Liberal Forum

Squatchman » 05 Aug 2023, 10:24 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 10:24 pm

It's going to be fun to watch.
Trump's best defense is to say he was stupid and gullible for listening to his terrible advisors.
If he doesn't he admits to knowing there was no election fraud to begin with and that he was in on everything.
He's stuck between saying he's a ******* or admitting defeat.
Trump has been played like a fiddle by Jack Smith.

It seems to me, the best outcome you could hope for, is this gets dismissed. I don't think there is any possible way at that point in time, Trump could've known the election wasn't stolen. How could he possibly have established that amongst the sheer quantities of information that exist in the chaos after an election? - the truth is, no one could and no one did. There's no way of instantaneously demonstrating the truth one way or the other. There were highly concerning anomalies surrounding the election, which Trump quite rightly reacted to and wanted properly investigating. For those of us who don't worship at the alter of Dumb Lemon, we still don't know it wasn't stolen - it's far from being the established, settled fact MSNBCNN would like you to think it is

Which leads to point 1 in the trial. You're going to have to demonstrate it actually wasn't stolen - if you can't, then the question of proving anyone knew it wasn't stolen becomes a logical impossibility. Pro-tip, anyone involved, whether in a primary, secondary or tertiary fashion will be dead of boredom or old-age, long before this question is resolved to a satisfactory, evidentiary standard

Point 2) Assuming you get through point 1, you're then going to have to demonstrate that Trump actually knew it wasn't stolen in that period right after the election. Well that's a total bloody nonsense since you're probably going to spend decades in this court case, establishing it wasn't stolen (the onus is on your side), and will, in all likelihood, fail to do so. But either way, the sheer colossal complexity of demonstrating point 1, innately demonstrates that point 2 (Trump knew it wasn't stolen), couldn't possibly have been the case at any point in time

Point 3) This is an excellent opportunity to actually bring to light and properly litigate all of those concerns and anomalies that got pushed aside - which combined, will pretty much destroy the possibility of point 1 and point 2 ever being established. Without point 1 and 2, there simply is no case against Trump. Even having established those, you then have to get past presidential immunity and Trump's own constitutional rights. Jack ****, has fabricated his very own quagmire.