The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
It only requires that you knew what was happening, it does not require that you knew what was happening was a crime.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence against breaking it.
Click to expand...
So how do you prove that someone knew what was happening?
 
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...

You are talking about a Man who apparently couldn't understand how holes in paper punch cards worked.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
So how do you prove that someone knew what was happening?
Click to expand...

Oh Jesus! Really?

Keep in mind that the Government only has to prove that you knew what you were doing beyond a reasonable doubt

If you break into a house, there is no doubt that you know that is what you are doing. The government doesn't have to prove that you knew it was a crime, only that you knew you were breaking in.

If you inflate the value of your property to obtain a loan, there is no doubt that you know that is what you are doing. The government doesn't have to prove that you knew it was a crime, only that you knew you were inflating the property value, especially if you were also deflating it for tax purposes.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
But it does involve knowledge. What threshold of ignorance would one need to avoid the charge?
Click to expand...

The conspiracy charge in 18 USC says knowledge of the act. The law does not require that the person know the act is a crime, just that the act is happening.

If you have the first element of Conspiracy, you took an active part, you've pretty much got the fourth element which is knowledge. If Trump directed someone to assemble an alternate slate of electors you can establish knowledge of the act.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
It is a common law system. Subsequent court interpretations would affect application.
Click to expand...

"Common Law", I know I've been out of the "biz" for a while but what the **** are you talking about? The practical application of the law is not the silly little esoteric excise you imagine it to be. 18 USC spells out the elements of the crime. As the officer (that was at a time me and yes I did charge conspiracy) determines if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect did the specific acts listed in the elements of the crime.

This isn't some thought experiment.
 
smartcooky said:
Oh Jesus! Really?

Keep in mind that the Government only has to prove that you knew what you were doing beyond a reasonable doubt

If you break into a house, there is no doubt that you know that is what you are doing. The government doesn't have to prove that you knew it was a crime, only that you knew you were breaking in.

If you inflate the value of your property to obtain a loan, there is no doubt that you know that is what you are doing. The government doesn't have to prove that you knew it was a crime, only that you knew you were inflating the property value, especially if you were also deflating it for tax purposes.
Click to expand...
And I keep saying that Trump is fully capable of claiming to be that dumb. Or more accurately Trump's team, as Trump himself will never get anywhere near a witness stand. You say "a reasonable doubt," but a reasonable person would have concluded that Trump was non compos mentis years ago. We saw this already during the impeachment stuff - "oh, well, you can't reasonably believe Trump meant to extort the president of Ukraine for political dirt because you can't reasonably believe he means anything he says."
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
You are talking about a Man who apparently couldn't understand how holes in paper punch cards worked.
Click to expand...

That's not how knowledge works in criminal procedure. The standard is what a reasonable person knew or should have known. That the particular person is not reasonable is not part of the standard.
 
Craig4 said:
That's not how knowledge works in criminal procedure. The standard is what a reasonable person knew or should have known. That the particular person is not reasonable is not part of the standard.
Click to expand...

I know but the Insanity plea might be appropriate in this case.
 
Back on topic, the interrogation of Powell is not a slam dunk. She's a talented prosecutor who needs a talented interrogator interviewing her. No one should be thinking this is a win until after they achieve said win. People need to respect that she could completely own her interrogators and make her testimony her pulpit.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
And I keep saying that Trump is fully capable of claiming to be that dumb. Or more accurately Trump's team, as Trump himself will never get anywhere near a witness stand. You say "a reasonable doubt," but a reasonable person would have concluded that Trump was non compos mentis years ago. We saw this already during the impeachment stuff - "oh, well, you can't reasonably believe Trump meant to extort the president of Ukraine for political dirt because you can't reasonably believe he means anything he says."
Click to expand...

Asked.


Craig4 said:
That's not how knowledge works in criminal procedure. The standard is what a reasonable person knew or should have known. That the particular person is not reasonable is not part of the standard.
Click to expand...

Answered.
 
Craig4 said:
Back on topic, the interrogation of Powell is not a slam dunk. She's a talented prosecutor who needs a talented interrogator interviewing her. No one should be thinking this is a win until after they achieve said win. People need to respect that she could completely own her interrogators and make her testimony her pulpit.
Click to expand...

Her Ideas are totally impossible in this universe.
 
Craig4 said:
Back on topic, the interrogation of Powell is not a slam dunk. She's a talented prosecutor who needs a talented interrogator interviewing her. No one should be thinking this is a win until after they achieve said win. People need to respect that she could completely own her interrogators and make her testimony her pulpit.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the strategy be to not ask her why she thinks the way she thinks? They can just ask, who, when, where questions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom