this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
1005 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19072 readers
6036 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can you link me where he said he knew he lost in a valid election? I haven't seen that yet. Thanks!

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ask and ye shall receive: He plainly admitted it in an interview with historians back in 2021.

You should also read Jack Smith's indictments, there are multiple cases where he was recorded saying things like, "As president, I could have declassified [referring to the documents he illegally kept], but now I can't" - a tacit admission that he was no longer president.

He knows he lost, and he knew back then.

[–] the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml 2 points 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.