There it is, plain as day. He literally just admitted to his crimes.

  • the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do people really not understand that this is not a confession? The cases against Trump hinge on whether he in fact did not believe there were legitimate grounds for contesting the election. I.e., he was advocating for overturning the results but didn’t actually believe there were grounds to do so.

    Saying “hE jUsT coNFeSsEd!1!” here is kind of a smooth brained take. He has to maintain that he really and truly believed the election results should be overturned, or he’s in trouble.

    • knotthatone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What he believes in his heart has nothing to do with the crimes he’s been charged with. He interfered with official processes and concocted a scheme to submit a state of false electors. Believing he was doing what was right has nothing to do with the legality of the charges.

      • the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s actually the heart of the issue. The prosecution will have to prove that Trump either knew that he lost the election or recklessly disregarded that fact.

    • kescusay@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here’s the thing… This new admission doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The prosecution have him on tape, when he didn’t know he was being recorded, admitting he lost the election. Multiple times, in fact.

      So that aspect of the case is open-and-shut: He knew he lost, and he said as much multiple times.

      Given that context, his recent statement comes off as an attempt to walk it back, by doubling down on the insane idea that he thought he needed to overturn the election. In making that “defense,” he fully admits to trying to overturn it. I fully expect the prosecution to use it as evidence that he did, in fact, commit the crime, while using the earlier recordings as context proving that he did, in fact, know he was committing a crime.

          • the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for the link. All the down voted I’m getting suggest people think I am defending him, but I am just being a realist.

            The link shows he acknowledged the US presidency moved on without him. However, he still maintains it was rigged.

            That’s the rub, and that’s what the prosecutor has to show - Trump either knew or recklessly disregarded that the election was not rigged, and thus all his crazy actions were in bad faith.

            Can the prosecutor prove that in court? Quite possibly. Is it the slam dunk that everyone in this thread seems to be celebrating? No.