266
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 02 Aug 2023
266 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10192 readers
18 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He is going to argue that he was fed bad information by his alleged co-conspirators and had reasonable concerns about the integrity of the election. No mens rea, no conviction. Bullshit, of course, but it doesn’t take a whole lot to hang a jury, and I would think that is particularly so in a politically charged case. I have seen a lot of good arguments to the contrary, but folks have to understand that proving this part is harder than you might think.
He is in greater immediate jeopardy with the documents case where it is impossible to see him mounting a successful defense, at least if the law is followed. The question there will be the severity of the consequences. Will he plead out? Will he get a slap on the wrist?
Edit: interesting short blurb here where Bill Barr is quoted as saying he thinks prosecutors have additional evidence establishing intent.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/bill-barr-trump-arraignment-2020-election/index.html