Let me refute the central claim of the article, e.g., that the evidence is so strong that co-conspirators might wish to take a plea and coopoerate.
Right now, Trump is leading the race for the GOP nomination. It is likely that he’ll be the nominee. If Trump is the nominee, it’s currently a coin toss on whether or not he gets elected. If he’s elected, all federal criminal cases against him will evaporate the second he takes office, because Garland is out, and the arms-length doctrine about the president’s relationship with the Justice Dept. is too. Jack Smith is going to be fired, and the person that comes in is going to file a motion to dismiss. IF Trump is elected, that’s a given. Anyone that’s flipped on Trump at this point is going to be hung out to dry.
People that are part of the RICO case in Georgia run similar risks, e.g., if they flip on Trump and he wins the presidency, they’re probably going to end up getting screwed for pissing off Trump, since he’s a dumb, vindictive sonuvabitch.
Even if Trump loses the election, Jack Smith still has to present a strong enough case to convict. While that seems likely to me, what evidence a jury can hear and consider isn’t the same as what I get from news sources. There’s a lot that I’ve seen that simply isn’t going to be admissible, and that could be enough for a jury to find Trump et al. not guilty on most or all charges.
If I was a defendant in this case, I’d say that there was roughly a 50-50 chance of getting pardoned outright if I kept my mouth shut, and a 25% chance that Smith wouldn’t be able to prove his case. That works out to be a roughly 38% that if I kept my mouth shut, I’d end up in convicted and possibly in prison. Those aren’t great odds when you’re talking about a few years in federal prison. But weighed against 30% of the whole country viewing you as a traitor if you take the deal, and having a target on your back for the rest of your life? I might take that risk.
I mean, if they properly constructed full presidential immunity on anything what’s to stop B from having T executed?
I keep seeing hypotheticals like this as if the Dems won’t pull the same old “we go high” BS they’ve been pulling my entire life. They’re all about positioning themselves as “the good guys” while letting Rs do just whatever. The realistic way it would play out is Dems pretend nothing is wrong, make a show of “peaceful transfer of power” after the election, and do the shocked pikachu when it’s bad. Do pay attention to modern history.
I keep seeing hypotheticals like this
Either a president is completely free to do whatever he wants or he is constrained by rules. This is not hypothetical.
I meant the hypothetical in which Trump’s “immunity” defense is upheld, libs love to powerfantasy about what Biden could do with this sort of “immunity” but history tells us that when Dems can choose whether or not to be restrained, they choose restraint, even if it means the GOP gets to hurt everyone.
I have no faith in justice. I do have faith in strokes and heart attacks.
Is this the relevant part?
Former Trump aide Nick Luna also shared that when the ex-president was told about Vice President Mike Pence’s need to be moved to a secure location, Trump responded by saying “So what?” Luna perceived this as an “unexpected willingness” on Trump’s part to expose a longtime loyalist to potential harm.
“Indeed, Trump’s angry response to Scavino’s comment to him that there’s smoke coming out of the Capitol in effect was, ‘Let it Burn,’” Gershman said. “And his nonchalant indifference to Vice President Pence’s safety and welfare offers chilling proof that Trump’s conscious purpose, namely, his intent, was first to incite an insurrection and then by his inaction to demonstrate his intent that the insurrection effectively stop Congress from doing its constitutional duty to certify the election results.”
This proof would be “powerful circumstantial” evidence of Trump’s criminal intent underlying all the federal charges, he added.
This salon article is basically a re-posting of this article linked:
Basically the tldr is it’s testimony that was recently disclosed publicly for the first time in a new motion from someone around him as the insurrection was unfolding. Lots of details about his mindset and what he was doing at the time, but one particularly interesting one was apparently trump decided to make the tweet about “Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done” minutes after hearing he was in danger, some more solid evidence he was trying to get his coup followers to attack Pence and others. Interesting details about what went down that will no doubt be helpful in court, but the headline is a bit sensationalized I think.
