interesting. On Alex Wagner they are discussing whether the Georgia case

[drray23]

is really provable. Even thought, Trump explicitly asked raffensberger for 11980 votes, he did not really say it was for cheating. He could have meant he thought it was a mistake and he really was asking raffensberger to correct the mistake. This goes to the intent.


For crying out loud, how much more does one need to be convicted of any crime if you are a powerfull rich person.
Apparently you really really have to mean it otherwise no big deal. Poor guy did not know...

[Haggis 4 Breakfast]

1. Somebody needs to go back and listen to the tape of that conversation.

trump knew damn well what he was asking and why he was asking for it.

I have about had it with these what-about-ism/let's hear both sides versions of shit masquerading as cogent discussions or news.

[wnylib]

6. +1000

[Midnight Writer]

2. TFG also seemed to imply that Raffensberger would face criminal investigation if he didn't.

Trump knew there were no missing votes. He was advised of this repeatedly. He knew Rudy and Co. were floating phony election fraud theories.

He was pressuring Raffensberger to cheat and threatening him if he didn't.

This phone call was not isolated. Raffensberger was expecting this call. That's why he recorded it.

[RockRaven]

3. That line of reasoning/defense doesn't work because elsewhere in the call TFG says he REALLY

won by half a million. He specifically says he's not asking for them all fixed, just the ~12K. But even that is a crime.

The crime is trying to get him to deliver any false result (not just a false result in a particular self-interested direction). And TFG was asking for a number which would be false based on reality AND false based on his claim of the "real" results. There is no coherent "he believed it to be true" defense because TFG clearly states what he believed to be true ( "I won by half a million" ), which wasn't the thing he was asking for ( "I'm just asking for 12K" ).

Of course, I'm only addressing the defense not being logical based on TFG's clearly spoken words and the law in question. That doesn't mean it won't be used by his lawyers, or accepted by the jury, or bandied about as reasonable or plausible by cable news dipshits.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. Interesting point!!!

[LiberalFighter]

4. I do not like Alex.

[republianmushroom]

5. 28 months and counting

Lot of investigation but no indictment except by one state.

[sarcasmo]

7. I always thought the recording in Georgia made this case a slam dunk, Oh well. Criming pays.

[CrispyQ]

12. The GA recording, the documents case, both slam dunks IMO.

But he's still grifting, spreading elections lies, & running for president again. We look weak to our allies.

[gab13by13]

8. This is why I only watch Nicolle Wallace,

she explained that scenario quite well. Nicolle asked the question, why do we treat Trump like a toddler who scribbles magic marker all over the walls and we want to know what his intent was.

DOJ should have led the way in the fake elector scheme, Georgia crimes, but Garland was late out of the gate.

[The Magistrate]

9. Someone, Sir, Needs To Review 'Reasonable Doubt'

It does not mean 'anything one can imagine that might have been so'. When the question is 'can't you change the vote total enough for me to win?' it is not necessary the speaker have added 'because I want to cheat and win' to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

[uponit7771]

11. +1

[DET]

10. I Am So Tired...

…of the infantilizing of this moron. Granted, he has the emotional maturity of a three year old and the IQ of a sandwich, but he knew damn well what he was asking for. No one would question what we were ‘really’ thinking in the same situation and what our intent was.

[uponit7771]

13. +1