Former President Donald Trump said in an interview that he received counsel from numerous people shortly after the 2020 election but that it was his decision to push the false claim he won the election and try to overturn the results.
There it is, plain as day. He literally just admitted to his crimes.
Here’s the thing… This new admission doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The prosecution have him on tape, when he didn’t know he was being recorded, admitting he lost the election. Multiple times, in fact.
So that aspect of the case is open-and-shut: He knew he lost, and he said as much multiple times.
Given that context, his recent statement comes off as an attempt to walk it back, by doubling down on the insane idea that he thought he needed to overturn the election. In making that “defense,” he fully admits to trying to overturn it. I fully expect the prosecution to use it as evidence that he did, in fact, commit the crime, while using the earlier recordings as context proving that he did, in fact, know he was committing a crime.
You should also read Jack Smith’s indictments, there are multiple cases where he was recorded saying things like, “As president, I could have declassified [referring to the documents he illegally kept], but now I can’t” - a tacit admission that he was no longer president.
Thanks for the link. All the down voted I’m getting suggest people think I am defending him, but I am just being a realist.
The link shows he acknowledged the US presidency moved on without him. However, he still maintains it was rigged.
That’s the rub, and that’s what the prosecutor has to show - Trump either knew or recklessly disregarded that the election was not rigged, and thus all his crazy actions were in bad faith.
Can the prosecutor prove that in court? Quite possibly. Is it the slam dunk that everyone in this thread seems to be celebrating? No.
Here’s the thing… This new admission doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The prosecution have him on tape, when he didn’t know he was being recorded, admitting he lost the election. Multiple times, in fact.
So that aspect of the case is open-and-shut: He knew he lost, and he said as much multiple times.
Given that context, his recent statement comes off as an attempt to walk it back, by doubling down on the insane idea that he thought he needed to overturn the election. In making that “defense,” he fully admits to trying to overturn it. I fully expect the prosecution to use it as evidence that he did, in fact, commit the crime, while using the earlier recordings as context proving that he did, in fact, know he was committing a crime.
Can you link me where he said he knew he lost in a valid election? I haven’t seen that yet. Thanks!
Ask and ye shall receive: He plainly admitted it in an interview with historians back in 2021.
You should also read Jack Smith’s indictments, there are multiple cases where he was recorded saying things like, “As president, I could have declassified [referring to the documents he illegally kept], but now I can’t” - a tacit admission that he was no longer president.
He knows he lost, and he knew back then.
Thanks for the link. All the down voted I’m getting suggest people think I am defending him, but I am just being a realist.
The link shows he acknowledged the US presidency moved on without him. However, he still maintains it was rigged.
That’s the rub, and that’s what the prosecutor has to show - Trump either knew or recklessly disregarded that the election was not rigged, and thus all his crazy actions were in bad faith.
Can the prosecutor prove that in court? Quite possibly. Is it the slam dunk that everyone in this thread seems to be celebrating? No.