Special Counsel January 6 conspiracy case against Trump in DC (Update: Trial set for March 4, 2024) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Trump and Eastman appear to be preparing to be indicted. It’s probably better to have a new, separate thread for this case.

 

[coldseat]

That's not a response to my post. If you want to say something ridiculous use your own words.

 

[UriUT]

This guy normally does some lawyers react to x - law movies. He’s entertaining and does a reasonable job of explaining procedures and the law. Here he does a really good for dummies explanation of the trump Jan 6th indictment. About 20 mins if you skip his promotion stuff….he has to get paid.

 

[UriUT]

Can one of our fine legal minds put this into layman's terms?

Wow. She may have disclosed bedminster investigations.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This guy normally does some lawyers react to x - law movies. He’s entertaining and does a reasonable job of explaining procedures and the law. Here he does a really good for dummies explanation of the trump Jan 6th indictment. About 20 mins if you skip his promotion stuff….he has to get paid.

For real. I love Legal Eagle. Devin is great at breaking things down for everyone to understand.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Wow. She may have disclosed bedminster investigations.

That's kind of what I was wondering. If he took documents to Bedminster (or anywhere else), would it make sense for Smith to use a grand jury in the district and then just pile it all onto the Florida case?

 

[UriUT]

That's kind of what I was wondering. If he took documents to Bedminster (or anywhere else), would it make sense for Smith to use a grand jury in the district and then just pile it all onto the Florida case?

One would think so. I wonder if she’s trying to separate the audio from the mar a lago documents case by telling doj to prosecute there?

 

[UriUT]

For real. I love Legal Eagle. Devin is great at breaking things down for everyone to understand.

Yeah he”s great. Love the a few good men review.

Also, I saw this a few days ago, but since he did such a good breakdown on why this indictment isn’t about free speech, I thought it pertinent considering the direction of this thread. And the reason to exclude the insurrection incitement charge.

 

[MT15]

Yeah he”s great. Love the a few good men review.

Also, I saw this a few days ago, but since he did such a good breakdown on why this indictment isn’t about free speech, I thought it pertinent considering the direction of this thread. And the reason to exclude the insurrection incitement charge.

Yep, those stupid arguments had all been debunked by the time SFL got around to posting them. He evidently doesn’t read, just posts. And posts. And spamming is when he reposts things numerous times rather than use his own words. Even today he did it. He posts the tweet and he posts a transcript of the tweet. Dude, we can read, no need to duplicate it.

 

[SaintForLife]

Yep, those stupid arguments had all been debunked by the time SFL got around to posting them. He evidently doesn’t read, just posts. And posts. And spamming is when he reposts things numerous times rather than use his own words. Even today he did it. He posts the tweet and he posts a transcript of the tweet. Dude, we can read, no need to duplicate it.

You've been super spamming this thread according to your criteria. Stop your hypocritical whining.

Can you post a summary of about why he claimed it wasn't a free speech issue and why they excluded the incitement to insurrection? Hard to watch an hour long video while I'm at work.

 

[SaintForLife]

That's not a response to my post. If you want to say something ridiculous use your own words.

Why didn't he indict Trump for incitement of the insurrection? I can't wait for the excuses for this especially considering how often the media, democrats, and many here talked about insurrection over and over and over.

 

[bird]

You've been super spamming this thread according to your criteria. Stop your hypocritical whining.

Can you post a summary of about why he claimed it wasn't a free speech issue and why they excluded the incitement to insurrection? Hard to watch an hour long video while I'm at work.

Wait until you’re home.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is a long thread about why what Trump’s lawyers say is junk:

 

[MT15]

You've been super spamming this thread according to your criteria. Stop your hypocritical whining.

Can you post a summary of about why he claimed it wasn't a free speech issue and why they excluded the incitement to insurrection? Hard to watch an hour long video while I'm at work.

I already did - but I will again. At the risk of being accused of spamming, lol.

 

[bird]

Why didn't he indict Trump for incitement of the insurrection? I can't wait for the excuses for this especially considering how often the media, democrats, and many here talked about insurrection over and over and over.

Ever serve on a grand jury? Then you can answer your own question.

 

[MT15]

SFL: Plus we have seen evidence that the conspirators knew what they were doing is illegal while they were doing it. That came out during the Jan 6 committee investigation. And they (the conspirators) lied to the fake electors to get them to sign. They told them they would never submit these fake certificates unless the legislatures overturned the real ones, then they submitted them anyway. So we will see how the various state courts treat the fake electors - they aren’t being charged in federal court (yet) anyway, so Tracey seems to be trying to muddy the waters with all this talk about them. It seems some of them were duped, and some were smart enough to alter their fake documents to give themselves an out. They aren’t part of these charges anyway.

Tracey isn’t being honest here. And there Isn’t a charge of forgery - so I’m not sure that has any relevance here.

 

[MT15]

From a Yahoo article:

• When the Jan. 6 House committee formally referred Trump for criminal charges last year, insurrection was one of the counts included. It would allege that Trump was directly involved in the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6. But including that charge would’ve complicated the case and been harder to prove than the broader conspiracy charges, Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, writes in Slate. “That narrowing increases the prospects for a pre-election trial.”
• One of the reasons an insurrection charge could be complicated: Prosecutors would have to rely on Trump’s speech the day of the riot to prove he was encouraging a riot. That kind of argument could face “potentially tricky First Amendment issues,” former assistant U.S. attorney Randall Eliason writes in The New York Times. Those legal disputes “would have been time-consuming and distracting because the speech could be easily characterized as a political rally.”
• The charge of “conspiracy against rights,” a civil rights law that prohibitstrying to deprive someone of their right to vote, can serve as a more straightforward stand-in for an insurrection charge, which is rarely brought in court. The conspiracy charge, on the other hand, has been successfully tested. —

 

[MT15]

Plus someone else on Twitter made the point that valid exercises of rights are not normally conducted in secrecy. All of their plotting was done away from the WH counsels, and other government agents who would have opposed their illegal schemes.

 

[coldseat]

Why didn't he indict Trump for incitement of the insurrection? I can't wait for the excuses for this especially considering how often the media, democrats, and many here talked about insurrection over and over and over.

I don't really know what special prosectuter Jack Smith considered in the charges he brought or didn't bring. I wasn't in the room and I'm not a lawyer. If I go just by what I've read on the subject, it's because what Trump was charged with was more straight forward and easier to prove in a court of law with the evidenced they've gathered. Regardless, the choice not to bring those charges (yet ... who knows, there may be a superceding indicitment with those charges) doesn't have any bearing on Trump's guilt or innocent for what he is charged with.

Also, just personally speaking, I didn't need a court or prosecuter 2 years ago to tell me that what Trump attempted was an insurrection and I don't need one now. All the evidence that has come out since that time only reinforces that Trump attempted an insurrection. Your (and other Trump supporters) willful ignorance also doesn't change that.