479
New Explosive Roger Stone Video Dooms Donald Trump’s Main Legal Defense
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
479 points (95.3% liked)
politics
18073 readers
4353 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This title is clickbait garbage, but at least it doesn't use the word "slam".
If the Trump legal defense is that he believed he won the election and was investigating fraud, and this proves that they were planning to call fraud before the election happened, then that does disprove his legal defense.
Do you mean by "clickbait garbage" that the language is too inflammatory for you regardless of the article content?
Except weren't they were claiming that mail-in ballots were potentially fraudulent for months before the election? This video doesn't disprove anything if they claimed that ballots that had already been cast were illegal.
Not that I'm aware of, but if so, that would just bolster the case of now additional, ironclad video evidence of intentional foreplanned election interference and manipulation.
If their main defense is that the cries of election fraud were a result of a legitimate investigation but this video shows deliberate planning to cry fraud before the election even happened, that seems like a significant point against his legal defense, although the title is inflammatory and weird. Dooms?
That's the part that I don't think is a strong argument though. They were crying fraud long before the election, e.g., saying that mail-in ballots were illegal, claiming people were stuffing drop-off, etc. None of it was valid, but their argument was well established before election day.
There's a difference between vague inflammatory remarks about how people can manipulate mail-in ballots during campaign speeches versus a political consultant to Trump detailing how exactly they plan to interfere and manipulate the results of a fair election if it doesn't go their way.
Any member of a board of directors may give a speech about how stock values might be compromised by valuable information and would likely not be criminally liable for speculation, but if one board member informs the rest about his intention to disclose private company information to the public in order to sway the markets, that is a criminal insider trading conspiracy that all board members could be held criminally liable for.
Agreed. I'm just pointing out that people need to focus on the latter rather than the former.
Definitely
The media are getting a bit hung up on this. Trump's state of mind is entirely irrelevant. His actions are not.
They're not being prosecuted for stating that they believe fraud happened (or was happening). They're perfectly entitled to say that whether they truly believe it or not. What they're not entitled to do is bypass the courts, threaten officials, fraudulently access voting machines, fraudulently put forward fake electors, and so on. Stone is planning some of the illegal actions taken after the election here. This video is one of many pieces of evidence of an active conspiracy to subvert the election.
Ah ok. Thank you. I think I was getting stuck on the timing, which did not seem particularly relevant.
I think intent is important, and if you can prove that they knew it was not stolen it is gonna be devastating for their case because it shutdown the whole premise of the defense. It would be a critical failure of defense.
It really isn't relevant. They're not being prosecuted for saying untrue things, or things they believed to be false at the time. They're being prosecuted for conspiracy to overturn the election.
Intent is very important. The lying part makes it a conspiracy and very illegal, and you can open the indictment yourself to verify. There is a whole section about it on page 6 of the Columbia indictment.
Seriously. There weren't even any explosions in the video.
People like you give me hope for this place.