He was told he lost by senior members of his staff. The Jan 6 committee showed the video of him not wanting to say he lost. He left the White House on his own as the loser of the election. Do all those things (plus more) add-up to Trump knowing that stating he won and the election was stolen from him was a false statement?
I think the defense is going to be REALLY hard pressed to convince a jury that the false statements were made “in good faith”.
As snowthx has said above, there is ample proof that Trump KNEW he lost the election, in particular the fact that he admitted to top aids that he lost the election, and also admitted he lost the election in a video interview with historians on April 5, 2022
His. Own. Words. Can’t get much clearer than that.
Probably.
I agree.
But the claim I was refuting was
Which is wrong. What me believed matters legally, and the prosecution will have to prove in court that he knew it was a lie for at least some of the charges against him in some of the cases that have been brought.
As repeatedly mentioned in the thread dedicated to Jack Smith’s investigation – here, for example – it’s about Trump’s actions, not his words.
I agree… but some folks here seem to think it’s a big deal if Trump can “prove” that he was acting in good faith because he really thought he had won the election.
You are correct - this is not even a valid defense -
But even if it was, his own words show that he KNEW that he’s lost.
So forget about this tactic from every angle.
Right. But I can see the argument that his actions were justified because he believed he won and was being wrongfully denied re-election. This is horseshit because at the core of the issue he KNEW he lost, on the day after the election, and then subsequently said untrue statements and did dishonest things to try and hold onto office. He may be tried for what he did, but what he said and when he knew he lost is germane to the case, IMHO.
You’re taking the words, “what he believed,” out of context for this prosecution.
What he believed would matter if mens rea was a component of what Smith’s team has to prove was illegal for the charges Trump is facing.
But they don’t.
What he believed is immaterial, because as others have pointed out, even if he believed he had legitimately won, and even if he had legitimately won, his actions were not the way to remediate the wrong. It is his actions that are being prosecuted, not his “mens rea.” So that’s what is meant in this case when someone says that what he believes about winning is immaterial.
Yes, but we are talking about Donald Trump, here. I wouldn’t believe him if he said the sun was going to come up tomorrow.
God forbid he found a way to make it a lie! But jeez, I wouldn’t put it past him.
Kinda like this?
I don’t want to speak for @Ann_Hedonia but it looks to me like they are talking about Trump’s belief that he won the election. His believing that would not be a defence for the false elector charge. Even if the election really was stolen, fraud would not be a legal solution.
I’ll leave to the lawyers the question of whether a sincere belief that it was not illegal to send false electors to the electoral college is a valid defence.
I was actually going for a nuanced distinction between “knows” and “believes”. I agree that the defense may have to prove that Trump knew or should’ve known that he’d lost in order to prove some of the charges.
That can be proven by questioning the multiple people that told Trump he lost and by showing the headlines of every major newspaper and TV news network declaring Joe Biden the winner. The 60+ failed court cases also speak to that reality.
I’m just saying that after seeing all that, Trump doesn’t get to willfully ignore it and still be entitled to use “I don’t believe I lost” as a defense to anything.
Related to Jan 6 insurrection:
(Searching for a link that isn’t paywalled…)
Ya don’t say. Who’d a thunk that a patriot would flee the long arm of the law?
Of note:
A total of about 1,000 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Jan. 6 riot. More than 600 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted after trials decided by a jury or judge. Roughly 450 have been sentenced, with over half getting terms of imprisonment ranging from seven days to 10 years.
As others have said, and here it is -
- It does not matter if there was large scale fraud (there wasn’t as has been shown again and again)
- It does not matter if he knew he lost the election.
- It does not matter if he thinks he won
- It does not matter if he thinks it’s a witch hunt.
- What matters is what he did. Now with now 91 felony cases against him.
And as other have said, if I think a bank defrauded me, it does not give me the right to rob the bank. Even if I fail to do so. If I and my get away drivers try to rob a bank, even if you believe they owe you money, you’re in for a shit load of trouble.
That the stupid, stupid scheme did not work, does not absolve you of the crime.
Trump does not understand this.
The relevant mens rea question in this case is not “Do you sincerely believe that the bank defrauded you?”, but rather “Do you understand that trying to coerce bank employees into giving you money is illegal?”
But ignorance of the law is no excuse. So that dog won’t hunt.
Yeah, mens rea has nothing to do with ignorance of the law. It has to do with intent. Those are not at all the same thing.
Let’s say that you set fire to a pile of dead leaves in your yard, and there is a person in that pile of dead leaves. That person is badly burned and dies of their injuries. Did you commit a crime and what crime did you commit?
Clearly it depends on whether or not you knew a person was in that pile of leaves. Or perhaps, would a reasonable person assume a person would be in that pile of leaves. Maybe not checking before setting them on fire was negligent. It can get complicated, but the point is that in some cases, the mindset of a person matters just as much as the actions they took. That’s where mens rea comes into play.
Showing your intent might also depend on other actions. Did you try to put out the fire? Did you call emergency services or try to give first aid yourself? Did you lie to investigators about your actions? But regardless, it’s critical in a case like that.
(IANAL)
Responding to your question here, because if my speculation is correct, this is probably going to need a new, different thread. But for sure it doesn’t belong in the Georgia thread.
It’s been reported that Jack Smith’s team is exploring charges against Trump and others for defrauding his supporters for donations via his election lies. If they file such charges, there is a basis to seize and forfeit Trump’s assets as a means of reimbursement for the stolen donations. I suspect Trump is attempting to divest himself of assets that could be subject to such seizure.
Whether his chosen method is an effective one remains to be seen.
Good grief. This really is a bottomless pit.
Oh, yes. Yes, it is. You and I are likely to be long taking the dirt nap before proceedings against Trump are concluded.
Not a very happy Friday thought, but there it is.