Jan 6 Hearings

[Dill]

(06-19-2022, 06:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Trump could have genuinely thought his foundation was an actual philanthropy too, but that did not stop a court from dissolving it and ordering Trump to return millions to those he had grifted. My concern about a jury trial in this case is not so much that intent will be a difficult bar to meet, but that one or two fanatics could find their way in to nullify an otherwise solid legal case. 

(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.

I can't agree with the first bolded--in this sense: Convincing the public might not be a PRIORITY, but it has to be part of what the committee is attempting. Or perhaps replace "convincing" with "informing."  The RWM is a machine set up to convert every criminal investigation into Trump team criminality a "hoax." This does affect "independents" and anti-anti Trumpers too, who can be seduced and/or paralyzed by the blizzard of alternative facts, viewing angles and false equivalences they create, making the country nearly ungovernable now. A strong and consistent, fact- and testimony-based presentation renders attempts to "hoaxify" Trump's actions rather less successful.  

I totally agree that those "hiding from the facts" aren't going to change their minds, at least in the short term. But such hiding does take work, and usually indicates a secret fear that one's alternative facts have to be protected from the other kind, and an oblique respect for the latter's truth value. In 1941, the majority of Japanese believed their government's version of the Pacific War, but by '44, even the most fanatical supporters of empire had to notice that their "victories" were getting closer and closer to the homeland. The string of Trump's closest advisors, one after another breaking against the lie, might create similar discomfort in those who assumed a Trump team consensus regarding the big lie. This is somewhat manageable by constantly casting them has "traitors" who "failed the president," but you can't very well write off the President's daughter as a fake news RINO without offending the Dear Leader. If he finds out, indirectly, that there never was a "Stop the Steal" fund, even a committed Trumper might hesitate a moment before sending off yet another 20$ to the next "Trump Needs your Help to Drain the Swamp" appeal. 

Regarding the second bolded, I find it also interesting that the Committee is going after Meadows in a similar fashion. E.g., he KNEW that the Pence nullification was based on a faulty reading of the Constitution, one that even Federalist Society judges could not support.

I don't mind repeating it--I'm hearing a lot for the first time, e.g., that Pence would not get into a limousine sent to whisk him from the Capitol, apparently in fear that it might have been ordered to keep him away and prevent the certification (gosh! who would have the power to give an order like that?). And after what amounted to an attempt on his life by someone calling him a "wimp" for not breaking the law and throwing the nation into a constitutional crisis, he still had praise for what he and Trump had accomplished and some good words for Trump's golf game.