Jan 6 Hearings

[hollodero]

(06-19-2022, 06:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I was listening to a federal judiciary commenter discuss the hearings and it was very interesting. Here are some points that I thought might be fun to bring up.

First, the hearings are not about convincing the public of the seriousness of the events on January 6th. As we can see from this thread, minds are already made up in that regard. The act of sedition that was attempted (people have actually pled guilty to it, so I feel comfortable calling it this) occurred publicly. If people are hiding from the facts on this, these hearings aren't going to change their minds. These hearings are more about convincing the DoJ that there is enough evidence to bring charges.

Second, they aren't trying to convince the DoJ to bring charges for inciting the violence on January 6th. Instead, they are focusing on the idea that Trump had corrupt intent in attempting to undermine the democratic processes and defraud the government. What does this mean? Simply put, that Trump knew he was wrong (or had enough evidence presented to him to know he was wrong) yet continued efforts that were unlawful to undermine the electoral system. This is why they are bringing forth people that are saying they told him he had lost and all that. It's like the malice test in a defamation suit.

The commentator is a former federal prosecutor and stated that he thinks they make a strong enough case to bring charges. However, even in DC he doesn't think there is a high likelihood of a jury conviction. Plus, it would likely see an appeals court and SCOTUS review before it even reached trial, which is extraordinary but this would be an extraordinary case.

The defense, and it would be a strong one that would likely sway at least one juror, would be that Trump genuinely thought there had been fraud and that he won the election. Now, whether that was a disregard for the evidence or delusion on his part, hard to say. That difference is enough to throw reasonable doubt into the mix, though.

So, one can commit crimes and get away with it just as long as one credibly believes he had to right a wrong by doing said crime, no matter how nonsenisical that belief is.
I have to wonder about that criteria, or that logic. It doesn't seem to apply in everyday cases. Eg. I imagine tax fraud is still pursued to the full extent of the law, even if I full-heartedly believe I was unfairly overburdened with too much taxes.