Jared testified before the Smith grand jury today, according to what CNN is calling their scoop. Only speculation, of course, as to what he was asked and answered, but it seems like they are trying to get a picture of what Trump really believed about the election vis-à-vis the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
I’m still not clear why his (Trump’s) beliefs are germane to the legal charges against Trump, since they weren’t germane to the legal charges against the actual rioters/attackers.
< snip >
It’s germane to establishing Trump’s corrupt intent. If he knew he’d lost and pursued this illegal activity anyway, then the charges to be brought will be much more serious.
It also forecloses Trump’s defense that he truly believed he’d won the election.
But it really isn’t a defense (for most of the charges, anyway). For example, it’s illegal to conspire to send in false elector ballots from disputed states, even if you think you actually won there. I don’t know all of the potential charges, but I can’t image “I honestly thought I won” would be a defense.
The analogy many have used is “you can’t go to a teller with a gun and demand money because you honestly thought the bank made a mistake on your statement.” That’s true even if you are correct about the bank error.
No, it’s not, but if your only defense strategy is to hornswoggle one juror into a hung jury, then it might sound pretty good.
That’s what a talking head on MSNBC was saying this afternoon. If Trump knew that he had actually lost, then ALL of his actions up to and including 1/6 are subject to question. For instance, the call to Brad Raffensperger was on 1/2/2021. If Trump knew that he had lost, but was still trying to change the vote count, then ISTM that would be criminal intent.
Well, the charges would be different, I expect.
Trump wasn’t at the capitol smashing things up with a baseball bat and attacking cops like many of those arrested. Different kinds of charges often have different things a prosecutor needs to prove.
Just a guess here, IANAL, etc.
If he thought he had won, and tried the change the vote count, I think that’s a crime too. There are legal ways to contest an election, asking the Secretary of State to “find” votes is not one of them.
It depends.
If he really thought that there was major fraud, he could make the argument that he wasn’t actually telling the governor to change the numbers, all he was really asking was for him to investigate it, and that his comment about 11,000 votes was just to emphasize that the race was close and so even uncovering a portion of the fraud could turn the election.
However, if it was all bullshit and he knew it, then the only way to construe his request was as a command to fraudulently alter the vote count.
Nailed it. But an even more efficient manner of assessing such questions: If Jack Smith thinks something is relevant and important, it’s a safe bet it’s relevant and important.
Cheers. I hate the scumbag as much as anyone, but this perfectly describes my feelings about the Georgia case.
I have a couple of friends / family members that are REALLY looking at this one as being the strongest of the Big 4 (documents, hush money to Stormy, Georgia, and January 6th) but I don’t see it that way - for exactly the reasons you described. I’m afraid this is going to be the easiest one for him to slither out of.
The problem is that his slithering path is closed off if he knew damn good and well that he’d lost, which is what the evidence to date indicates.
He could still throw someone under the bus, like Rudy, and claim he was given bad advice, though, right?
Not if Smith is able to establish he was well-aware that he lost.
I saw this wonderful bit on Twitter this morning:
Brilliant!
good one.
Their faces should be replaced by Pawn Stars faces.
I could see that being the case if he hadn’t taken his case to court multiple times. But when it’s been adjudicated by a court of law, I don’t see whether or not Trump “really believed he lost” being relevant. At some point you have to use a reasonable person standard.
It’s like a convicted felon trying to justify a jail break by claiming they were wrongfully incarcerated.
Oh, I agree. I’m not saying it’s a good or legal defense. But if Trump can persuade even one juror to think this was a legitimate concern of his – and he has spent a lot of time talking about it even now, as if he was the “rightful” winner of the 2020 election – then he will have a “win” by way of a mistrial.
Trump is not campaigning anymore. He’s trying his case to an eager MAGA public that watches only news that exhorts his point of view of the case, in the hope of staying out of prison. I think Jack Smith is working to foreclose this potential eventuality as much as possible.
You’re right about the reasonable person standard. But MAGAs are not reasonable people. One might very well end up on the jury, though. Jack Smith must be prepared to refute this unreasonable belief in every way possible.
Except he kept making that observation, over and over, for about an hour, when the person he was talking to kept trying to tell him that “finding” votes like that wasn’t how it worked, and was illegal.
Trump never bothered to acknowledge that, like a serious person would. And he never bothered to make the argument, “We just want you to investigate the alleged fraud, and let the chips fall where they may”, no, he kept insisting that all they needed to do was “find” votes.