Trump lawyer John Lauro responded to the indictment news by admitting the crimes that Trump is charged with.
EDIT: Removed comment as requested.
The Conservative Credo:
That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.That sounds really familiar for some completely unknown reason.
It’s more commonly known as the Narcissist’s Prayer and gets mentioned a lot nowadays.
Apparently, you need a “/s” here, too. 🤪
Okay so there’s an aspect of law that’s really needs to be considered when we talk about this 3rd indictment. Motive. So Trump’s lawyers are asking the public to simply look at the actions that were taken. Which are questionable, needs a judge to iron out, but not massively culpable for the particular crimes Trump is being indicted on.
But when we look at what the DA is submitting before the judge, we see Trump talking, having arguments about knowing that what they are doing is questionable, and still continuing those things to elicit a much larger plan of delaying the counting of votes. This is where the conspiracy sets in.
It isn’t that the actions themselves warrant the greatest concern, it’s the underlying motive Trump had for doing the things he did that moves it into potentially criminal actions.
Like filing a lawsuit isn’t any kind of bad thing. But if you file a lawsuit knowing that you’re just doing it to enact some other aspect outside of justice for a perceived wrong, that’s a frivolous lawsuit or can be a violation of the False Claims Act. Say your former boyfriend or girlfriend accuses you of some crime because you broke up. Filing the lawsuit isn’t wrong in of itself, but when you consider the background details for why this lawsuit exists, oh boy are you in trouble now.
And that’s where we are at with Trump. His angry speech is just that, a speech, but when there’s emails going around indicating that Trump needs to fire up the group so they’ll go marching on the Capitol, and that during that invasion of the Capitol Trump will start calling key people to try and get different slates accepted to be counted. Well now all that combined, that’s the problem. No one thing in isolation is some massive “Oh no”, but all together and it begins to become clear that the entire point was to “convince by any means necessary” any hold outs to Trump’s idea of how the election should progress. That is a violation 18 USC §§ 1512©2.
From Trump’s lawyer:
What’s the unlawful means? There was an effort to get alternate electors, which is a protocol that was used in 1960 by John Kennedy. And it was a protocol that was constitutionally accepted
And the thing is, it isn’t that he just tried that. It’s that there is a stack of emails and text indicating that the people attempting to work with Trump to do that thing knew that they were doing something that wouldn’t be accepted by Congress, were told by members of Congress that they wouldn’t accept it, and that a “plan” to “convince them” that they should accept it was needed to get them to accept it. That’s the massive difference. It isn’t the action in isolation that’s at issue, it is Trump’s team indicating that they will need to, in broad terms, help convince members of Congress to accept that new slate. That’s interference. If you’ve cannot accept the answer and then motivate yourself to do things to change that answer you’ve already gotten, that’s interference. Just like you cannot just keep on, keeping on in a courtroom after a Judge has ruled. It’s over with, you got your answer.
So yeah, there’s an attempt by Trump’s lawyers to grossly simplify the conspiracy their client is currently facing. This is a pretty age old tacit of being a lawyer. It’s like those bad videos where people jump out of nowhere on purpose to be hit by a car, then attempt to sue the driver, and then they fail at their act. Yeah, you can simplify that as “oh well they’re just trying to cross the street…” But it’s the motive that drove them to do the thing they did, they were motivated to do something in the commission of highly questionable conduct for monetary gain. So maybe they we’re able to successfully convince the insurance you hit them or you had a dashcam. So technically speaking, they didn’t get away with it. But just because they didn’t actively defraud your insurance does not mean they did not still commit a crime.
That’s the really important aspect of these new charges. All of the actions in of themselves aren’t gross violations of the law, but they are manifest of a something deeper that was being carried out to defraud the US Government and overturn an election. That deeper part is what this indictment points out.
That’s an outstanding boiling-down of the complex legal issues involved here, both as to the indictment and the response by defense counsel. Smith’s team did an outstanding job formulating, framing, and executing this indictment, but as this NYTimes editorial argues, “Can Prosecutors Convince a Jury Trump Means Every Bonkers Thing He Says?”, (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/opinion/trump-indictment-fraud.html), it’s an open question whether it will suffice even so brilliantly done.
As we can see in Trump’s third indictment, he could not be trusted in that regard. His advisers were planning to stage a coup, and also preparing to use the military to quash protests if that coup failed.
What’s so batshit crazy about this is that the corporate news networks, covering this 24/7, never dwell on this for more than a second, if at all - which most don’t.
This is what they do. They get out ahead of bad news for him by announcing it themselves and downplaying the wrongdoing. They seek to control the narrative, normalize what he did, and plant seeds of doubt. When the consequences hit, his supporters will be outraged due to all this brainwashing.
I think they’re setting the stage for more Jan. 6 events.
FATHER: Please, please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who. We are here today to witness the union of two young people in the joyful bond of the holy wedlock. Unfortunately, one of them, my son Herbert, has just fallen to his death. But I think I’ve not lost a son, so much as… gained a daughter! For, since the tragic death of her father —
RANDOM: He’s not quite dead!
FATHER: Since the near fatal wounding of her father —
RANDOM: He’s getting better!
FATHER: For, since her own father… who, when he seemed about to recover, suddenly felt the icy hand of death upon him, —
[ugh]
RANDOM: Oh, he’s died!
FATHER: And I want his only daughter to look upon me… as her own dad — in a very real, and legally binding sense.He just wanted to get his hands on those huge tracts of land
they’re doing their best to cause as much chaos as possible, yeah… that’s all they’ve got… like comic book villains throwing babies out windows so Spidey can’t end their reign of terror…
Elections 101: at all costs, avoid an informed and rational electorate
It’s the right play politically. Consider if the roles were reversed.
If Bernie Sanders was arrested for breaking into Walmart headquarters and demanding they unionize, he’d absolutely say something like “It’s not about breaking the law, it’s about standing up for the millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet while the Walton family continues to amass wealth. That’s what this is about. It’s not about me, it’s about us.”
His supporters believe in his cause and they’d absolutely eat that up. I can understand why people support unionization and don’t really get why people are so into thuggish authoritarian rule - but if that’s what gets you up in the morning, then seeing Trump admit to this is surely exciting.
Why the fuck would Sanders break into Walmart hq? This is the dumbest both sides I’ve seen in a while
But it’s not a “both sides” argument. It’s an analogy intended to represent the thought process of Trump, his team, and the shitheads that follow him and may see this the same way a Bernie supporter might see Bernie doing something that he believes in. Obviously, what Trump did is a crime, and @grahamsz is just trying to point out what that might look like from another perspective. It seems you’ve jumped on this and feel as though he is trying to make an argument that both sides are shitty. It’s pretty clear just by reading it that he is not (assuming a user called graham is a “he”). You are arguing against something he’s not saying.
Thank you!
I also see a lot of gloating among the left wing that “haha, even trump’s lawyers admit he broke the law” like that means anything at all. This is a calculated move that tries to control the narrative and play into his delusion that he’s a poor oppressed hero who won’t give up the good fight.
Maybe that’s extreme, but i could totally have imagined him chaining himself to oil refinery gates or similar shenanigans (at least when he was younger).
I was trying to make the point that if you believe in a politician’s end goal, then the means are often justified. Trump’s supporters (for the most part) don’t want to see him weasel out of this by saying he didn’t try to subvert the election, they want him to say that it was imperative for the country that he do what he did, laws be damned.
I doubt it’s the best legal defense, but realistically he’s going to either be re-elected and pardon himself or he’ll drag this out until he dies. I don’t see any world in which he’s likely to wind up in prison.
There’s a massive difference between fighting for rights of the oppressed and having your sad wittle feewing huwt, and throwing a violent tantrum.
Bernie has historically fought for civil rights, and the rights of the underrepresented. Cheeto supreme and his idiot followers have nothing to be offended about so they fabricate drama. On top of the hate anything that isn’t white/me factor.
Not the same at all. Not even close. Good try though.
Oh absolutely agree 100%.
But if you do believe that Trumps end goals are laudable, then you are of course going to believe that it’s justifiable that he’d break the law to achieve them.
There are, undoubtedly, millions of people in this country who believe that thwarting the peaceful transfer of power is a small price to pay for their authoritarian dipshit leader… and it makes sense that he’d play to that population.
That’s a fair point, my mistake
deleted by creator
This is true too. There’s pics of him being arrested back in the pay floating around the interwebs.
Who are you arguing with?
Do you not have nested comments? Are you unclear on how forums work?
If they’re on kbin, I only recently - like yesterday - found the nested comments option. I’ve been using “classic” mode for months, where it is genuinely difficult to follow conversations. I could believe they don’t have nested comments like you’re asking and that the question was genuine.
Or they are just being obstenate like you implied.
Maybe that’s extreme, but i could totally have imagined him chaining himself to oil refinery gates
you’re unhinged and you’re unaware of it… if this news about Trump has you imagining Bernie doing crazy shit, you ARE the sickness… this isn’t Alex Jones’ Discord server you’re on here…
I read it as an analogy elsewhere that made a lot of sense to me.
I’d personally love to see trump in an orange jumpsuit for the rest of his life. However I genuinely believe that he’ll manage to convince millions of people that his means justify his goal.
It’s easy to look at the string of charges and indictments and assume he’s unelectable, but a lot of people are going to look at this like it’s a legitimate form of civil disobedience. I’m not, in any way, trying to suggest that his actions are comparable to “unlawful” climate protests or civil rights protests. But I do think he’s posturing to make that claim and continue his narrative of persecution.
i’m just going to throw holy water on you and tell you to begone
It’s fun to completely make shit up about other people, isn’t it?
I was trying to come up with a hamfisted analogy and clearly missed the mark.
I’m pretty sure Bernie has actually been arrested at civil rights protest, so that’s probably a better example. I actually think that makes him more qualified to be president.
Presumably trump enthusiasts feel similarly about his mounting list of felonies. I think that should immediately disqualify him from being considered as a candidate, but a lot of people obviously don’t and I have to assume that’s because they believe in authoritarian psuedo-dictatorship in the same way I believe in civil rights.
I think it was a good point. It was just misinterpreted by someone who is hoping to get into an argument, I think. :)
deleted by creator
Consider if the roles were reversed.
i won’t consider any of that, because it’s completely divorced from reality
I think you have your head in the sand.
In a rational world this would completely shatter his chances for any presidential nomination from a major party (or probably the first indictment would)
However, there are a good number of people who believe so firmly in trump that they’ll view this in exactly the same light as a left wing leader being arrested at a civil rights protest or admitting they smoked weed. To them this is a feather in his cap, it burnishes his credentials as being anti-establishment and proves whatever batshit conspiracy theories he’s spouting.
I think democrats are too quick to overlook that risk and I think that’s dangerous.
you have your head in the sand.
son, your head is inside a bucket of crabs, riding a Tilt-o-Whirl
It isn’t really .
.
It’s a good point clumsily made.
We all know that Bernie’s arguments have always been sincere and fact based. We know that Trumps are dishonest and held for his convenience, but the magas Don’t know or don’t care
It’s a good point clumsily made.
i disagree
I think they’re setting the stage for more Jan. 6 events
FAFO. The Capitol police won’t be hamstrung this time & will have their sub-machine guns.
Events don’t have to happen at the capital. Local governments could have problems. We’d have fewer problems if Republican leaders were more willing to throw Trump under the bus instead of trying to court his base.
The magats won’t be taking selfies this time either though. We’re about to see what real political instability looks like.
Can they learn, though?
It’s a dangerous move to assume your enemy doesn’t learn from their mistakes.
Not necessarily learning what we’d like them to, though
Hi @gonzoleroy. Your submission is missing a label in the title. We also ask that users don’t pontificate in the body of the submission. Start the conversation by adding the first comment. Use the body to share a few paragraphs copy and pasted from the story.
Please refer to our community guidelines and submission rules here: https://kbin.social/m/politics/t/239165/If-you-cannot-access-the-sidebar-please-read-our-community
Done, I’ll use the guidelines if I post again. Take care!
Team Trump, only the best… 🙃
Removed by mod
You ok, puppy?
