Quote:
|
If you accept that he knew he'd lost, then you agree that he acted as a mafioso trying to change an election he'd lost. When he had that call, he was not still litigating the vote. He had lost that litigation. He was trying to get the result tossed.
|
That "if" is what has to be proven. I thought he made the call before the litigation was over, but even being wrong about that, Trump never agrees he lost any court case. His asking for votes is consistent with his past refusal to accept defeat and a belief that the court didn't have adequate proof before it and he was seeking that proof.
Quote:
|
I'm not clear why you think a broad case isn't the right response to a broad conspiracy, or why you think the fact that some defendants are trying to do stuff delegitimizes the prosecution.
|
I think roping in inner circle types like Giuliani is smart. But 18 people many of whom have never even heard of each other? And I'm not speaking to legitimacy. I'm handicapping based on practicalities.
Quote:
|
That is a common conservative talking point lately, but it's nonsense. Not every fact mentioned is therefore criminal.
|
I didn't say they were. But when you start mixing non-criminal acts with criminal acts, you invite both confusion, doubt as to which is and isn't criminal, and the defense that the case is criminalizing politics.
Quote:
|
If she can't prove it, she can't prove it. But it was pretty obvious in real time that Trump had a lot of people criming to overturn his election loss. That is the heart of it.
|
She has a rifle. There's enough to nail a tight crowd of inner circle types who have solid criminal exposure. I think using the shotgun is a strategy error. But that's just me. I've never been the sort to sue everybody one can just to be careful because it makes a messy case. I think the smarter approach is to do your due diligence and sue the people you're certain have liability.
