Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

The only indictment that really should concern Trump is the one coming in GA...I don't think the Mar-A-Lago case is going to amount to much and he has a conservative judge and jury pool down there...

THe Mar-A-Lago case at least gives the prosecution an opportunity to apply specific conduct to a specific criminal statute in a predictable way. It's small potatoes, but it's credible.

I agree about the Georgia case. That has real damaging potential. I don't know what they can prove or not prove, but that's the one that would concern me -- and, honestly -- rightly so.

[iam416]

And, DSL, I'd encourage you to get out of the bubble on this one, read some opposing opinions and think about in something other than "Trump Bad" terms.

[THE_WIZARD_]

TDS

[Dr. Strangelove]

There is no law against being an offensive prick...otherwise DSL would have been in jail years ago...

Are there laws against fraud? Yes. The question is whether you think the fake electors scheme constituted fraud. "But I thought I was doing the right thing!" only gets you so far.

Witnesses for the Prosecution in this case are going to be vastly more credible than witnesses called by the Defense. And Trump's not going to be able to relitigate every single stupid claim of election fraud, despite what his loudmouth attorney claims on tv.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Is it against the law to lie to a federal judge as well? To Congress?

Hmmmm....gonna need a really big prison...for all the Democrats...

[Dr. Strangelove]

And, DSL, I'd encourage you to get out of the bubble on this one, read some opposing opinions and think about in something other than "Trump Bad" terms.

I will but ask you to do the same. Read this thread that possibly challenges some of your current assumptions about the case and the NRO Editorial.

[THE_WIZARD_]

"THEY'VE GOT HIM NOW!!!"

[iam416]

I can't read Twitter threads and I'm not really inclined to read Ryan Goodman's. I mean, I will if I have to, but you can find someone more credible than that.

[iam416]

And I read Supreme Court decisions on criminal fraud including the most recent one. And the NRO is wrong in using criminal fraud in the context of 371 fraud. It's two different things. BUT, the Court is definitely inclined toward the NRO's position. And in the context of 371, it's always statements to the government. In order to defraud the governemnt -- which is 371 -- you need to actually make a representation to the government that government relies on. That's fraud. Fraud is not merely lying.

So, if this theory holds, then statements that are false, that are not made to a government body, but which arguably may impede or obstruct the operation of a government function are subject to 371. I mean -- that's fucking bananas.

So, yeah -- the NRO is wrong on their assessment of fraud in that it applies only to tangible property -- 371 does not. But, that's not the end of the story.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I can't read Twitter threads and I'm not really inclined to read Ryan Goodman's. I mean, I will if I have to, but you can find someone more credible than that.

How about Jonathan Adler, fairly conservative law prof at Case Western? He seems to think the indictment has legitimacy and isn't frivolous. If he writes a full blown article about it I'll post it.

The first count, which is entirely about the Fake Electors, is the count that's the most serious. I don't think the thing is solid top to bottom but that first one can't be waved away out of hand.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Nothing you said in the first paragraph says how it's criminal. Everything you said in the firsst paragraph explains how it's bad and, presumably, how it ought to be criminal. But, "ought to be criminal" ain't the fucking standard. CRIMINAL is the standard.

OK, I get this. So, Smith's main job would be to "prove up" Trump and his co-conspirators violated 18 U.S.C.§ 371, Conspiracy against the United States, or conspiracy to defraud the United States. If he can prove that it would constitute CRIMINAL conduct I believe. My lay reading of the indictment makes me think Smith has laid out pretty clearly how he intends to do that. It does not appear to me to be "garbage." Am I missing something here?

[iam416]

The civil rights shit is bananas, too. The obstruction stuff could, I guess, stand up if you can prove the elements -- which will be really hard. I'll have to think more about that. My opinion on that is tentative at best.

[THE_WIZARD_]

The thing I read in the indictment that doesn't make sense to me...Smith references the 1/6 riot...yet he did not file charges for the riot to Trump...the riot should be irrelevant to the process...but he stuck that in there...is he going to add charges later?

[iam416]

OK, I get this. So, Smith's main job would be to "prove up" Trump and his co-conspirators violated 18 U.S.C.§ 371, Conspiracy against the United States, or conspiracy to defraud the United States. If he can prove that it would constitute CRIMINAL conduct I believe. My lay reading of the indictment makes me think Smith has laid out pretty clearly how he intends to do that. It does not appear to me to be "garbage." Am I missing something here?

Well it's a fraud case. There is no underlying offense against the US -- I mean, if there was it would have been alleged and he would have been indicted on it. So, it's a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Defraud, in this context, can mean prevent governmental operation. But, as mentioned, the fraud requires some sort of representation to defraud. I can tell any lie I want, but it only becomes fraud if and when I tell that lie to someone with the intent that they rely on that representation. As far as I can tell, this has always been about representations to the government. You basically lied to some agency or some official in the federal government. This is now, I think, being stretched to include any false statement that gets in the way of government operation.

Look, if you're not persuaded by an indictment then it's an awful an indictment. It SHOULD persuade you especially if you don't really think about the law.

I could be entirely wrong. I don't think I am, but hey -- it's happened before and it'll happen again.

[iam416]

DSL:

Adler is fine.