The Trump Crime Family - Legal Issues

[RickeyM]

Will this be like that big beautiful healthcare plan or infrastructure week or the evidence of that widespread voter fraud or his tax returns? Asking for a friend. I think they better put a tracking device on his jet ASAP!

[Rajoo]

For a MAGAt, only Trump tells the truth and you know why? Because its Trump or none.
So when he says he will be exonerated, he will be by the MAGAts.

Like Bible thumpers that quote the Bible as if its the only truth and I always ask, "do you know who wrote the Bible and in what language?". Total silence.

You may be born a bit slow on the uptake, but you willingly choose to be ignorant.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Once again, you (deliberately?) miss the entire point. These overt acts were not charged as crimes.

And you can't read. I stated that I understood that RICO charges often have a laundry list of "acts". I did not state that the "acts" were crimes.

Here's the question that I was asking, again:

And yes, I get the fact that a RICO charge is usually a laundry list of "acts". But at what point is a speech a first amendment right, and at what point does it become and overt act?

At what point is a tweet protected speech versus an overt act? It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that, for example, the tweet was conspiratorial, correct? It seems that it would be tough to prove that a public tweet directed at no one in particular was "an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."

Originally Posted by finnbow

Let me make it easy on you - in the Timothy McVeigh/Terry Nichols criminal conspiracy to blow up the Murrow Federal Bldg in OKC, renting a truck, buying ammonium nitrate fertilizer and fuel oil, and scouting the building were all individually legal acts but were overt acts in support of the larger conspiracy. See how that works?

You couldn't have picked a worse analogy. You're comparing speech that is protected under the first amendment with an "act" that ended up killing people.

If you're going to claim that protected speech was part of an intention to change the outcome of an election, then you have to set a whole bunch of competing evidence aside and conclude that Trump's state of mind - beginning on election night - was intending to further a conspiracy to "knowingly and willfully join a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump".

Seems like a pretty big hill for the prosecution to climb.

[Rajoo]

^^So Trump's state of mind on election night was that he won?
And how did he come to this conclusion?
Because he believed that the election was rigged?
So who rigged the election and where is the evidence? There is none.

So if there is no evidence, why would he continue to believe that he won?

Can I lie in a court of law and claim that I believe it to be the truth?
Is that how alternative facts work in a court of law?

[Rajoo]

This is how Trump came to believe that he won the election.
Note, Melania is a witness, rest are questionable.

[Chicks]

Well, at least this has gotten the village idiot off his absurd Hunter crusade for a bit. Lol.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You couldn't have picked a worse analogy. You're comparing speech that is protected under the first amendment with an "act" that ended up killing people.

My point was that an overt act (including speech), even if legal, is something that supports the conspiracy and telling lies can most certainly support a fraud conspiracy. Indeed, lies are an integral element of criminal fraud (defined as "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain"). In short, telling lies may well be "protected speech" (i.e., you may have the right to lie) but a lie in the furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud is not "protected speech," it's evidence. Similarly, perjury, witness tampering, threats of bodily harm, and bilking seniors out of their savings (all things Trump does too) involve speech, but they're still crimes.

If you're going to claim that protected speech was part of an intention to change the outcome of an election, then you have to set a whole bunch of competing evidence aside and conclude that Trump's state of mind - beginning on election night - was intending to further a conspiracy to "knowingly and willfully join a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump".

Seems like a pretty big hill for the prosecution to climb.

Again, speech used as an integral part of a fraud scheme is not "protected speech." It's a element of the crime.

I'll defer to Fani's words in the leading paragraph of the indictment.

Defendant Donald John Trump lost the United States presidential election held on November 3, 2020. One of the states he lost was Georgia. Trump and the other Defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump. That conspiracy contained a common plan and purpose to commit two or more acts of racketeering activity in Fulton County, Georgia, elsewhere in the State of Georgia, and in other states.

As I noted above, 161 overt acts were provided that supported the conspiracy, 40 of which were illegal acts. All Fani has to do is prove 2 of the 40 to make the RICO charges stick and she doesn't need to prove a single one of the 121 overt acts that weren't illegal, just illustrative/supportive. They just help tell the story.

[RickeyM]

Is it just me or is whell sounding like tRump's defense team. Parroting Reich-wing media talking points will do that to ya' I guess.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Is it just me or is whell sounding like tRump's defense team. Parroting Reich-wing media talking points will do that to ya' I guess.

Eighty+ criminal felony indictments and a MAGAt says, I really don't see a crime here, or if he did commit one its not a crime because he is our President.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Eighty+ criminal felony indictments and a MAGAt says, I really don't see a crime here, or if he did commit one its not a crime because he is our President.

91 felony counts ... and counting. All other presidents have a total of zero.

OTOH, every President had an average of two felony indictments due solely to Trump.