DJT indicted on four counts related to January 6

sparky polastry wrote:

Kokinho wrote:

Thanks man, finally someone answered my basic question. Don't know why the others couldn't do this, except that they're trying to be annoying.

Let me analyze what it says and why I think it destroys the case.

"The Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including:

a. At 2:38 p.m., "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"

b. At 3:13 p.m., "Ia m asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great mena nd women in Blue. Thank you!"

(End quote)

Now, here is the logical error. The indictment says that Trump falsely suggested the crowd was being peaceful. But that's not what happened because he was being prescriptive rather than descriptive. He was instructing them to be peaceful which is ultimately what this case is all about.

So it appears the indictment wrongly interpreted the Tweets, either intentionally or unintentionally. In either case I think that pretty much blows up the case, there is zero chance this will hold up.

-Koko

The indictment doesn't center around specific acts committed on January 6th. Incitement was not among the charges Trump was indicted for. Trump's actions and those of the co-conspirators on January 6th are presented as small pieces of supporting evidence that show behavior consistent with the alleged months long criminal conspiracy. It seems like the prosecutor is attempting to paint Trump's actions on January 6th in a particularly despicable light when viewed in conjuction with the mountain of evidence he will present supporting those criminal charges. Trump's tweets aren't central to the indictment.

Kokinho wrote:

Thanks man, finally someone answered my basic question. Don't know why the others couldn't do this, except that they're trying to be annoying.

Let me analyze what it says and why I think it destroys the case.

"The Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including:

a. At 2:38 p.m., "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"

b. At 3:13 p.m., "Ia m asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great mena nd women in Blue. Thank you!"

(End quote)

Now, here is the logical error. The indictment says that Trump falsely suggested the crowd was being peaceful. But that's not what happened because he was being prescriptive rather than descriptive. He was instructing them to be peaceful which is ultimately what this case is all about.

So it appears the indictment wrongly interpreted the Tweets, either intentionally or unintentionally. In either case I think that pretty much blows up the case, there is zero chance this will hold up.

-Koko

read the indictment wrote:

Kokinho wrote:

Thanks man, finally someone answered my basic question. Don't know why the others couldn't do this, except that they're trying to be annoying.

Let me analyze what it says and why I think it destroys the case.

"The Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including:

a. At 2:38 p.m., "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"

b. At 3:13 p.m., "Ia m asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great mena nd women in Blue. Thank you!"

(End quote)

Now, here is the logical error. The indictment says that Trump falsely suggested the crowd was being peaceful. But that's not what happened because he was being prescriptive rather than descriptive. He was instructing them to be peaceful which is ultimately what this case is all about.

So it appears the indictment wrongly interpreted the Tweets, either intentionally or unintentionally. In either case I think that pretty much blows up the case, there is zero chance this will hold up.

-Koko

You are hopeless. He was watching windows being shattered, officers being maced and attacked and congresspeople being ushered off for their lives on cable TV.

And then he tweets "stay peaceful and remain peaceful". And to you that does not qualify as "falsely suggesting that the crown was peaceful". And your reason is that he was being perspective instead of descriptive? Regardless. He was making a false claim. Right?

The indictment is 100% accurate and you are a pathetic partisan Trump apologizer.

present, esquire. wrote:

A professional observation here: Jack Smith managed to bring in indictments in both cases within about eight months of his being appointed special counsel. Considering the complexity of the cases and the mountains of material to go through--and the usual glacial pace of litigation--that really was quick work.

And I'll offer a personal opinion--with the provisos that my legal expertise is not criminal litigation, and that I have not done much more reading than the indictments themselves: I think the Jan. 6 indictments* are not as strong as the documents charges. In the documents case, the indictment itself provides almost all the detail you'd need: They've got him dead to rights. For Jan. 6, the indictment summarized a lot of details and the actual testimony in court will be crucial. Will be wild, so to speak.

*Distinguishing the indictments as such from the case itself. I think the Jan. 6 case actually looks very strong, but in places the indictment document only hints at the evidence, which will have to be fleshed out considerably during the trial.

read the indictment wrote:

present, esquire. wrote:

A professional observation here: Jack Smith managed to bring in indictments in both cases within about eight months of his being appointed special counsel. Considering the complexity of the cases and the mountains of material to go through--and the usual glacial pace of litigation--that really was quick work.

And I'll offer a personal opinion--with the provisos that my legal expertise is not criminal litigation, and that I have not done much more reading than the indictments themselves: I think the Jan. 6 indictments* are not as strong as the documents charges. In the documents case, the indictment itself provides almost all the detail you'd need: They've got him dead to rights. For Jan. 6, the indictment summarized a lot of details and the actual testimony in court will be crucial. Will be wild, so to speak.

*Distinguishing the indictments as such from the case itself. I think the Jan. 6 case actually looks very strong, but in places the indictment document only hints at the evidence, which will have to be fleshed out considerably during the trial.

Appreciate the professional opinion. Why do you think the co-conspirators are un-indicted at this point? Any theories?

sparky polastry wrote:

Kokinho wrote:

Thanks man, finally someone answered my basic question. Don't know why the others couldn't do this, except that they're trying to be annoying.

Let me analyze what it says and why I think it destroys the case.

"The Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including:

a. At 2:38 p.m., "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"

b. At 3:13 p.m., "Ia m asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great mena nd women in Blue. Thank you!"

(End quote)

Now, here is the logical error. The indictment says that Trump falsely suggested the crowd was being peaceful. But that's not what happened because he was being prescriptive rather than descriptive. He was instructing them to be peaceful which is ultimately what this case is all about.

So it appears the indictment wrongly interpreted the Tweets, either intentionally or unintentionally. In either case I think that pretty much blows up the case, there is zero chance this will hold up.

-Koko

The indictment doesn't center around specific acts committed on January 6th. Incitement was not among the charges Trump was indicted for.

read the indictment wrote:

Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:

"I read the indictment carefully. There is no smoking gun. There is no one who is credibly prepared to testify that Donald Trump said to him, 'I know personally, I lost the election.'

There is a lot of evidence a lot people told me he lost the election l, but you know Donald Trump and you, know he will make up his own mind. And they’ll have a very hard time proving it. District of Columbia - so 90 percent of the jury pool voted against him. So, they may actually get a conviction from a D.C. jury. But will survive appellate review and review in the Supreme Court? I do not think so."[/b] - Alan Dershowitz

It indeed looks like a very weak indictment.

LMAO! Alan freekin Douchewitz?

It does not matter what Trump believed. You cant implement the false electors scam or illegally stop a govt proceeding based on what you believe.

And he is forgetting the fact that Mike Pence is a star witness to all of that false election garbage.