General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Intent", still not quite there.
Last edited Fri Jun 17, 2022, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)
That's another paraphrased Chuck Rosenberg comment relative to prosecuting Trump. We think we've seen "intent" proven but he says not yet. Most every time he's on a MSNBC daytime drama, he tries to explain what you know is not necessarily what you can prove. Below is from some previous commentary but the topic comment was from today, relative to Trump's intent to stop the Jan 6 electoral count.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/02/24/trump-legal-future-new-lawyers-could-defend-him-better-column/4551618001/
Midnight Writer
(21,548 posts)You go to court and explain to the judge that your speedometer showed you were speeding, but you didn't believe it was correct.
Your passengers were yelling at you to slow down, but you thought they were just whiners.
You were passing other cars like they were standing still, but you figured they were all just driving too slow.
So, is the judge going to let you off for speeding because you didn't have "intent"?
Karadeniz
(22,280 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I remember just the other day, a phone materialized in my hand, and Brad Raffensperger was on the other end of the line. It was just the damnedest thing. We shot the breeze, made some small talk and then, for reasons I still can't fathom, I named an oddly specific number of votes I wanted him to "find" from the returns of the 2020 election. There's just no explanation for it!
moniss
(3,949 posts)because the criminal standard will be "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you had a tape then fine but mounds of testimony and evidence give enough to indict and try. Remember of course that even if you had a tape of the Orange Ruski clearly speaking his intent a rogue juror may nullify the whole thing no matter what.