As usual, Trump's "admission" was done as a way to strengthen his legal case

[gulliver]

Everyone wants to jump on Trump "admitting" he wanted to overturn the election and offering the Jan. 6th perps pardons. Likewise, they want to take his new "threats" as a sign he is calling for violence and plans to do it again. Case closed. He's exposed.

But what Trump was actually doing was trying (hopefully without success) to strengthen the foundation of his "intent based" defense. The payload of his message wasn't the offer of pardons. That was the bait, for the media and his cult. The payload was in the last words he added to the pardon offer, that the mob members were being treated "unfairly" and he would pardon them "because our elections are corrupt."

He says those things right out loud in public, because he thinks that will give him cover. His intentions, he would have a jury believe, were good: fighting for "fairness" and against "corruption." Therefore, he is "innocent," virtually no matter what he does. It was a "perfect riot incitement."

Now, is this utter crap gonna keep flying? I don't know. I think we're starting to hear some strong, adult voices finally saying, "We're on to you, little fella. Everyone knows what you are."

[C_U_L8R]

1. A good litigator would rip him to pieces.

Put him on the stand and let the world see what truth actually looks like.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. Harry Litman- Trump's belief in his own Big Lie, can't save him from a guilty verdict

I have been amazed at the bad legal counsel that TFG has been getting in this case. No first or second tier lawyer will touch TFG. The concept of an intent defense was examined by Harry Litman

Link to tweet

The argument goes this way: His conduct — trying to overturn a legitimate election — may look like a crime, but was there criminal intent? If he is so much of a sociopath that he believes his own Big Lie (or, to state it with the sort of constitutional precision utterly foreign to him, there is a reasonable doubt whether he has that belief), could he wriggle out of culpability?

He can’t — or he shouldn’t. Intent in a criminal case depends on the defendant’s state of mind about a specific criminal act, not an overall state of affairs. That’s “hornbook law” — so basic it doesn’t require citation for law students. And it should satisfy the “he really believed it” concerns about the criminal charges Trump may face......

A careful parsing of the legal code reveals the defect with the “he’s not guilty if he really believed it” line of thinking......

If Willis’ case comes to trial, the jury would be instructed that the intent requirement is fulfilled if Trump wanted Raffensperger to tamper with the vote count, which is a felony. Even if the then-president was certain he was justified, he is no less guilty.....

Nor is the bottom line unfair to deluded defendants who come before the court. What Georgia legalese drives home is that even if Trump pressured Raffensberger under the sincere belief that he’d won the state, it was wrong, indeed criminal, to twist the arm of the secretary of state to get him to alter the count. Trump’s lawful avenue of redress was the legal process and the state courts.

Litman also analyzes the intent issue for the fake electors and concludes that the belief that TFG won their states will not protect them from being convicted for forgery.

[gulliver]

3. Really good article. Thanks for posting

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. I really like Litman's analysis on the fake electors

These idiots are not going to get off easy

[PortTack]

5. Yes! This is just how deluded tfg is. Strengthening a case alright, just not his own!