Actually, my intent was to put it in the Georgia indictment thread.
DJT is even more powerful than the Shadow: just the very concept of him is enough to cloud mens’ minds.
Judge at one of Trump’s trials: How about now, Mr Trump - do you believe you won the 2020 presidential election?
Trump: [If I say no, then I admit it was all a lie. If I say yes, then I have to prove it.] Yes, of course. You’re a nasty judge. Very nasty. What kind of question is that anyway…"
That kind of joke is funnier if the math does add up. Like the jokes about how many popes per hectare or acre the Vatican had when Benedict was still alive.
True fact: The average number of legs on the average American citizen is less than two.
And faces 18.2 charges, I think.
I get 91/4 = 22.75 for that.
…skipping Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump?
Oops! Wasn’t skipping anyone, just failed counting.
Bush had a conviction for drunk driving, so you can add +1 to the total no of indictments and charges.
Any other presidents that have faced charges?
Not an indictment, but Teddy Roosevelt was sued for defamation because he called a party boss corrupt or something. There is a fascinating book about the trial. Result of the trial blurred: He won
Found it
I’ll just post this here:
I’ve been a little surprised that this doesn’t get posted more often, but I now see that the real story of the 1872 incident isn’t as straightforward as I had thought. It seems there’s only one ‘witness’ to attest to it, the officer who claimed to make the traffic stop, and that seems odd given that Grant was at the time the President of the United States, and just about the most famous person in the world. So maybe it didn’t really happen the way that fellow said, if it happened at all.
It does matter, at least for some of the cases (I’ve lost track of them all at this point). The latest indictment in Georgia, as I understand it, boils down to “It’s illegal to lie to a state official in regards to their official job” and that’s about it. So when he told Raffensberger that thousands of dead people voted in Georgia, if he truly believed that then it’s not a lie and therefore not a crime (or at least not the crime he’s actually charged with there).
That’s at best a woefully incomplete understanding of the indictment. Here’s the actual indictment. In addition to “making false statements” (not “lying”, a crucial difference), Trump et al are charged with soliciting illegal acts, violating the integrity of voting machines, and more.
If the cops seize my car, and I believe their seizure is unconstitutional and illegal, and I go to the impound lot and give the guard a story about how unconstitutional it was and offer them a $20 to look the other way so I can grab my car and leave, I’ve committed a crime.It doesn’t matter if I’m sincere in my false statement.
It’s a a crime even if your statement was true.
Quite. On some of those charges it seems to this outsider that there’s no wriggle-room of “interpretation” or “honest belief”, let alone freedom of speech.
I’m assuming that there is a legally authorised official responsible for determining and declaring the result of the election and providing some sort of official certification to the winning delegates to the Electoral College. Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong, but if I’m not, then any document purporting to be such a certificate, but not issued by that official, is ipso facto fraudulent and/or a forgery: surely, it would be an absolute offence, for anyone knowingly involved in a scheme to create such a document?
As they used to say in our old cop shows “They’ve got you bang to rights, chum” - if they can prove the facts, of course.
Look up Mens Rea and get back to us.
In other words, the George Costanza defence.
Typically that’s the role of the Secretary of State in each state, though I only did a random sampling and didn’t check each of the 50 states. It might be different somewhere. But generally that’s who does it. For example, Trump’s infamous phone call in Georgia that got him in hot water was to Brent Raffensberger, who is Georgia’s Secretary of State.
But yes, that is one of many reasons why the cases in Georgia and DC against Trump and his co-conspirators are so strong. That element is pretty straightforward.
It may work.
Most of the jurors watched Seinfeld and liked George Costanza. It only takes one out of twelve to cause a hung jury.
I am familiar with Mens Rea. This has nothing to do with that. He knowingly did the thing. He clearly had Mens Rea. That’s different from whether he actually violated the law in question.
You mean like section 3 “FALSE STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS O.C.G.A.§16-10-20”?
Let’s look up O.C.G.A.§16-10-20 shall we?
A person who knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry…
Bolding mine. By the very text of the law in question, Trump needs to know that the statement is false.
You are right that there are other charges as well. But at least in the 11 counts citing O.C.G.A.§16-10-20 a good-faith statement that happens to be false would not be illegal. It does matter what he believed for those counts.