I honestly hate to see so much media attention spent on the subject of what IQ45 'really believed'

[Hugh_Lebowski]

I mean, for fucks sake, some of the shit that he did? It really should not matter. Esp. the call to Raffensburger to start, but that's not all.

Feel like there's a rabbit hole IQ45 and the M$M is trying to create, and I'm not going down. For 2 main reasons:

#1 absent a freaking DIARY laying around, you can never KNOW what person was 'believing'.
#2 'stolen' is a completely subjective word in this context

People are talking about 'did he REALLY think the election was stolen' like it's an important point, like it's in the law or something

It doesn't mean jackshit IFAIC, because nobody can 'know' and besides 'stolen' is undefinable, again, in this context.

And it's not some get-out-of-jail-free even if he 'thought that'. Dude beats his wife ... should it legally matter if he 'believed she'd been unfaithful'? Obviously not, and it's the same basic idea.

I think we should stop the discussion NOW about the subject of 'did he actually think it was stolen' because that's literally undefinable, unwinnable, and hence not a good place to plant any flags.

And I damn sure hope ... not legally imperative to prove.

My flag is on 'it doesn't fucking MATTER what he 'thought', his actions were illegal

[Ms. Toad]

1. It is an element of one or more of the crime he is charged with,

So yes, the prosecution has to prove it.

You can't be convicted of a crime without the prosecution proving both bad mental state and bad acts. For some of these crimes, the bad mental state includes knowing that he lost but carrying out acts to retain the presidency anyway.

Your analogy is not the same. Being unfaithful would not give a man the right to beat his wife. But believing she was about to inflict bodily harm would give him that right. Same act - different result based on mental state.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

20. A prosecutor doesn't need to get inside someone's head to prove intent

They can prove intent through the things they did. A criminals actions tell us what they intended.

I don't need to know what a drug dealer was thinking to pop him for drugs. He was on a known drug dealer street corner, hanging around with drug dealers, with a bunch of small bills and crack vials on him. You don't do that if you're not selling.

Or let's say you're a cop whose town has had a bunch of women turning up missing or dead. If I were a cop who pulled over a guy whose car was missing a passenger seat, had the door locks removed, and had a "kit" of handcuffs, rope, nylon stockings, and an ice pick, I wouldn't think he was an ordinary Joe. I'd think I was looking at my serial killer and his murder "kit," and haul him in. If I were his prosecutor, I wouldn't need a psych eval to know the guy had been up to no good. That car and what it contained would tell me what I needed to know about the guy's intent.

Same thing here. Nobody needs to go into this dimwit's head to realize that he refused to accept that he'd lost, so he was willing to do anything, even crime, to hold the office. His actions in the wake of the loss tell us that.

[Ms. Toad]

23. The element of the crime requires that the prosecution prove what was in his mind.

Fraud requires knowing something is false and lying about it for the purpose of gaining something.

"Up to no good" isn't the element of the offense. Knowingly making the false statements is. So it has to be proven. If it isn't proven, he's just someone who truly believes that he won. Why do you think Smith spent nearly 3 pages on his allegation stating the case that Trump knew (i.e. what was in his head) that the claims were false? It's because that is an element he has to prove.

Since Trump is not likely to come out and tell us what was in his head, it will have to be prove by circumstantial evidence. That's less certain than direct evidence, and there are facts going to both sides of that question: People - including attorneys - told him both things: that he won and that he lost. The strongest evidence I've seen is a statement attributed to him about Powell's claims - indicating that her claims were crazy (which suggests, but doesn't prove that he didn't believe them). So it's not a given that a jury will decide that Trump actually knew he had lost.

What his actions in the wake of the loss tell us is that he was determined to stay in office. The critical legal question is whether he knew he had no right to stay in office. If the US loses this case, it will be on this element of the claim(s).

I had hoped for something more definitive in the indictment - and hope Smith has more in his pocket. Because right now that is the weakest element of the case.

[RockRaven]

2. I'm not a federal prosecutor, but those who have been or study them professionally like

the Lawfare crowd and the Popehat guy (and here I'm specifically choosing not-liberal/progressive-cheerleaders, but small-c-conservative/pragmatic types) say that the practical standard is showing the jury what information the person was operating with, and then telling them to use their "common sense" to decide what a normal person with access to that info would have believed.

Of course, it only takes one MAGAt to jury-nullify into a hung jury mistrial. But the prosecutor doesn't have to actually prove the literally unknowable internal machinations another mind -- nobody would ever be convicted of any crime with an intent aspect if that were true.

[Ms. Toad]

4. What he was told is circumstantial evidence of what he knew

And the jury can use that evidence to infer what he actually knew, considering what a reasonable person would know. But it also has to consider the contrary things others told him.

Ultimately it is the jury's responsibility to determine, based on the evidence, what his (subjective) mental state is. Reasonable person is an objective view, and the jury can use it in trying to sort out what he actually knew, but they aren't required to reach the same conclusion that trump knew what a reasonable person would have known.

[GoodRaisin]

3. Yeah it's a favorite M$M Donald Trump talking point

that gets recycled a lot. You’d have to be dead not to know by now that the pundits are very concerned about it.

[Ms. Toad]

5. They are concerned with good reason,

Proving what is in someone's mind is often the most difficult part of proving the crime, since it is pretty rare that a criminal will come right out and say it.

[GoodRaisin]

6. I've heard.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

21. No, it's not difficult at all

Actions in the commission of a crime can prove intent. Prosecutors are able to prove intent through actions alone every hour of every day our courts are open.

Even a wet-behind-the-ears newbie prosecutor knows that.

[Ms. Toad]

24. Funny, I've been teaching students this for years.

Mens rea (gulity mind) and actus rea (bad acts) are two different groups of elements in an offense. You have to prove both - you can't just rely on bad acts to prove mens rea.

Smith knows this. He spent nearly 3 pages laying out the circimstantial evidence to support his claim that Trump knew he lost. He didn't just skip that element and say "don't worry about it," his actions are enough to prove him guilty.

[Solly Mack]

7. Lot of criminals have delusions and many of them are sitting in prison right now.

[Silent3]

8. The law should be changed (too late for Trump's case) so "mens rea" can only moderate punishment...

...for anyone who has accepted a position of great responsibility, rather than being determinative of guilt.

[Ms. Toad]

9. The structure (guilty mind + bad acts) is the foundation of criminal law.

It is not going to be changed.

You take someone's life - it's murder, right? Not necessarily - it depends on the mens rea (mental state).

The same bad act (taking someone's life) can be several different crimes (or none at all), depending partly (or exclusively) on the mens rea.

If you were sober and driving your car in a manner that was safe for the conditions, paying attention to the road, etc., turned the corner and ran over someone sleeping on the road killing them - you took their life, but because your mental state was pure - no crime.

But - if you were out drinking at a bar, got drunk, then hopped behind the wheel of the car, drove your car over someone wearing a neon jacket killing them, it might be negligent homicide because you were driving your car drunk, so drunk that you didn't see (or didn't care about) the bright neon jacket.

Even worse - if you were sober, but knew your arch enemy liked to nap on a particular spot on the road, at a particular time, drove to that location at that time, found him, and drove over him killing him, it would likely be first degree murder. You knowingly (found him and drove over him), and with malice aforethought (drove to the location you knew he would be to carry out the crime) took his life.

So mens rea doesn't just distinguish between punishments - it distinguishes a crime from the exact same act carried out in a way which is not a crime because of the mental state.

[Silent3]

16. What about drug possession crimes?

I've never heard someone get out of that because they claimed not be aware of possessing drugs, or didn't know possessing drugs was an illegal thing.

Whatever happened to, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

It's absolutely ridiculous we're twisting ourselves in knots over what Trump did or did not know, was or was not thinking. It's ridiculous that we've had to tailor the indictments brought against him to avoid mens rea issues, that we could only press charges where we could find enough witnesses and/or recordings that provide insight into Trump's state of mind.

Trump was President, the highest office in the land! With that office should come some damned responsibility for what you do, with no lame excuses that we have to figure out, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if they apply.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

10. The media was and is used as a tool.

He plays them as fools. And because the media owners are extremely wealthy. likely want him back in office.

Because those owners also have no moral compass

[Dios Mio]

13. They are like hyenas.

[FBaggins]

11. There's really no way around it

Even if you disregard the (entirely accurate) “mens rea “ comments above - there’s no way to avoid that defense when the charges constantly assert that he “knowingly made false claims”.

The only possible defenses for such charges are:

1- he never made the claims
2- the claims were not false
3- he believed the claims to be true at the time

1&2 really aren’t possible… so of course you should expect to hear #3 over and over.

To make matters worse - there’s a good chance that it will work on those charges . If I were a juror I could absolutely see myself buying that this nut believed that the election was stolen despite many credible sources in his own administration telling him that he had lost.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

19. Did he have dementia

Do you believe that he didn't know about the Red Mirage?

Even Magats believe he knew that, cause they do not want to admit that he had dementia; the only other option.

Yet, there he was, shortly after polls closed, acting like he didn't understand why they were still counting votes.
Saying that he was ahead and that they were still finding votes.


I hope that is part of the evidence allowed. I believe the counts talk about time periods that begin November 14th
This would have been November 3rd or 4th, depending on timezone.
I hope it can still be used as evidence of how he knowingly lied about the election.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

22. But you still don't have to get in his head to get to what he knew

You can go by the things he says and does.

Did he ever admit that Biden beat him?

Well, we know he knew he lost the election. He's admitted it in public a few times, but he also had people who worked for him telling him that he'd lost. It doesn't matter if he believed it or not. He still had the knowledge that he'd lost.

Worse, despite knowing that, he still tried to do whatever he could to change that, no matter how shady it would be, no matter how ludicrous or how illegal. He had lawyers around him who told him he couldn't do various things he proposed, people like Barr, Cippolone, Raffensberger in GA, and so on. And yet he did it anyway, knowing that it wasn't legal, (or at least of questionable legality).

He knew he would be committing crimes, and did it anyway.

The intent question is already done.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

12. The media uses him like a tool. As it does them.

The media owners have learned much from the president who was a scumbag.

[mopinko]

14. since he was telegraphing the plan in 15,

i think it’s safe to say that the input didnt matter to him, just the outcome.
he loudly proclaimed, over and over, that he would not accept the results if he lost.
if that’s not a guilty mind, i dont know what is.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

18. Hell he was also telegraphing it massively in spring/summer of 2020 itself

I've not read the indictment but it kinda seems to me like some of the public statements from that timeframe should be in there too. He was basically saying all year that the only way Biden wins is if the election is stolen from him, even though the poll numbers never backed that up.

[Irish_Dem]

15. Sociopaths believe everything belongs to them.

Putin believes Ukraine belongs to him.

Xi believes Taiwan belongs to him.

Trump thinks the WH belongs to him.

[Novara]

17. The legal thing they need to prove is that a reasonable person would have understood the issue

And Jack Smith has described exactly why he brought these exact charges. Any reasonable person would absolutely know he lost. He was told time and time again - and it's in the indictment, although the examples given are only SOME of the examples - he lost 60 court cases. He was told that no investigation found any fraud.

Any reasonable person would understand that he lost. That's the only thing the prosecution has to prove - not his frame of mind. That is the legal standard.