The Jan 6 committee testimony of Trump inner circle sycophants and enablers established that Trump was told repeatedly that his accusations of voter fraud (sufficient to change the outcome of the election) were not supported by the evidence. Hearings also established that Trump was told the same by appointed government experts in electio…
The Jan 6 committee testimony of Trump inner circle sycophants and enablers established that Trump was told repeatedly that his accusations of voter fraud (sufficient to change the outcome of the election) were not supported by the evidence. Hearings also established that Trump was told the same by appointed government experts in election security - and that the evidence supported the outcome of the election.
Jack Smith will have to establish Trump's intent to defraud. That Trump knew he had lost and conspired to overturn the election.
The difference between 'knowledge' and 'belief' may be significant. What might it say of Trump - and importantly what are the legal implications - that Trump was given sufficient and significant information to know and continued to peddle erroneous assertions of voter fraud.
The introduction of 'belief' into government procedures - and as a result that irrationality has come to replace reasoned debate of empirical evidence - is another of the dangerous results of breaking down the wall between church and state. The Founders brought God into the Declaration to authorize their replacing the Divine Right of Kings with their idea of equality. And then in the Constitution they wisely walled religion off.
Another of the great harms purposefully committed by Leonard Leo (through his corruption of the Federalist Society and federal courts) is to propound/establish a novel and unsupported notion that any personal religious sentiment outweighs all our shared civil rights. Of course, a government which cannot protect equality before the law and equal representation will not be able to institute a system of equitable taxation. Leo's efforts have less to do with the church than with the Koch et al cash.
Leo's and the GOP's repurposing a democratic republic as a clerical fascist state is simply instituting a particular form of authoritarianism by winning racist right wing religious extremist votes to preserve economic injustice which privileges the plutocrats giving Leo the money to unburden them of the regulations and responsibilities of democracy.
Debunked notions of originalism, textualism, and natural law are just a ruse. Like claims of non existent fraud used to institute voter suppression. The ultimate iteration of which is overturning legitimate elections. As Trump failed to do through insurrection but DeSantis is trying to do by removing democratically elected Democratic officials.
Lin, you make this point: The difference between 'knowledge' and 'belief' may be significant. What might it say of Trump - and importantly what are the legal implications - that Trump was given sufficient and significant information to know and continued to peddle erroneous assertions of voter fraud.
So, what is one to do? The court will instruct the jury to apply "the reasonable person standard." Under the circumstances, what would a reasonable person conclude the facts to be? Trump cannot get away by claiming to being "the dumbest person in the country" and therefore he didn't really know that he had lost the election.
"Jack Smith will have to establish Trump's intent to defraud. That Trump knew he had lost and conspired to overturn the election."
Agreed.
As I watched the election debacle unfold, leading toward the Jan. 6 travesty, it seemed clear that Trump believed that the election had been stolen.
I never went that far, but I continue to consider the possibility. The charges against him now give him the "discovery" subpoena power that he never had in December 2020. How might he make use of that, and how much will be allowed by the judge? I suspect that we're in for more than a bit of pre-trial legal drama.
lin, you write that "Trump was told repeatedly that his accusations of voter fraud (sufficient to change the outcome of the election) were not supported by the evidence." That brings up the question of who, if anyone, might have credibly told him otherwise. Presidents have sources of information, including classified reports, that are not available to campaign workers and legal activists in the hinterland.
lin, you mentioned Leonard Leo and the libertarian Federalist Society.
As I understand, the political thinking of Libertarians and Tea Party conservatives and Bush Leaguers and deplorable Trumpish rednecks lacks a principle of benevolence or active concern for the well-being of others. Libertarians are particularly noxious in this regard because they pretend that their recycled British liberalism was what the American Founders thought.
Iin, you mentioned DeSantis removing democratically elected Democratic officials. This comes in the wake of his "slit their throats" reference to Deep State government workers:
Now perhaps this was just hyperbole and his sacking of that liberal prosecutor was a good example of what he was really thinking. But that presupposes that Mr. Yale-and-Harvard DeSantis is stupid enough to not realize that voters are turned off by talk of slitting throats.
The alternative possibility is that DeSantis is not really trying to court voters, but signalling to the Big Boys that he's ready to be their man in the White House, the man who knows where the bodies are buried because he helped put them there.
"The Founders brought God into the Declaration to authorize their replacing the Divine Right of Kings with their idea of equality. And then in the Constitution they wisely walled religion off."
I respectfully disagree, without needing to argue. Here is my understanding:
The Founders supported the age-old English constitutional principles of the rule of law and consent of the governed. (*Ahem* Bracton, Fortescue, St. Germain and Coke.)
The Declaration of Independence's reference to "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" was simultaneously an embrace of the cornerstone of traditional English jurisprudence (natural law) and a rejection of that second cornerstone of English jurisprudence, the "Law of God" (canon law, found in the ecclesiastical courts that once had power of life and death over accused heretics).
The Jan 6 committee testimony of Trump inner circle sycophants and enablers established that Trump was told repeatedly that his accusations of voter fraud (sufficient to change the outcome of the election) were not supported by the evidence. Hearings also established that Trump was told the same by appointed government experts in election security - and that the evidence supported the outcome of the election.
Jack Smith will have to establish Trump's intent to defraud. That Trump knew he had lost and conspired to overturn the election.
The difference between 'knowledge' and 'belief' may be significant. What might it say of Trump - and importantly what are the legal implications - that Trump was given sufficient and significant information to know and continued to peddle erroneous assertions of voter fraud.
The introduction of 'belief' into government procedures - and as a result that irrationality has come to replace reasoned debate of empirical evidence - is another of the dangerous results of breaking down the wall between church and state. The Founders brought God into the Declaration to authorize their replacing the Divine Right of Kings with their idea of equality. And then in the Constitution they wisely walled religion off.
Another of the great harms purposefully committed by Leonard Leo (through his corruption of the Federalist Society and federal courts) is to propound/establish a novel and unsupported notion that any personal religious sentiment outweighs all our shared civil rights. Of course, a government which cannot protect equality before the law and equal representation will not be able to institute a system of equitable taxation. Leo's efforts have less to do with the church than with the Koch et al cash.
Leo's and the GOP's repurposing a democratic republic as a clerical fascist state is simply instituting a particular form of authoritarianism by winning racist right wing religious extremist votes to preserve economic injustice which privileges the plutocrats giving Leo the money to unburden them of the regulations and responsibilities of democracy.
Debunked notions of originalism, textualism, and natural law are just a ruse. Like claims of non existent fraud used to institute voter suppression. The ultimate iteration of which is overturning legitimate elections. As Trump failed to do through insurrection but DeSantis is trying to do by removing democratically elected Democratic officials.
Lin, you make this point: The difference between 'knowledge' and 'belief' may be significant. What might it say of Trump - and importantly what are the legal implications - that Trump was given sufficient and significant information to know and continued to peddle erroneous assertions of voter fraud.
So, what is one to do? The court will instruct the jury to apply "the reasonable person standard." Under the circumstances, what would a reasonable person conclude the facts to be? Trump cannot get away by claiming to being "the dumbest person in the country" and therefore he didn't really know that he had lost the election.
(Part 5)
lin, you wrote:
"Jack Smith will have to establish Trump's intent to defraud. That Trump knew he had lost and conspired to overturn the election."
Agreed.
As I watched the election debacle unfold, leading toward the Jan. 6 travesty, it seemed clear that Trump believed that the election had been stolen.
I never went that far, but I continue to consider the possibility. The charges against him now give him the "discovery" subpoena power that he never had in December 2020. How might he make use of that, and how much will be allowed by the judge? I suspect that we're in for more than a bit of pre-trial legal drama.
(finished)
(Part 4)
lin, you write that "Trump was told repeatedly that his accusations of voter fraud (sufficient to change the outcome of the election) were not supported by the evidence." That brings up the question of who, if anyone, might have credibly told him otherwise. Presidents have sources of information, including classified reports, that are not available to campaign workers and legal activists in the hinterland.
(Part 3)
lin, you mentioned Leonard Leo and the libertarian Federalist Society.
As I understand, the political thinking of Libertarians and Tea Party conservatives and Bush Leaguers and deplorable Trumpish rednecks lacks a principle of benevolence or active concern for the well-being of others. Libertarians are particularly noxious in this regard because they pretend that their recycled British liberalism was what the American Founders thought.
(Part 2)
Iin, you mentioned DeSantis removing democratically elected Democratic officials. This comes in the wake of his "slit their throats" reference to Deep State government workers:
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/04/ron-desantis-slitting-throats-federal-jobs-president-campaign
Now perhaps this was just hyperbole and his sacking of that liberal prosecutor was a good example of what he was really thinking. But that presupposes that Mr. Yale-and-Harvard DeSantis is stupid enough to not realize that voters are turned off by talk of slitting throats.
The alternative possibility is that DeSantis is not really trying to court voters, but signalling to the Big Boys that he's ready to be their man in the White House, the man who knows where the bodies are buried because he helped put them there.
(Part 1 of maybe 4 or 5)
lin, you write:
"The Founders brought God into the Declaration to authorize their replacing the Divine Right of Kings with their idea of equality. And then in the Constitution they wisely walled religion off."
I respectfully disagree, without needing to argue. Here is my understanding:
The Founders supported the age-old English constitutional principles of the rule of law and consent of the governed. (*Ahem* Bracton, Fortescue, St. Germain and Coke.)
The Declaration of Independence's reference to "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" was simultaneously an embrace of the cornerstone of traditional English jurisprudence (natural law) and a rejection of that second cornerstone of English jurisprudence, the "Law of God" (canon law, found in the ecclesiastical courts that once had power of life and death over accused heretics).
Lin,
You bring up some points that are well worth responding to, but I'll have to wait several hours.