The Jan. 6 Investigation

[Warp12]

Why? As I said "He had no legal basis for doing so despite what he personally believed." He could personally believe he's the Pope but that doesn't give him the legal right to move into the Vatican and he'd still get thrown out.

Why do I have an interest in what his true motivations were? Well, I think that is only natural. Whether it affects the legal case , or not. But I am still not sure that it wouldn't have an impact on legal proceedings if they could clearly demonstrate his sole motivator was to stay in power, as opposed to "protect" democracy.

 

[Warp12]

I think it's hard to determine what Trump believes and what he does not, and harder still to determine when he does or doesn't believe anything, since he is malleable and able, it seems, to convince himself of lies and deny truths even when directly presented with them. The problem with your doubt is that it involves two equally nasty alternatives (though they are not mutually exclusive either): To excuse him of the charge of just plain lying pretty much requires that he is delusional and stubbornly immune to reality, if not downright insane. Or, of course, you can consider him quite sane and aware of reality, in which case he's a consciousless liar.

There's no way, I think, that Trump comes out of the scenario we've seen unfolding here smelling good. He lost the election and claimed to win it. He attempted to subvert the democratic process in order to retain power. It's on the record. He spurned advice, and turned on advisors who insisted on recognizing reality and maintaining some integrity. It's on the record. And if his actions and statements were not incitements to violence and insurrection the only excuse is to aver that he was clueless about the supporters he had cultivated and incited over and over again, unaware of what he was saying, out of touch with reality, and, in short, dumb as a brick.

It's the same old dilemma. If you want to excuse Trump of malfeasance, the only real alternative is to attribute his actions to incompetence.

I don't think incompetence can excuse him. It does seem that there was some degree (perhaps a large degree?) of manipulation going on around him. But, I mean, he is the President. The buck stops with him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you think there is enough evidence already presented to support this?

Or, will there be? It seems to me that the committee is going to lay something out in great detail. I mean, they pretty much have to, right?

There's plenty of evidence. We've all been seeing/reading it.

What the committee is doing is strengthening that evidence with new details, and most importantly, providing a fact check with testimony obtained under oath.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When did he say that? He won in 2016 and still claimed it was rigged.

Yeah because his ego couldn't stand the fact Hilary got 3 million more votes than he did, thus his claims of voter fraud conveniently were about 3 million illegal aliens voting.

 

[Warp12]

More to the idea that what he believed could be significant from a legal standpoint:

Trump had to know he was spreading 'Big Lie,' Jan. 6 committee member Jamie Raskin says

WASHINGTON – Lawmakers investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection said Sunday they can provide evidence that Donald Trump tried to overthrow his election loss to Joe Biden even though he knew he had lost – a key legal point if he is prosecuted over actions that led directly to the violence at the U.S. Capitol.

Future hearings, including one on Monday, will demonstrate how a succession of advisers also told Trump that his claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election were bogus, Jan. 6 committee members said during a string of Sunday show appearances.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-6-committee-raskin-trump-big-lie/7601463001/

 

[acbytesla]

Why do I have an interest in what his true motivations were? Well, I think that is only natural. Whether it affects the legal case , or not. But I am still not sure that it wouldn't have an impact on legal proceedings if they could clearly demonstrate his sole motivator was to stay in power, as opposed to "protect" democracy.

Motivation is important. That's why you should care. You don’t care because Trump is your guy. You've written him a blank check. He could shoot someone in broad daylight in midtown Manhattan and you'd make excuses for him.

Motivation has a huge impact on legal proceedings. It's called "mens rea."

 

[johnny karate]

Well, fine...then maybe ask to have his post moved?

I had not heard it before. Sorry if I don't follow the CT front as closely as some.

I'm not going to close my ears, though.

There’s a saying about open minds and brains calling out.

It’s no one’s fault but you’re own that you uncritically accepted a debunked conspiracy theory, and no one owes you the benefit of the doubt now that you’re on record doing so.

 

[Warp12]

It’s no one’s fault but you’re own that you uncritically accepted a debunked conspiracy theory, and no one owes you the benefit of the doubt now that you’re on record doing so.

More of this? First off, I didn't uncritically "accept" a conspiracy theory. I am certainly not on record as doing so. Saying you appreciate hearing alternate views is not the same as accepting something as truth. As I have made clear, verification of the facts is key.

But anyway, whatever you say, Johnny Karate. I am sure you will come up with some other falsehood or mischaracterization soon enough.

 

[Warp12]

Motivation is important. That's why you should care. You don’t care because Trump is your guy. You've written him a blank check. He could shoot someone in broad daylight in midtown Manhattan and you'd make excuses for him.
Motivation has a huge impact on legal proceedings. It's called "mens rea."

Highlighted part is just pure garbage. Now, moving on...

Yes, this is what I am getting at. Some were asking what did it matter, his beliefs, etc...and asking why was it a concern of mine. I think it is a significant element.

 

[newyorkguy]

...Motivation has a huge impact on legal proceedings. It's called "mens rea."

I think it's a reason why getting ivanka trump to testify she accepted that her father had lost the 2020 election, and told him so, was legally important. trump had appointed her to be an official advisor to the president and she had been assigned numerous official duties. Her opinion should have been taken seriously. If she concluded, on the basis of trump's attorney general's findings, that the evidence did not support voter fraud on a large scale, was it reasonable for trump to go on believing the opposite?

Mens rea usually consists of four different mental states in determining a defendant's culpability. They are

1. purpose (same as intent)
2. knowledge
3. recklessness
4. negligence.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Arguably a root cause of the state of affairs right now. More than any of the proper democracies I can think of, the US leans closest to having a king.

What I find odd is how Trump has actually, through all his ham-fisted criminal shenanigans, made it a no brainer to indict him.

Hey, everybody out there in Tee Vee Land, watch me plunge this dagger into the entire Vienna Boys Choir while at the same drive on the wrong side of the road!

And then observe Merrick Garland, one hand on hip, the other tousling his hair like Stan Laurel, hem and haw about how he’s just not sure, not sure at all you can charge a president, and maybe it should all just be handled by H.R.

He was once a chief executive! A glorified paper-pushing desk jockey! SFW!

 

[smartcooky]

You're flat out wrong. The facts undermine the Republican party. Not the investigation.

THIS

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but whatever.

One can believe that election fraud exists, independent of the outcome. Claiming fraud, win or lose, is right in line with a general belief in the corruption of the opposing party.

Which is exactly what Trump DIDN'T believe.

Remember, in Trump's phonecall to Georgia, he didn't ask to get an accurate recount, he asked for just enough vote counts to win.
We know from First Hand sources that Trump expected to lose in 2016, and so prepared everything for his "Stop the Steal" campaign, but didn't prepare an acceptance speech.

It's amazing how you can think that you aren't a Trump supporter and yet cover for him every time.

 

[Warp12]

One can believe that election fraud exists, independent of the outcome. Claiming fraud, win or lose, is right in line with a general belief in the corruption of the opposing party.

Which is exactly what Trump DIDN'T believe.

Remember, in Trump's phonecall to Georgia, he didn't ask to get an accurate recount, he asked for just enough vote counts to win.
We know from First Hand sources that Trump expected to lose in 2016, and so prepared everything for his "Stop the Steal" campaign, but didn't prepare an acceptance speech.

It's amazing how you can think that you aren't a Trump supporter and yet cover for him every time.

How on earth was I covering for Trump with my statement? What exactly was I "covering"??

 

[acbytesla]

How on earth was I covering for Trump with my statement? What exactly was I "covering"??

You're kidding, right? You're suggesting that Trump was
right and being honest in claiming fraud. You're saying the Big Lie was just.

How is that not "covering for Trump?"

 

[Warp12]

You're kidding, right? You're suggesting that Trump was
right and being honest in claiming fraud. You're saying the Big Lie was just.

How is that not "covering for Trump?"

I didn't claim that at all. Where do you get that?

My statement was that him claiming fraud when he won and when he lost is congruent with a belief that the opposing party consistently engages in fraud.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I didn't claim that at all. Where do you get that?

My statement was that him claiming fraud when he won and when he lost is congruent with a belief that the opposing party consistently engages in fraud.

You deliberately ignore what Trump said and did to keep up your fiction
That's covering for him.

Wake up

 

[Orphia Nay]

More to the idea that what he believed could be significant from a legal standpoint:

Trump had to know he was spreading 'Big Lie,' Jan. 6 committee member Jamie Raskin says


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-6-committee-raskin-trump-big-lie/7601463001/

Good article. Interesting that noone's found fault with it or even commented on it.

I can't stand Trump and think the Republican Party should disband and split, but I think a few people in here have a straw man opinion of you.

 

[smartcooky]

More to the idea that what he believed could be significant from a legal standpoint:

Trump had to know he was spreading 'Big Lie,' Jan. 6 committee member Jamie Raskin says


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-6-committee-raskin-trump-big-lie/7601463001/

"Schiff also said that future hearings will show "connections" between people in Trump's orbit and white nationalist groups that participated in the attacks. He did not provide details, saying, "I don’t want to get into specifics of the evidence, you’ll just have to wait until we get to that point of our hearings.”


I'm telling y'all... they have the receipts!!!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Giving Trump any benefit of the doubt at this point shows a complete lack of Bayesian reasoning capability.