Election Investigations

[Szdfan]

Trump can believe whatever he wants. Trump can say whatever he wants. There's a legal process for challenging votes and getting recounts. What Trump and his supporters cannot do is go outside of that legal framework to get the results they want. The violent attack on the Capitol on January 6 to force a delay of Congressional certification of the vote was illegal. The harassment and intimidation of election workers was illegal. The attempt by Trump supporters to hack into voting machines was illegal.

But when Donald Trump told Raffensberger that he had a "big risk" of criminal prosecution if he did not change the election results, that kind of lie is clearly illegal under Georgia law:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/opin ... -case.html

Simply put, while you might be able to lie to the public in Georgia — or even lie to public officials on matters outside the scope of their duties — when you lie to state officials about important or meaningful facts in matters they directly oversee, you’re going to risk prosecution. That’s exactly what the indictment claims Trump and his confederates did, time and time again, throughout the election challenge.

The most striking example is detailed in Act 113 of the indictment, which charges Trump with making a series of false statements to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and his deputies in Trump’s notorious Jan. 2, 2021, telephone call. Most legal commentators, myself included, focused on that call because it contained a not-so-veiled threat against Raffensperger and his counsel. In recorded comments, Trump told them they faced a “big risk” of criminal prosecution because he claimed they knew about election fraud and were taking no action to stop it.

Willis’s focus, by contrast, is not on the threats but rather on the lies. And when you read the list of Trump’s purported lies, they are absolutely incredible. His claims aren’t just false; they’re transparently, incandescently stupid. This was not a sophisticated effort to overturn the election. It was a shotgun blast of obvious falsehoods.

Most of Trump's lies or Biden's lies are not criminal. This one was.

Absolutely. I would classify Trump's attempt to intimidate Raffensberger as an action. It's not just simply belief or speech -- it's an attempt to pressure an elected official to do what you want them to do.

[Robert]

Please go and list the lies (with public records/evidence of the lies being said and evidence showing how they are lies) in the threads provided for such evidence... This is a thread about Trump and Trumpism's lies and felony criminal behavior related to their response to results of the 2020 election.

No it is not nor is it your place to tell someone else what they can and can not post.

[temporal1]

What about when people lie to the American people and claim the election was stolen through systematic election fraud when they know full well that it was not?

He believed it was stolen. You "think" he knew full well it wasn't.

He was told by everyone around him in the government and campaign that there was no fraud and that he lost the election.

His campaign chairman Bill Stepien told him that he legitimately lost.
The lead attorney of his campaign Alex Cannon said there was no evidence of fraud and that he lost
His attorney general Bill Barr told him there was no fraud and that he lost
His former Acting AG went through all the claim with him one by one and told him they were without merit and that he lost
His lead data person (who should know) Matt Oczkowski went through the data with him and told him he lost in the days after the election
His advisor Kellyanne Conway told him there was no evidence of fraud and that he lost.

All of this has been thoroughly documented. For example: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/1 ... o-00039346

Yet despite every person high in his administration and campaign telling him this, he went forward with his "stop the steal" lies which ultimately lead to 1/6 and his second impeachment.

So yes, he very well knew that he was lying and apparently didn't care.

If you are arguing that despite every bit of evidence to the contrary, he actually continued to believe that he won, then what you are really saying that the man is delusional and clearly not competent enough to hold the job again. That is the textbook definition of delusional.

Valerie, i agree.
The argument here is only for a strong belief in (mob rule) versus independent thinking.

A large draw DJT has is his willingness to think+speak independently, not that he’s always right, but he is willing to be different.
He has advisors, advice can be accepted or rejected. Mob rule insists advice cannot be rejected.

The internet offers abundant opportunity for unfounded judgments, mind-reading, speculation, etc.

[Szdfan]

He believed it was stolen. You "think" he knew full well it wasn't.

He was told by everyone around him in the government and campaign that there was no fraud and that he lost the election.

His campaign chairman Bill Stepien told him that he legitimately lost.
The lead attorney of his campaign Alex Cannon said there was no evidence of fraud and that he lost
His attorney general Bill Barr told him there was no fraud and that he lost
His former Acting AG went through all the claim with him one by one and told him they were without merit and that he lost
His lead data person (who should know) Matt Oczkowski went through the data with him and told him he lost in the days after the election
His advisor Kellyanne Conway told him there was no evidence of fraud and that he lost.

All of this has been thoroughly documented. For example: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/1 ... o-00039346

Yet despite every person high in his administration and campaign telling him this, he went forward with his "stop the steal" lies which ultimately lead to 1/6 and his second impeachment.

So yes, he very well knew that he was lying and apparently didn't care.

If you are arguing that despite every bit of evidence to the contrary, he actually continued to believe that he won, then what you are really saying that the man is delusional and clearly not competent enough to hold the job again. That is the textbook definition of delusional.

Valerie, i agree.
The argument here is only for a strong belief in (mob rule) versus independent thinking.

A large draw DJT has is his willingness to think+speak independently, not that he’s always right, but he is willing to be different.
He has advisors, advice can be accepted or rejected. Mob rule insists advice cannot be rejected.

The internet offers abundant opportunity for unfounded judgments, mind-reading, speculation, etc.

The January 6 attack on the Capital was literally a mob.

[temporal1]

Valerie, i agree.
The argument here is only for a strong belief in (mob rule) versus independent thinking.

A large draw DJT has is his willingness to think+speak independently, not that he’s always right, but he is willing to be different.
He has advisors, advice can be accepted or rejected. Mob rule insists advice cannot be rejected.

The internet offers abundant opportunity for unfounded judgments, mind-reading, speculation, etc.

The January 6 attack on the Capital was literally a mob.

It turned into a mob. Not particularly violent or destructive as mobs go.
i don’t believe any on this forum supported it. i’m not convinced it was led by DJT, i doubt it.
A mob component is “going out of control,” beyond what was planned. “Mob mentality.” That wasn’t all that happened.

“If only” pelosi had accepted DJT’s suggestion to have National Guard present.

i don’t see correlation with my intended point to Valerie, that part of DJT’s charm is his willingness to be different.
Some like it, others can’t bear it.

i’m ambivalent. It’s probably healthy in the grand scheme of things.

[Josh]

One of the refrains we keep hearing is that Trump is innocent because he sincerely believes he lost the election (unlike Evil Joe Biden, who's just lying). People can believe whatever they want, but it does not mean that they can do whatever they want based on those beliefs. An antiwar protestor cannot legally sabotage military equipment and not get prosecuted for that (the Berrigan Brothers went to jail for breaking into a facility and damaging the cones of two missiles with hammers -- the fact they sincerely believe war is wrong is legally irrelevant).

Trump can believe whatever he wants. Trump can say whatever he wants. There's a legal process for challenging votes and getting recounts. What Trump and his supporters cannot do is go outside of that legal framework to get the results they want. The violent attack on the Capitol on January 6 to force a delay of Congressional certification of the vote was illegal. The harassment and intimidation of election workers was illegal. The attempt by Trump supporters to hack into voting machines was illegal.

Well, some of the charges against Trump are literally asserting that he committed a crime by believing the election was stolen. So that's kind of why this is a subject even worth talking about.

[Szdfan]

One of the refrains we keep hearing is that Trump is innocent because he sincerely believes he lost the election (unlike Evil Joe Biden, who's just lying). People can believe whatever they want, but it does not mean that they can do whatever they want based on those beliefs. An antiwar protestor cannot legally sabotage military equipment and not get prosecuted for that (the Berrigan Brothers went to jail for breaking into a facility and damaging the cones of two missiles with hammers -- the fact they sincerely believe war is wrong is legally irrelevant).

Trump can believe whatever he wants. Trump can say whatever he wants. There's a legal process for challenging votes and getting recounts. What Trump and his supporters cannot do is go outside of that legal framework to get the results they want. The violent attack on the Capitol on January 6 to force a delay of Congressional certification of the vote was illegal. The harassment and intimidation of election workers was illegal. The attempt by Trump supporters to hack into voting machines was illegal.

Well, some of the charges against Trump are literally asserting that he committed a crime by believing the election was stolen. So that's kind of why this is a subject even worth talking about.

Which specific charges?

[Jazman]

Please go and list the lies (with public records/evidence of the lies being said and evidence showing how they are lies) in the threads provided for such evidence... This is a thread about Trump and Trumpism's lies and felony criminal behavior related to their response to results of the 2020 election.

No it is not nor is it your place to tell someone else what they can and can not post.

Point taken. I went too far; apologies.

[Jazman]

i don’t see correlation with my intended point to Valerie, that part of DJT’s charm is his willingness to be different.
Some like it, others can’t bear it.

It's far more than "his willingness to be different".... He's not being held to account because of something so benign and cuddly like that...

[temporal1]

i don’t see correlation with my intended point to Valerie, that part of DJT’s charm is his willingness to be different.
Some like it, others can’t bear it.

It's far more than "his willingness to be different".... He's not being held to account because of something so benign and cuddly like that...

i get your desire to discredit me, i don’t expect better, ever. no evidence anyone does.
i fail to see anything benign/cuddly about standing up against, example, EU and NATO.