*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

I mean if it can be proven beyond doubt that he consciously tried to overturn an election

When someone is running for office in a close race, and they phone the guy counting the votes, and tell him exactly how many votes they need to win +1, what do you infer from that? He's hoping the guy will find some votes in the couch cushions?

[OngBonga]

When someone is running for office in a close race, and they phone the guy counting the votes, and tell him exactly how many votes they need to win +1, what do you infer from that? He's hoping the guy will find some votes in the couch cushions?

What I infer is not the same as what can be proven in a court.

If you're using campaign funds to pay them off, as he's alleged to have done

Sure, and this should be much easier to prove than the context of a comment.

Ong you're really not this dumb. If I force my way into a gov't building, threaten to kill some of the occupants, tear the place up and take a shit on someone's desk, that's going a wee bit beyond trespassing.

This is fine, but if I go to a political protest, and some idiot behaves as you describe, that doesn't mean I'm doing anything more than trespassing.

[Poopadoop]

What I infer is not the same as what can be proven in a court.

It only has to go beyond a reasonable doubt. That means a reasonable person would think that in all likelihood he was up to no good. That's the question. Now maybe you can convince 1/12 jurors that actually he was just hoping they'd find the exact number of votes he needed behind the couch cushions, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

[OngBonga]

It only has to go beyond a reasonable doubt. That means a reasonable person would think that in all likelihood he was up to no good. That's the question. Now maybe you can convince 1/12 jurors that actually he was just hoping they'd find the exact number of votes he needed behind the couch cushions, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

I think we disagree what "reasonable doubt" means. The comment "find x votes" is not incriminating enough on its own. It doesn't look good, but if that's all he's said, and with no other evidence to suggest an attempt to overturn the election, then it's plausible it was just a dumb comment. Plausible is reasonable doubt.

It's not about what a juror thinks is more likely, that would imply a 50% probability threshold, it's about whether the defence is plausible enough to create enough doubt as to call it "reasonable". If 51%+ certainty is enough for you to convict someone, good for you, but it's not for me, nowhere near enough.

[Poopadoop]

This is fine, but if I go to a political protest, and some idiot behaves as you describe, that doesn't mean I'm doing anything more than trespassing.

No-one is charging Trump with trespassing. Afaik, they haven't charged him with anything over the jan. 6 ya'llqaeda events. So it's probably a moot point.

[OngBonga]

No-one is charging Trump with trespassing. Afaik, they haven't charged him with anything over the jan. 6 ya'llqaeda events. So it's probably a moot point.

Well presumably they're charging him with inciting a riot, which is going to be difficult to prove because as far as I'm aware he didn't instruct people to riot.