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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Agreed. I’m just pointing out that people need to focus on the latter rather than the former.
Definitely