessed day, if the prosecution picks charges which only stick if you assume Trump cannot possibly be that stupid and/or ignorant, they will have an uphill road ahead of them.
 
Craig4 said:
You are incorrect. Knowledge that the act is a crime is not an element of the Crime in 18 USC. All that is required is knowledge of the act, not that the act is a crime.
Click to expand...

I have not found resolution to this one way or the other.

Also, I am not incorrect. My claim was I think that
I do think that.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
I have not found resolution to this one way or the other.

Also, I am not incorrect. My claim was I think that
I do think that.
Click to expand...

Distinction without a difference; you're still wrong. 18 USC, the Criminal Code of the United States resolves this for you. It's widely published and contains the elements of all the crimes listed there in. Knowledge that the act you're conspiring about is a crime is not one of the four elements of the crime. It's black-letter law.
 
Craig4 said:
Distinction without a difference; you're still wrong. 18 USC, the Criminal Code of the United States resolves this for you. It's widely published and contains the elements of all the crimes listed there in. Knowledge that the act you're conspiring about is a crime is not one of the four elements of the crime. It's black-letter law.
Click to expand...

It is a common law system. Subsequent court interpretations would affect application.
 
Craig4 said:
Distinction without a difference; you're still wrong. 18 USC, the Criminal Code of the United States resolves this for you. It's widely published and contains the elements of all the crimes listed there in. Knowledge that the act you're conspiring about is a crime is not one of the four elements of the crime. It's black-letter law.
Click to expand...
But it does involve knowledge. What threshold of ignorance would one need to avoid the charge?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom