It's a matter of whether Garland will draw the same conclusions as most non-Republicans

[Miles Archer]

I don't want to hear any more crap about "YES, but what was Trump THINKING? Did he KNOW he lost, or did he BELIEVE he was doing the right thing?" That Andrea Mitchell / Chuck Todd both-sides-ism, the "let's play devil's advocate and discuss whether Trump could actually be considered guilty..."

Enough is enough. I think his motives were pretty transparent and the evidence is overwhelming. And as they said AGAIN today on MSNBC, after the hearings, "A referral from the Jan 6 Committee is NOT SOMETHING REQUIRED BY THE DOJ. They don't NEED it."

[KPN]

1. Hear, hear! Case closed. I'm okay with waiting until after Nov 8th, but then

let's get on with it DOJ. The House Special Committee has provided the road map. Whether a jury will convict (i.e., a jury absent any covert MAGAts) is not relevant and certainly not a legitimate reason to not indict.

[Hortensis]

2. Garland's understanding so far passes that of "most" that even

if he were to "draw the same conclusions" no doubt it'd involve very different and far more complex...reasoning.

Agree that imagining tRump somehow didn't understand what he was doing is...silly at best. He may be relatively stupid and generally ignorant when compared with others in his powerful position, but not compared to most people. Emotionally unbalanced, yes, but not crazy. He's been planning this with others for a very long time.

[Beastly Boy]

3. Actually, what you don't want to hear is exactly what Garland needs to prove IN COURT

beyond reasonable doubt.

INTENT. Without proving intent he has no case. Doesn't matter how much evidence he has or what conclusions he draws. He is only the prosecutor. The law says he must prove intent, the judge makes this clear to the jury, and he jury decides whether he did or not.

[Genki Hikari]

4. In almost all cases, including this one, intent is easy to prove

Really.

You can prove intent by ACTIONS taken, especially those leading up to commission of a crime.

Prosecutors don't need to take juries traipsing through the mind of a drug dealer to demonstrate that he was intent on dealing drugs.

Cops spotted the dude on a corner popular for drug dealing.

He's hanging out with known gang members.

When they rolled up on him, they found multiple indivdual-sized bags of drugs in his pockets, along with a wad of $10s and $20s.

They don't need to put a psychiatrist on the stand to establish that the drug dealer intended to sell drugs. His ACTIONS (including the action of having drugs and a bunch of cash on his person) establishes the intent.

Same thing with the orange dolt. He committed certain actions that indicate his involvement in his crimes, such as invoking and egging on that insurrection. All the fake evidence court cases, the Georgia attempt at interference, the establishing of fake electors--ALL of these ACTIONS point to his intent to remain in office despite the election results, in essence trying to overthrow the government.

IOW: Intent established by the ACTIONS he took.

QED.

[Beastly Boy]

5. I am not even trying to debate what it takes to prove intent.

Last edited Fri Oct 14, 2022, 08:29 AM - Edit history (1)

I brought up the matter not to contest the degree of its complexity, but to disagree with the premise of the OP: no, it is not a matter of whether Garland will draw the same conclusions as most non-Republicans.

"Easy" is a relative term. And it is up to Garland to determine how easy it is to prove intent, not me, and not most non-Republicans. There is no room for populism in prosecuting a case, and while it doesn't take a psychiatrist to determine intent, Garland will only have one shot at it, and he doesn't have the luxury of not wanting to hear what Trump was thinking or whether Trump knew he lost. These questions will almost certainly cross the mind of at least one juror in deciding guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and Garland will need to be absolutely certain to preempt such questions as being unreasonable.

And it's beyond unfair to draw parallels between Garland's job and the never-ending spectacle of media punditry. The former has to do with administering justice and the latter has to do with, in this instance, informing the opinions of most non-Republicans.