Trump's trial will be the first crowdsourced trial in our history.

That's the antitrumpers' narrative. There has been no discovery. No cross examination. No nothing that would occur in a court trial.

Any legal scholar who doesn't recognize that isn't much of a legal scholar.

 

One of the videos used by the kangaroo committee was deceptively edited. Try using false evidence in a courtroom and see what it gets you.

 

Will his lawyers be able to subpoena witnesses and question them under oath?

 

No, they have to prove that trying to overturn the election results was illegal.

 

Let's see you prove intent... Prove Trump acted with criminal intent. Let's see another example of the "two-tiered" justice system in the US..

 

let's see you prove Trump was too stupid to know what he was doing

is Trump above the law? Let's see another example of the "two-tiered" justice system in the US..

 

No.... you prove Trump acted with criminal intent....

 

No.... you prove Trump was too stupid to know what he was doing

 

Sorry... not playing your silly games...

 

Yes get out and vote with your emotions people and then we can be underneath another term of a Biden administration which can run America into the ground!

 

and I am not playing your silly games

 

yep, Trump supporters and their "feelings", gave us four years of Trump and look at all the damage that has caused in the world

 

Prove Trump "intended" to do anything, or he is innocent in our courts, if or when the committee hands over referrals for prosecution to the worlds best investigation agency that has egg on their face because they are not doing their job and have to have the committee to find crimes to start chasing. ... it is that simple..

 

prove Trump was too stupid to know what he was doing

 

None at all. Lol. The only damage is that which is in your head and your inability to place responsibility to the administration currently in charge.

 

Golem said otherwise

But then even members of the committee have been quite open about their goal to refer crimes to Garland.

And since we already know what happened.......................

 

do you really think the world is better post Trump?

 

Is this a trick question? Things have gotten so horribly worse since he left office that it's not even a question and it's why you are about to get demolished in both 2022 and 2024.

 

I don't think you actually want to know. But... here you go...

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Trump-on-Trial.pdf

 

Because it's not a court trial! It's a Congressional hearing!!!!

God!

 

4 years of Trump had consequences, Obama passed Trump a growing economy, Trump passed Biden a failing economy on the verge

 

Which is why it can't be used as a barometer of guilt

 

You are quoting legal "experts" who have brains rotted by Trump Obsession.

Blithering idiot, Trump Revenge Porn obsessed Larry Tribe Idiotically Declares: “Without any Doubt, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Beyond any Doubt”: Tribe Declares Trump Committed Attempted Murder."

Formerly sane, Tribe.​

"Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe seems intent upon running through the entire criminal code in declaring clear evidence of every federal crime by former President Donald Trump and/or his family. Just for the purposes of keeping score, Tribe declared evidence supporting criminal charges of

• witness tampering,
• obstruction of justice,
• criminal election violations,
• Logan Act violations,
• extortion,
• espionage, and
• treason by Trump or his family.

"He has now added attempted murder in an interview on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront.” In addition to declaring former President Donald Trump clearly guilty of the attempt to murder Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021, Tribe is again assuring viewers that “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt, and the crimes are obvious.” I guess there is no doubt. There is also no compelling legal basis for the claim. Nevertheless, Tribe is promising more if needed: “There are other crimes that have been proven. Those are plenty to start with.”"

Good to have a fall back position when you are slinging endless loads of crap.

Quoth Tribe: "There are other crimes that have been proven. Those are plenty to start with.”

"It is a curious thing that these crimes “have been proven” but Trump has not been charged with them. After the riot, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging them with incitement. So what happened to that prosecution? The failure of Racine to charge Trump was not due to any affection or loyalty to the former president. It was due to the paucity of direct evidence of a crime that would hold up in court."

You actually need evidence that an actual crime has been committed? Intense hatred of a person isn't enough to charge and convict?

"Tribe notably cuts directly to the punishment for attempted murder rather than the elements. The elements of attempted murder require specific intent to kill and the commission of some direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing."

Implied Malice Doesn't Cut It:

"Attempted murder requires a finding of specific intent to kill such that implied malice is insufficient to support a conviction for that offense. (See People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593, 605, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 390, 909 P.2d 994 “‘Specific intent to kill is a necessary element of attempted murder. It must be proved, and it cannot be inferred merely from the commission of another dangerous crime.”

He's either a moron or confident that his audience is made up of morons. "It still requires substantial acts and intent on the part of the defendant. This is usually found in such acts like firing a weapon and missing."

"Attempted murder requires proof that the defendant “must have taken a substantial step towards that crime, and must also have had the requisite mens rea.” Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344 (1991). In Braxton, the defendant was charged with attempted murder of a federal marshal after he fired two shots through his front door where marshals with an arrest warrant were standing. The Court wrote that “since the statute does not specify the elements of “attempt to kill,” they are those required for an “attempt” at common law, … which include a specific intent to commit the unlawful act. ‘Although a murder may be committed without an intent to kill, an attempt to commit murder requires a specific intent to kill.'”

Never in the history of the Republic has a speech such as Trump's been "treated as sufficient to establish attempted murder. Indeed, such a claim would contradict controlling Supreme Court precedent."

They are only committed disciples to precedent when it suits their purposes.

"In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Democrat members also protested past elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.

"The problem for prosecutors is that Trump never called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

This slimy J6 committee doctored the tape and withheld exculpatory information. You guys would be better off crowd sourcing kleenex to wipe away your endless tears of disappointment.

 

Of course it can! You have the evidence before you. We don't know if he's going to jail. But those of us who can look at facts and evidence a form our opinions based on those can certainly have a pretty clear picture of whether he's guilty or not.

 

Yep! And since the legal experts I've quoted are TRUMP's attorneys, once again we confirm The Cohen Doctrine "everything that Trump touches, dies"