The video was filmed before the election results had even been announced.

  • @davidalso
    link
    31 year ago

    Except weren’t they were claiming that mail-in ballots were potentially fraudulent for months before the election? This video doesn’t disprove anything if they claimed that ballots that had already been cast were illegal.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      Not that I’m aware of, but if so, that would just bolster the case of now additional, ironclad video evidence of intentional foreplanned election interference and manipulation.

      If their main defense is that the cries of election fraud were a result of a legitimate investigation but this video shows deliberate planning to cry fraud before the election even happened, that seems like a significant point against his legal defense, although the title is inflammatory and weird. Dooms?

      • @davidalso
        link
        11 year ago

        That’s the part that I don’t think is a strong argument though. They were crying fraud long before the election, e.g., saying that mail-in ballots were illegal, claiming people were stuffing drop-off, etc. None of it was valid, but their argument was well established before election day.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          There’s a difference between vague inflammatory remarks about how people can manipulate mail-in ballots during campaign speeches versus a political consultant to Trump detailing how exactly they plan to interfere and manipulate the results of a fair election if it doesn’t go their way.

          Any member of a board of directors may give a speech about how stock values might be compromised by valuable information and would likely not be criminally liable for speculation, but if one board member informs the rest about his intention to disclose private company information to the public in order to sway the markets, that is a criminal insider trading conspiracy that all board members could be held criminally liable for.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      The media are getting a bit hung up on this. Trump’s state of mind is entirely irrelevant. His actions are not.

      They’re not being prosecuted for stating that they believe fraud happened (or was happening). They’re perfectly entitled to say that whether they truly believe it or not. What they’re not entitled to do is bypass the courts, threaten officials, fraudulently access voting machines, fraudulently put forward fake electors, and so on. Stone is planning some of the illegal actions taken after the election here. This video is one of many pieces of evidence of an active conspiracy to subvert the election.

      • @davidalso
        link
        21 year ago

        Ah ok. Thank you. I think I was getting stuck on the timing, which did not seem particularly relevant.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I think intent is important, and if you can prove that they knew it was not stolen it is gonna be devastating for their case because it shutdown the whole premise of the defense. It would be a critical failure of defense.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          It really isn’t relevant. They’re not being prosecuted for saying untrue things, or things they believed to be false at the time. They’re being prosecuted for conspiracy to overturn the election.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Intent is very important. The lying part makes it a conspiracy and very illegal, and you can open the indictment yourself to verify. There is a whole section about it on page 6 of the Columbia indictment.