Jack Smith will not need to prove what Trump believed on Jan 6th..

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

Jack Smith will not need to prove what Trump's mind was thinking in order to secure a conviction.  This is due to the Doctrine of WILLFUL BLINDNESS and the SCOTUS recently decided this in 2011, citing well-established case law with several cases going back over 100 years. Citing https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-6P.ZO

The doctrine of willful blindness is well-established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge.   Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 Mod. L. Rev. 294, 302 (1954) (hereinafter Edwards) (observing on the basis of English authorities that “up to the present day, no real doubt has been cast on the proposition that [willful blindness] is as culpable as actual knowledge”). It is also said that persons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts. See United States v. Jewell , 532 F. 2d 697, 700 (CA9 1976) (en banc).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Jack Smith will not need to prove what was in Trump's mind on January 6th.  Jack Smith will have the testimony of VP Pence, Chris Krebs, Wm Barr, Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow, and the legal opinions of over 60 courts ruling, by many Trump-appointed, that there was zero merit to any widespread election fraud claims.   My guess, Mr. Smith already has these folks under oath in sworn depositions so they cannot back out or change their story at trial.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

TTT

[*michaelsean*]

So then he just has to prove that he should have known people would storm the Capitol but turned a blind eye to it?

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2023, 10:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So then he just has to prove that he should have known people would storm the Capitol but turned a blind eye to it?

One thing of note is that Trump is not being charged in relation to the Capitol storming. There is zero chance that they would be able to prove incitement because of how much violence was planned (and has been successfully prosecuted) before the day. The charges against Trump are entirely related to his attempts at disrupting the democratic process through discussions with others encouraging them to engage in criminal activities.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2023, 10:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: One thing of note is that Trump is not being charged in relation to the Capitol storming. There is zero chance that they would be able to prove incitement because of how much violence was planned (and has been successfully prosecuted) before the day. The charges against Trump are entirely related to his attempts at disrupting the democratic process through discussions with others encouraging them to engage in criminal activities.

So nothing to do with Jan 6. Sorry I thought that is what this alluded to. My bad.

[*Nately120*]

(08-09-2023, 10:32 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So nothing to do with Jan 6.  Sorry I thought that is what this alluded to.  My bad.

I think the possible link is from Trump and his circle admitting the insurrection was going to help them buy time to enact their plan to subvert the process of certifying the electors. 

So Trump didn't cause the riot but he admitted it was instrumental to his process Maybe?  My whole amused cynicism comes from the reality that we need to brace ourselves for Trump's supporters to cause an outright civil war if he's convicted while simultaneously accepting that his incendiary words prior to the start of an insurrection that was really quite helpful for his end goal mean nothing because hey...he's just a dude who is allowed to say stuff...he doesn't MAKE people do anything.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(08-09-2023, 10:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So then he just has to prove that he should have known people would storm the Capitol but turned a blind eye to it?

No, Trump is not being charged with insurrection; however, I think he should and maybe will be at a later date. Trump DC Felony charges are:
1)Conspiracy to defraud the United States, by attempting to overturn a legitimate election. 
2)Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, by attempting to stop the electoral certification on Jan. 6, 2021. 
3)Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.
4)18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against civil rights enforcement of US Constitutional Amendments 13, 14, & 15.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

[Arturo Bandini]

Jack Smith has Trump DMs.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="qme" dir="ltr"> <a href="https://t.co/ubgiAwH32C">pic.twitter.com/ubgiAwH32C</a></p>&mdash; Jack E. Smith ⚖️ (@7Veritas4) <a href="https://twitter.com/7Veritas4/status/1689343946835533824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 9, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[*pally*]

(08-10-2023, 02:41 AM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: No, Trump is not being charged with insurrection; however, I think he should and maybe will be at a later date. Trump DC Felony charges are:
1)Conspiracy to defraud the United States, by attempting to overturn a legitimate election. 
2)Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, by attempting to stop the electoral certification on Jan. 6, 2021. 
3)Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.
4)18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against civil rights enforcement of US Constitutional Amendments 13, 14, & 15.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

I would not be shocked to see financial crimes eventually added to the indictments.  Fundraising off the false stolen election claims.  Siphoning off money for personal expenses, etc

[Luvnit2]

(08-10-2023, 11:23 AM)pally Wrote: I would not be shocked to see financial crimes eventually added to the indictments.  Fundraising off the false stolen election claims.  Siphoning off money for personal expenses, etc

If this were true every politician would be in jail including Joe Biden because he stated in a National debate against Trump no member of his family did business with China and in same debate lied (he knew it was Hunter's laptop and nothing anyone says will change that fact) and said Hunter Biden laptop was possibly Russian disinformation.

Politicians lie in every election at every level to get more money to produce the lies on TV.

[Luvnit2]

Can anyone explain why the Jan. 6th committee did not do the normal thing and secure records? It appears they destroyed over 50% of them once they learned the Trump lawyers have subpoena power for anything related to Jan.6th?

What are they hiding? Again, way out of the norm for any congressional committee to not secure and archive 100% of the records.

[Luvnit2]

(08-08-2023, 02:33 AM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Jack Smith will not need to prove what Trump's mind was thinking in order to secure a conviction.  This is due to the Doctrine of WILLFUL BLINDNESS and the SCOTUS recently decided this in 2011, citing well-established case law with several cases going back over 100 years. Citing https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-6P.ZO

The doctrine of willful blindness is well-established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge.   Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 Mod. L. Rev. 294, 302 (1954) (hereinafter Edwards) (observing on the basis of English authorities that “up to the present day, no real doubt has been cast on the proposition that [willful blindness] is as culpable as actual knowledge”). It is also said that persons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts. See United States v. Jewell , 532 F. 2d 697, 700 (CA9 1976) (en banc).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Jack Smith will not need to prove what was in Trump's mind on January 6th.  Jack Smith will have the testimony of VP Pence, Chris Krebs, Wm Barr, Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow, and the legal opinions of over 60 courts ruling, by many Trump-appointed, that there was zero merit to any widespread election fraud claims.   My guess, Mr. Smith already has these folks under oath in sworn depositions so they cannot back out or change their story at trial.

I am not an attorney, but it appears you are or you think you are. I have heard several attorneys say just the opposite. This is a trial by jury, so in the end, they will either convict or acquit him. I don't think it matters what any of us think, the prosecutor will have to prove with unreasonable doubt Trump is guilty on each count.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/10/donald-trumps-jan-6-trial-jack-smith-proposes-trial-date-of-jan-2/70569055007/

There may be 1000 people who told Trump the election was not stolen, but it not be relevant if the Trump team can convince one jury member Trump did and still believes the election was stolen. I suggest the Trump team call Stacey Abrams and also Hillary Clinton to testify.

[GMDino]

(08-10-2023, 05:55 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I am not an attorney, but it appears you are or you think you are. I have heard several attorneys say just the opposite. This is a trial by jury, so in the end, they will either convict or acquit him. I don't think it matters what any of us think, the prosecutor will have to prove with unreasonable doubt Trump is guilty on each count.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/10/donald-trumps-jan-6-trial-jack-smith-proposes-trial-date-of-jan-2/70569055007/

There may be 1000 people who told Trump the election was not stolen, but it not be relevant if the Trump team can convince one jury member Trump did and still believes the election was stolen. I suggest the Trump team call Stacey Abrams and also Hillary Clinton to testify.

And if that were true that he still believes he did not lose (because he was told he LOST fair and square) would still vote for someone that is that delusional?

Yes.  Yes you would.

[Dill]

(08-10-2023, 05:55 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I am not an attorney, but it appears you are or you think you are. I have heard several attorneys say just the opposite. This is a trial by jury, so in the end, they will either convict or acquit him. I don't think it matters what any of us think, the prosecutor will have to prove with unreasonable doubt Trump is guilty on each count.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/10/donald-trumps-jan-6-trial-jack-smith-proposes-trial-date-of-jan-2/70569055007/

There may be 1000 people who told Trump the election was not stolen, but it not be relevant if the Trump team can convince one jury member Trump did and still believes the election was stolen. I suggest the Trump team call Stacey Abrams and also Hillary Clinton to testify.

I heard them too, on Fox and Newsmax.  

No one posting here is under the illusion what s/he thinks will matter at the trial.

Seems you are a bit slow in reading the indictment, though. 

What the prosecution will show is that the people who, in the seven states in question, determine whether fraud occurred, told Trump repeatedly that it did not. He tweeted debunked lies right after he spoke with the only authorities who could not the truth--and they told him no fraud. 

Hard to get around "willful blindness."   But your right--one MAGA fanatic could nullify all this, and they you'll be crowing that Trump was "exonerated." 
Proves he didn't do what we saw him doing. 

[*Nately120*]

If the jury is representative of Americans, at least 2 of the jurors will refuse to believe Trump did anything wrong, other than believe the election was stolen, which is wrong, but the exact type of wrong they need to believe he is wrong about for Trump to be right to do what he did.

Then they'll let Trump shoot their own mother and say "I want to vote for him even more now."

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(08-10-2023, 05:55 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I am not an attorney, but it appears you are or you think you are. I have heard several attorneys say just the opposite. This is a trial by jury, so in the end, they will either convict or acquit him. I don't think it matters what any of us think, the prosecutor will have to prove with unreasonable doubt Trump is guilty on each count.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/10/donald-trumps-jan-6-trial-jack-smith-proposes-trial-date-of-jan-2/70569055007/

There may be 1000 people who told Trump the election was not stolen, but it not be relevant if the Trump team can convince one jury member Trump did and still believes the election was stolen. I suggest the Trump team call Stacey Abrams and also Hillary Clinton to testify.

There's not one judge in the country that will allow this to be a defense in their courtroom. This is b/c of the doctrine of willful blindness.

You must be listening to dipstick media, ya know the ones that had to pay almost $1 Trillion for spreading false information. Sounds good for political and right-wing wacko media pundits; however, pleading ignorance will fly like a lead balloon in a court of law. 

[*Nately120*]

(08-10-2023, 07:47 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: There's not one judge in the country that will allow this to be a defense in their courtroom.

Does Trump even need a defense?  I'd almost respect him if he went up on the stand and confessed to everything and then admitted that it doesn't matter because 1-4 members of the jury would never say anything other than "most innocent man ever."

[*pally*]

(08-10-2023, 05:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: If this were true every politician would be in jail including Joe Biden because he stated in a National debate against Trump no member of his family did business with China and in same debate lied (he knew it was Hunter's laptop and nothing anyone says will change that fact) and said Hunter Biden laptop was possibly Russian disinformation.

Politicians lie in every election at every level to get more money to produce the lies on TV.

Trump told people to send money to fight the rigged election then diverted the money to his personal PAC which covers many of her personal expenses and current legal fees and to pay for debt accrued by his re-election campaign. Very little of the hundreds of millions of dollars raised was actual spent on fighting the “rigged” election. That could constitute deceptive/fraudulent fundraising and leave Trump and company open to charges such as wire fraud. The fraud is in what he said he was raising it for and then how it was actually used

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(08-10-2023, 08:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Does Trump even need a defense?  I'd almost respect him if he went up on the stand and confessed to everything and then admitted that it doesn't matter because 1-4 members of the jury would never say anything other than "most innocent man ever."

Well, we see how DC juries have reacted to the defenses of, "Whataboutism, Trump ordered me to go to the Capitol so I was only following orders, or I actually believed it was stolen b/c Trump told me it was..."  Not one jury has bought this BS,  and now those people are sitting in a federal pen as CONVICTED FELONS.   The judge will instruct the United States, defense, and jury about the Doctrine of Wilful Blindness and she will not allow it to be brought up.  

Trump could bring this up himself, in an attempt to try and explain his frame of mind,  BUT he'd have to be on the stand and under oath----AND if that happens get your popcorn and Frank's Red Hot ready folks!  B/c We're going to see Trump end up with a handful of perjury and contempt charges.

I'll humor you anyway here-- If one MAGA jury member does refuse to convict, it's not going to mean Trump is acquitted(Not Guilty)-- It'll be a hung jury and the gov't will find a new jury, and then it's a whole 'nother' trial.

[Dill]

(08-10-2023, 07:47 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: There's not one judge in the country that will allow this to be a defense in their courtroom. This is b/c of the doctrine of willful blindness.

Well, there might be just one . . . 

Inside One ‘Egregious’ Mistake From Trump’s Florida Judge Aileen Cannon
https://news.yahoo.com/inside-one-egregious-mistake-trump-085850209.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall