Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

drray23

(7,686 posts)
Fri Apr 15, 2022, 09:05 PM Apr 2022

Regarding these texts between meadows, lee and roy

I just finished reading the whole thing. I honestly do not think it's going to be that impactful in terms of indicting any of them. Obviously, they were trying to find ways to overturn the election but were very careful in these texts to emphasize it had to be via legal challenges and pass muster in terms of the constitution.

You can clearly see, they were desperately hoping that somebody would find a justification to send an alternate slate of electors, challenge the elections in states one way or another.

However, as it became clear it was just a shit show and neither Powell or Giuliani could back up what they were saying with actual proof, both Roy and Meadows started to freak out realizing they were going into coup territory.

If anything, with a good lawyer these two would be able to use that as a defense if they were accused of conspiracy.

It's not so clear that it helps Trump for his defense. They clearly portray him as completely willing to push false claims in order to overturn the election. So, that may be the silver lining there.



8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Regarding these texts between meadows, lee and roy (Original Post) drray23 Apr 2022 OP
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . .. Lovie777 Apr 2022 #1
"It's not so clear that it helps Trump for his defense." brooklynite Apr 2022 #2
I agree it would not be usable in court to convict Trump drray23 Apr 2022 #3
Not sure Seinfeld is binding precedent dpibel Apr 2022 #5
Under our legal code, the defendant doesn't have to prove innocence... brooklynite Apr 2022 #6
Has nothing to do with burden of proof dpibel Apr 2022 #7
This is about Trump, gab13by13 Apr 2022 #4
Not as bad for Lee and Roy but Meadows looks awful. bottomofthehill Apr 2022 #8
 

brooklynite

(96,641 posts)
2. "It's not so clear that it helps Trump for his defense."
Fri Apr 15, 2022, 09:13 PM
Apr 2022

Unless you have evidence that Trump saw the texts or was informed of them, opinions by Meadows, Lee and Roy are not admissible as to his culpability. Add to which, if Trump convinced himself the election was stolen, you can't convict him for pushing false claims.

drray23

(7,686 posts)
3. I agree it would not be usable in court to convict Trump
Fri Apr 15, 2022, 09:16 PM
Apr 2022

but it does add to the narrative. If CNN obtained these texts, I am sure the DOJ had them months ago already. They can't use that to indict Trump, but I suspect they probably used it to inform the investigations, establish the whole picture.

dpibel

(3,013 posts)
5. Not sure Seinfeld is binding precedent
Fri Apr 15, 2022, 10:26 PM
Apr 2022

Are you pretty sure there's not a reasonableness aspect at play here?

"I really, really believed it, yer honor," may not actually fly when the belief is manifestly unsupported by anything other than fond wishes.

 

brooklynite

(96,641 posts)
6. Under our legal code, the defendant doesn't have to prove innocence...
Fri Apr 15, 2022, 10:29 PM
Apr 2022

How does a prosecutor prove that Trump knew he had lost the election but kept fighting anyway.

dpibel

(3,013 posts)
7. Has nothing to do with burden of proof
Fri Apr 15, 2022, 10:39 PM
Apr 2022

What in the world does "the defendant doesn't have to prove innocence" even mean in this context?

To answer your question:

The prosecutor calls as a witness former Atty Gen Bill Barr and says, "Mr. Barr. Did you tell Mr. Trump that he lost the election and there was no fraud?"

And Barr says, "It's in my book, fer cryin out loud. Yes, I told him that."

The prosecutor then calls the 20 or 30 other people who are on record telling Trump the same thing.

The jury is entitled to weigh that evidence against an argument that Mr. Trump was honestly convinced that he won, so leave Mr. Trump alone.

Now I think about it: I'm thinking "honest belief," to the extent that it figures in at all, is an affirmative defense. In which case, the person asserting it (that would be Trump for those following along at home) actually does (you're going to just hate this) carry the burden of proof.

What's more, I'm thinking if you want to put Mr. Trump's honest belief at issue, about the only way you're going to effectively do that is...ummm...put Mr. Trump on the witness stand.

We can all hope his counsel takes your advice, I guess.

gab13by13

(22,720 posts)
4. This is about Trump,
Fri Apr 15, 2022, 09:26 PM
Apr 2022

First of all we don't have all of the texts. We don't have the communications between Meadows and Trump. Lee and Roy confirmed to Meadows that the plan to overthrow the election was illegal, we have that documented. What we need now is to get Meadows to admit if he told that to Trump. Hopefully this is why DOJ has not indicted Meadows for ignoring a subpoena, DOJ may be negotiating with Meadows to spill the beans.

bottomofthehill

(8,494 posts)
8. Not as bad for Lee and Roy but Meadows looks awful.
Fri Apr 15, 2022, 11:12 PM
Apr 2022

They were letting him know this was bullshit as 1/6 got closer and still he did nothing.

This is what happens when you hire a community college grad to be your White House Chief of Staff

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Regarding these texts bet...