Jenna Ellis told investigators a senior White House aide insisted to her that Trump was just going to “stay in power” despite losing the 2020 election.
Assuming this clears hearsay judgement (and it should, relating to his mental state at the time)
Can you dig into this a bit further? This is what I've been considering (especially around the CO trial), is that like, while from an outsiders ley perspective, he clearly had the intent to overthrow the elected government of the United States, the standards of evidence in cases like this are high (and should be).
He's been very cautious throughout his life to engage that mafioso style of speaking (wouldn't it be great if… xyz… happened). He doesn't strike me as a fastidious note taker. At the same time, for things like the fake electors scheme, there is only so much you can minimize the communication by. Like it clearly happened; they had them prepared. There is (or at one point was) written documentation of some of these crimes. How far can something like this actually take things?
Prefacing with "I am not a lawyer," I'm only related to a two lawyers, two police officers, and have too many extended family friends who are both, I worked a short time in a court, and now watch/listen to too many lawyers talking on podcasts… so I'm likely the worst of the worst kind of armchair lawyer wannabe.
Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence used against the accused having allegedly committed a crime, because it's second-hand information and the person effectively making the evidentiary statement isn't the one currently testifying under oath.
I can't simply testify that you told me that you watched Trump commit a crime, when you aren't there to provide witness testimony.
But exceptions do apply, and in this case it would be when it comes to establishing a general intent or motive, a mental/emotional state of the accused.
I can testify that you told me Trump was angry about the election. I think there could be arguments that this testimony should be inadmissible if there is no chance for you to testify to the same, unless you were available for rebuttal or possibly involved in the crime itself, where you would feasibly be protected by the 5th amendment.
So it wouldn't be slam dunk "Scavino told me that Trump said we are going to illegally overthrow the election" is totally inadmissible as evidence of the crime. But the testimony from Ellis of what Scavino told her, that "we" don't care what the election outcome is, that "we" aren't leaving, at the very least implies that "we" have an intention to defy the outcome if it isn't in our favor. Meaning the "we" certainly aren't staying in power purely because "we" we think we won, and have good faith reasons to believe "we" should remain.
The telegraphed defense so far for Trump has been that he believes he actually won, and this testimony is a direct rebuke of that idea. This will naturally require more corroborating testimony presented to a jury to reach "beyond a reasonable doubt" on his intent to ignore the election and stay in power, but it proves such testimony already exists.
The telegraphed defense so far for Trump has been that he believes he actually won, and this testimony is a direct rebuke of that idea. This will naturally require more corroborating testimony presented to a jury to reach “beyond a reasonable doubt” on his intent to ignore the election and stay in power, but it proves such testimony already exists.
I guess that's where my concerns lay. Without physical evidence, I don't know how you get to "beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't know, without like, actual physical records of some kind, you prove that. And yes, they stole bankers boxes of documents, and for all we know, destroyed the evidence. At the same time, these conspiracies were far reaching, and in a digital age, being confident that you've completely destroyed all records of a communication could be very difficult. The inference of intent from hearsay, even qualified hearsay, seems like not a great strategy.
You do that by having enough people that were nearby, or better, involved in the overall conspiracy testifying that they were operating with the knowledge that what they were doing was illegal.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not "beyond the shadow of any doubt."
If you have three or four insiders saying that Trump wanted to do X (which was an illegal act), and corroborating testimony that he was told by these lawyers, like Ellis, that the law doesn't work that way, that this is illegal, it's not reasonable that Trump can righteously still believe he was not committing a crime. By that point it's "ignorance of the law" at best, which is not a defense.
Testimonies will be catered to pointing this out, and there will be plenty of arguments about the intent of text messages and emails and conversations surrounding Trump, they will ultimately establish everyone was aware that this illegal obstruction is being done knowingly and at Trump's direction. Once you're there, it requires an absolutely unreasonable juror to conclude he had any reason to believe be was in the right.
Perfect, Glenn explains (and understands) that much better. Glenn Kirschner is one of the ones I mentioned that I watch regularly, because justicematters. Definitely worth subscribing if the legal side of things is an interest- the others I hit up regularly are Meidas Touch's Legal AF and Talking Feds with Harry Litman.
It's definitely a lot of their legal strategies they've already discussed around the GA case for months that I was regurgitating, especially since the guilty pleads started rolling in.
Can you dig into this a bit further? This is what I've been considering (especially around the CO trial), is that like, while from an outsiders ley perspective, he clearly had the intent to overthrow the elected government of the United States, the standards of evidence in cases like this are high (and should be).
He's been very cautious throughout his life to engage that mafioso style of speaking (wouldn't it be great if… xyz… happened). He doesn't strike me as a fastidious note taker. At the same time, for things like the fake electors scheme, there is only so much you can minimize the communication by. Like it clearly happened; they had them prepared. There is (or at one point was) written documentation of some of these crimes. How far can something like this actually take things?
Prefacing with "I am not a lawyer," I'm only related to a two lawyers, two police officers, and have too many extended family friends who are both, I worked a short time in a court, and now watch/listen to too many lawyers talking on podcasts… so I'm likely the worst of the worst kind of armchair lawyer wannabe.
Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence used against the accused having allegedly committed a crime, because it's second-hand information and the person effectively making the evidentiary statement isn't the one currently testifying under oath.
I can't simply testify that you told me that you watched Trump commit a crime, when you aren't there to provide witness testimony.
But exceptions do apply, and in this case it would be when it comes to establishing a general intent or motive, a mental/emotional state of the accused.
I can testify that you told me Trump was angry about the election. I think there could be arguments that this testimony should be inadmissible if there is no chance for you to testify to the same, unless you were available for rebuttal or possibly involved in the crime itself, where you would feasibly be protected by the 5th amendment.
So it wouldn't be slam dunk "Scavino told me that Trump said we are going to illegally overthrow the election" is totally inadmissible as evidence of the crime. But the testimony from Ellis of what Scavino told her, that "we" don't care what the election outcome is, that "we" aren't leaving, at the very least implies that "we" have an intention to defy the outcome if it isn't in our favor. Meaning the "we" certainly aren't staying in power purely because "we" we think we won, and have good faith reasons to believe "we" should remain.
The telegraphed defense so far for Trump has been that he believes he actually won, and this testimony is a direct rebuke of that idea. This will naturally require more corroborating testimony presented to a jury to reach "beyond a reasonable doubt" on his intent to ignore the election and stay in power, but it proves such testimony already exists.
I guess that's where my concerns lay. Without physical evidence, I don't know how you get to "beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't know, without like, actual physical records of some kind, you prove that. And yes, they stole bankers boxes of documents, and for all we know, destroyed the evidence. At the same time, these conspiracies were far reaching, and in a digital age, being confident that you've completely destroyed all records of a communication could be very difficult. The inference of intent from hearsay, even qualified hearsay, seems like not a great strategy.
You do that by having enough people that were nearby, or better, involved in the overall conspiracy testifying that they were operating with the knowledge that what they were doing was illegal.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not "beyond the shadow of any doubt."
If you have three or four insiders saying that Trump wanted to do X (which was an illegal act), and corroborating testimony that he was told by these lawyers, like Ellis, that the law doesn't work that way, that this is illegal, it's not reasonable that Trump can righteously still believe he was not committing a crime. By that point it's "ignorance of the law" at best, which is not a defense.
Testimonies will be catered to pointing this out, and there will be plenty of arguments about the intent of text messages and emails and conversations surrounding Trump, they will ultimately establish everyone was aware that this illegal obstruction is being done knowingly and at Trump's direction. Once you're there, it requires an absolutely unreasonable juror to conclude he had any reason to believe be was in the right.
This came up in my feed today:
https://youtu.be/QGqj0_IITHE
Sharing, in case it's useful at all.
Perfect, Glenn explains (and understands) that much better. Glenn Kirschner is one of the ones I mentioned that I watch regularly, because justice matters. Definitely worth subscribing if the legal side of things is an interest- the others I hit up regularly are Meidas Touch's Legal AF and Talking Feds with Harry Litman.
It's definitely a lot of their legal strategies they've already discussed around the GA case for months that I was regurgitating, especially since the guilty pleads started rolling in.
I suppose that puts weight on the fact that its his lawyers have flipped.
Indeed! Getting Ellis, Chesbro and Krakendoodledoo to take a plea bargain in exchange for testimony were huge (yuge?) for the prosecution.