I did and I’m not arguing he’s actually innocent. I’m arguing that I’m not aware of any evidence that would meet the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal legal proceeding. What evidence is there that you think is watertight enough to win a conviction?
When you look at the totality of evidence including pressuring state officials to overturn their elections, pressuring Pence to exceed his authority, the fake elector scheme, conspiring with proud boys and oath keepers to invade the capital, and much else it would be impossible for any reasonable person to have a doubt that trump knew what he was doing and would have done even worse if those in his immediate orbit hadn’t stopped him.
His secret service detail had to ignore his direct orders to drive him to the Capitol building in Jan 6 for God’s sake. Can you imagine if they hadn’t?
I understand all that and don’t disagree with it. It’s just my impression of our legal system that you have to prove the defendant actually did the specific thing you’re charging them with, and I think Trump has been smart enough to walk just up to the line, but refrain from putting his toe on it. No matter how obvious it is that he wanted what happened on J6 to occur, the prosecution would have to prove he actually had a hand in making it happen. And not just indirectly, but directly. It sucks, but this is how corrupt CEOs get away with illegal shit all the fucking time: they make sure there’s no actual evidence they had a direct hand in their crimes. Trump is very good at this. He uses his rhetoric to make tongue-in-cheek gestures that his radical supporters understand as orders, but which aren’t explicitly orders. My admittedly non-expert understanding of our legal system is that this makes convicting him very difficult.
Now, the Georgia case is much more watertight, from what I can tell, and I really hope they nail him to the wall with that one. I just don’t think the evidence is quite there for J6. Which is too bad. I’d love to see him go to prison over that. But I don’t think he will.
Perhaps with trump will be different (because of privileges) but in criminal trials “beyond reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean the person was caught red handed. The vast majority of cases are decided on circumstantial evidence.
I mean given the things we already know, which is likely small piece of what came up during the special counsel investigation, do you have any reasonable doubt this wasn’t planned?
I think any normal person would be already toast with that evidence, although he does have special treatment. I mean even when he got the indictment he didn’t get a mug shot, discussing bail or even surrendering his passport. Who else would be treated that way?
Well thankfully you are not a federal prosecutor who has reviewed all the available evidence (much of which I imagine we are not privy to, yet) and decided there is sufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant criminal charges
I imagine anyone litigating an ex president for the first time in US history isn’t going to throw out charges hoping one satisfies your arm chair criteria of “beyond a reasonable doubt”
Did you not watch the house committee on January 6th hearings? You should. The evidence is significant and damning.
Can you please provide a tl;dw?
Conspiracy to overturn the election.
Not really. It was multiple sessions going of like two hours a pop.
I did and I’m not arguing he’s actually innocent. I’m arguing that I’m not aware of any evidence that would meet the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal legal proceeding. What evidence is there that you think is watertight enough to win a conviction?
When you look at the totality of evidence including pressuring state officials to overturn their elections, pressuring Pence to exceed his authority, the fake elector scheme, conspiring with proud boys and oath keepers to invade the capital, and much else it would be impossible for any reasonable person to have a doubt that trump knew what he was doing and would have done even worse if those in his immediate orbit hadn’t stopped him.
His secret service detail had to ignore his direct orders to drive him to the Capitol building in Jan 6 for God’s sake. Can you imagine if they hadn’t?
I understand all that and don’t disagree with it. It’s just my impression of our legal system that you have to prove the defendant actually did the specific thing you’re charging them with, and I think Trump has been smart enough to walk just up to the line, but refrain from putting his toe on it. No matter how obvious it is that he wanted what happened on J6 to occur, the prosecution would have to prove he actually had a hand in making it happen. And not just indirectly, but directly. It sucks, but this is how corrupt CEOs get away with illegal shit all the fucking time: they make sure there’s no actual evidence they had a direct hand in their crimes. Trump is very good at this. He uses his rhetoric to make tongue-in-cheek gestures that his radical supporters understand as orders, but which aren’t explicitly orders. My admittedly non-expert understanding of our legal system is that this makes convicting him very difficult.
Now, the Georgia case is much more watertight, from what I can tell, and I really hope they nail him to the wall with that one. I just don’t think the evidence is quite there for J6. Which is too bad. I’d love to see him go to prison over that. But I don’t think he will.
Perhaps with trump will be different (because of privileges) but in criminal trials “beyond reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean the person was caught red handed. The vast majority of cases are decided on circumstantial evidence.
I mean given the things we already know, which is likely small piece of what came up during the special counsel investigation, do you have any reasonable doubt this wasn’t planned?
I think any normal person would be already toast with that evidence, although he does have special treatment. I mean even when he got the indictment he didn’t get a mug shot, discussing bail or even surrendering his passport. Who else would be treated that way?
Well thankfully you are not a federal prosecutor who has reviewed all the available evidence (much of which I imagine we are not privy to, yet) and decided there is sufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant criminal charges
I imagine anyone litigating an ex president for the first time in US history isn’t going to throw out charges hoping one satisfies your arm chair criteria of “beyond a reasonable doubt”