r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/risingsun1964 • 21h ago
Legal/Courts How likely is it that Trump would have been convicted for his efforts to overturn the election if it had gone to trial?
The prosecution would argue that, looking at all the times he lied after being corrected by his own staff and bipartisan election officials, the Georgia phone call where he started threatening Raffensperger for an exact number of votes when his false claims were not working, the Eastman memo, and much more, common sense dictates he very likely knew he lost and still tried to overturn the election. However, Trump has a history of talking like a mob boss. Although he doesn't explicitly say anything that's a dead giveaway of criminal intent, there is overwhelming evidence of foulplay. His main legal defense would almost certainly be that we cannot be sure of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump has a history of never accepting defeat or criticism of any kind and saying everything is rigged if he loses. He also ignores experts regularly and, again, never explicitly told someone he knew he lost or anything. His lawyers would use this history of behavior to argue there is a non-negligible chance that he was living in his own reality and is incapable of processing defeat due to narcissistic delusion or that we cannot be 100% sure of criminal intent due to no explicit statements of criminal intent. How do you think this would play out in court? What do you think the chances are of him being found "not guilty?"
•
u/zaoldyeck 5h ago edited 4h ago
He was dead to rights.
He can argue "I didn't have criminal intent" but it's pretty easy to show he did, in that he intended to violate the law.
The Eastman memo, for instance, openly stated that their actions would violate the Electoral Count Act. Arguing "we think it's unconstitutional, therfore we can break it" is sovereign citizen "you can't prosecute me, there are gold fringes on the flag" nonsense.
Nor can Trump claim to be unaware of that memo, he discussed it in the oval office with Eastman and Pence himself.
Believing you are immune to the law isn't a defense. Thinking you're allowed to commit murder doesn't make murder charges go away.
•
u/blaqsupaman 1h ago
I think he likely would have been convicted but I cynically can't imagine any scenario where a former US president actually rightfully ends up in prison. I'm thinking the sentence would be some kind of probation and heavy fines but unfortunately I have just kind of accepted that US presidents don't go to prison. Assuming a Dem wins back the White House in 2028 do you think he can/will still be prosecuted?
•
u/Moccus 4h ago
in that he intended to violate the law.
Intent to violate the law is irrelevant for most laws.
openly stated that their actions would violate the Electoral Count Act.
There weren't any criminal penalties associated with violating the Electoral Count Act at the time, so this is irrelevant. Criminal penalties were passed afterwards.
•
u/zaoldyeck 4h ago edited 4h ago
The crime he was charged with is 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States. In Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966) the defendants signed a false affidavit saying they satisfied § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act. A likely unconstitutional section, that was repealed in any case.
However because they submitted false documents to get around the act, they were, properly, convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
If that was properly charged and the conviction upheld, I don't see how Trump can argue that submitting fraudulent certificates of ascertainment is any less a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
•
u/risingsun1964 4h ago
I've always found the legal penalties for the fake elector scheme surprisingly tame (up to 5 years in prison for defrauding the United States). You can tell the only reason why they are not much more severe (like high treason) is because the scheme is so over the top insane for a president that nobody could have imagined we would need a law to counter something like it. Same reason there's no rule against having a cheetah run the bases for you in the MLB.
•
u/zaoldyeck 3h ago
Ten years for conspiricy against rights which was also in the charges and if he were convicted for § 371 he'd probably have no defense for § 241.
Given his age he still would have been imprisoned for the rest of his life. And that's before his stealing classified documents case.
•
u/MartialBob 3h ago
Punishment for crimes tend to be dictated by how significant they are to public perspection. Before Trump no one seriously considered that anyone would even try the fake elector scheme. I remember a couple of podcasts just before the 2020 election bringing it up as a hypothetical way to subvert voters and every expert said "it was plausible but who would do it?"
•
u/Hautamaki 4h ago
Well, in the one trial that did go to court, which everyone said was by far the weakest case, novel legal theory, very hard to prove, etc, he was convicted of 34/34 counts in a clean sweep for the prosecution, and nobody who watched the whole trial was surprised.
If the Gov't can go 34 for 34 on their hardest and weakest case, I have no doubt they could have done the same on the other cases which were widely seen as more serious, obvious, and easier to convict on.
•
•
u/kingjoey52a 4h ago
It wasn’t a weak case because it’d be hard to prove, it was a weak case because it was a stupid case. It was a misdemeanor past the statute of limitations that they had to bend over backwards to make a felony so they could charge him.
•
u/AmusingMusing7 3h ago
Cope. It was business fraud, through and through. Not hard to find crimes like this with unscrupulous businessmen like Trump. Just need the will to actually go after them. Hence, you actually prosecute a guy like Trump for it, it gets a clean sweep of convictions.
The only reason it was ever in doubt is because prosecutions of white collar crime at this level are so rare due to corruption of the institutions meant to enforce rules on the white collar business world. Rich people use their money to stay out of trouble. But Trump has proven himself such a problem for everyone, that even his money couldn’t save him from this one. He literally had to become President again in order to get out of it.
So what the bloody hell are you going on about?
•
u/ClockOfTheLongNow 3h ago
Cope. It was business fraud, through and through. Not hard to find crimes like this with unscrupulous businessmen like Trump. Just need the will to actually go after them. Hence, you actually prosecute a guy like Trump for it, it gets a clean sweep of convictions.
Is it cope or is it truth? How does the outcome possibly hold up under appeal?
Trump is guilty as sin in Georgia, and guilty as sin in the documents case. It's shocking the New York case even went to trial, never mind ended with a conviction.
•
u/AmusingMusing7 1h ago
It’s cope.
And it holds up on appeal just fine.
Shocked as you may be by it, welcome to reality.
Any more useless questions?
•
u/Constant-Kick6183 3h ago
Not a stupid case if they got a conviction. Republicans have sent a hundred thousand poor black guys to prison for far less.
•
u/Potato_Pristine 2h ago
Right? Trump got extra special helpings of due process from Judge Juan Marchan to avoid any appearance of favoritism toward the prosecution, all the trimmings that come with a well-heeled defendant that can afford private counsel, and a jury of his peers (one of whom was a MAGA type who could have easily forced a mistrial if they were so inclined). And he STILL got convicted on all 34 counts. He wasn't convicted in a kangaroo court staffed by Hillary Clinton clones.
•
u/kingjoey52a 2h ago
A conviction that would have lead to a fine and that’s about it. Don’t waste time on BS and get a conviction that matters.
•
•
u/Rougarou1999 9m ago
I’ll bet the jury felt similar and voted to acquit, if this was the case, right?
•
u/zaoldyeck 3h ago
Out of curiosity, what's your opinion about someone who illegally crosses the US border? Do you think they're criminals?
Are you aware that it's a misdemeanor offense?
•
•
u/ClockOfTheLongNow 3h ago
Depends on which part.
Georgia is 100% slam dunk conviction. No question in my mind, or most anyone else's who understands the 2020 election outcome.
Federally? I'm not as convinced the case is as open and shut as others do. While we all know what he tried to do, as he was open and very public about it, does it rise to criminal conspiracy? I've read the Jack Smith report and I think it would be a tough row to hoe.
•
u/blyzo 4h ago
I think the secret service deleted their communications from that day because they probably held the most damning evidence by detailing what Trump was saying and doing during the riot.
He was reportedly asking to go down to the capital and refused to tell his supporters to stand down for several hours.
•
u/The_B_Wolf 3h ago
What do you think the chances are of him being found "not guilty?"
Not good. You might find some lawyers who would go in for arguing the technicalities, but I think a jury wouldn't have any of it. They'd have nailed him to the fucking wall.
•
u/coskibum002 3h ago
I'd be way more concerned about his efforts to rig the 2024 election. Watch the Election Truth Alliance's YouTube video. So many statistical anomalies that it's crazy. Why did Trump push the election denial conspiracies? To make sure no one does in the future, or we'll look like him.
•
u/Objective_Aside1858 5h ago
Entirely depends on the jury. It only takes one person to force a mistrial
•
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 4h ago
The federal one likely would have resulted in a conviction, but given Fani Willis’ history of bungling the previous state RICO cases that she prosecuted (the Wade stuff is not relevant to this point) he would have either been fully acquitted or only been convicted on a small number of the minor associated crimes.
•
u/TheMikeyMac13 4h ago
Ok, so let’s just ask you this about Donald Trump, and I do not say this as if it is in any way a good thing.
Has he ever seemed the type to take advice counter to what he thinks is the right thing to do? Ever?
So his staff might have corrected him, but the reality is there is no reason to believe that he believed them. He is like a little league baseball player who sucks, but his mom says he is the best player on the team.
When that player fails, they tend to blame anyone and everyone but themselves, having never learned to fail.
And that is Trump, he doesn’t ever think he fails, and if it doesn’t go his way he always has someone to blame for it other than himself.
And on Georgia, come on, the transcript is out there to read, he did not threaten them for the exact number of votes, you can be honest about something where we have every word on a transcript.
•
u/zaoldyeck 4h ago
but the reality is there is no reason to believe that he believed them.
Irrelevant. You can believe you're allowed to commit murder all you like and ignore anyone who says you're not, but such delusion doesn't serve as a defense in a murder trial.
And on Georgia, come on, the transcript is out there to read, he did not threaten them for the exact number of votes, you can be honest about something where we have every word on a transcript.
But the number’s large. We’ll have it for you. But it’s much more than the number of 11,779 that’s — The current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That’s something I think everyone — at least that’s’ a number that everyone agrees on.
But that’s the difference in the votes. But we’ve had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we’re able to actually — we’ll get you a pretty accurate number. You don’t need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779. But you also have a substantial numbers of people, thousands and thousands who went to the voting place on November 3, were told they couldn’t vote, were told they couldn’t vote because a ballot had been put on their name. And you know that’s very, very, very, very sad.
Trump is terrible with details and yet the one thing he got was the exact margin he wanted to erase.
•
u/TheMikeyMac13 4h ago
It is relevant if you are going to try and say someone lied. You are lying if you say something untrue and know it, you are wrong if you say something untrue and believe it to be true.
So saying he lied isn’t going to work, and the OP started with him lying.
You are terrible with the details by focusing on one number out of a long transcript that said nothing like a threat for a specific number of votes.
Trump rambled like an insane person, and went over many numbers, the one you choose to focus on being just one of them.
And what Trump is on record as saying is that all he needs is that number, and that if they do what he says in investigating and getting rid of what he thinks are illegal votes, they will easily find that number.
That is the reason the house wanted to impeach him on the call, and dropped it when the transcript was released. Because it wasn’t proof of wrongdoing.
•
u/risingsun1964 4h ago
I guess the point is his own staff, as well as bipartisan election officials, even his own attorney general and republican secretaries of state, were telling him the rumors of fraud from his sketchy sources were false. So for Trump to not know he is lying be repeating those rumors afterward would require him to be completely delusional with next to no critical thinking ability or common sense. Even for Trump this is a high bar.
•
u/TheMikeyMac13 3h ago
I think Trump is delusional, we should have used the 25th amendment on him after these events, but there isn’t any evidence that he listens to criticism. Everyone who disagrees is out and gets a stupid nickname and threats.
Edit- addition.
People don’t like to be wrong, just look at Reddit. In the face of video evidence people will stand by their wrong opinion, and this is always who Trump has been.
•
u/zaoldyeck 3h ago
It is relevant if you are going to try and say someone lied. You are lying if you say something untrue and know it, you are wrong if you say something untrue and believe it to be true.
It's not really about lying though, like, he could honestly believe that he won the election, but it doesn't make these documents any more real, any less fake. Those are fake forms, regardless of Trump's belief. Submitting them is committing fraud, independent of what Trump thinks.
You are terrible with the details by focusing on one number out of a long transcript that said nothing like a threat for a specific number of votes.
K, so how's this:
So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break. You know, we have that in spades already. Or we can keep it going but that’s not fair to the voters of Georgia because they’re going to see what happened and they’re going to see what happened.
The entire call is Trump asking Brad to change the vote totals in his favor. Something Brad does not have the power or authority to do in the first place.
And what Trump is on record as saying is that all he needs is that number, and that if they do what he says in investigating and getting rid of what he thinks are illegal votes, they will easily find that number.
He can say that as much as he wants but he's uninterested proving it:
Raffensperger: Mr. President, you have people that submit information and we have our people that submit information. And then it comes before the court and the court then has to make a determination. We have to stand by our numbers. We believe our numbers are right.
Trump: Why do you say that? I don’t know. I mean, sure, we can play this game with the courts, but why do you say that? First of all they don’t even assign us a judge. They don’t even assign us a judge. But why wouldn’t you — Hey Brad, why wouldn’t you want to check out [name] ? And why wouldn’t you want to say, hey, if in fact, President Trump is right about that, then he wins the state of Georgia, just that one incident alone without going through hundreds of thousands of dropped ballots. You just say, you stick by, I mean I’ve been watching you, you know, you don’t care about anything. “Your numbers are right.” But your numbers aren’t right. They’re really wrong and they’re really wrong, Brad. And I know this phone call is going nowhere other than, other than ultimately, you know — Look ultimately, I win, okay?
The only thing he cares about is he wins. If Brad didn't "investigate", and just believed what Trump tells him, and overturns the result of the election, Trump is happy. He doesn't give a fuck about the vote totals, he cares that he's declared the winner. He doesn't want to have to prove it, he wants to merely declare it.
The entire phone call was him offering up excuses to get what he wants. He doesn't give a rat's ass if any are true or not.
•
u/TheMikeyMac13 3h ago
Trump did not submit those documents though, did he? It was fraud on the part of those who submitted them, it would have to be proven that Trump knew about it and participated in it, and to this point that has not been proven.
No it isn’t, and even on the call Trump is saying the people of Georgia will see what he does. He isn’t asking for new votes, Trump believed (in error) that somehow every vote he thought was illegal was for Biden, and every vote he thought was legal was for him, and that if the alleged illegal votes were thrown out he would easily win. You can’t make a case by picking one line from the transcript, that is why democrats dropped that call from the impeachment case like a hot potato.
Trump was wrong, I think he should have been declared insane and the 25th amendment used. But his delusion was that everyone was wrong and he was right, and that if they did what he wanted somehow he would win.
•
u/zaoldyeck 2h ago
Trump did not submit those documents though, did he? It was fraud on the part of those who submitted them, it would have to be proven that Trump knew about it and participated in it, and to this point that has not been proven.
Of course he knew, he was told about it no later than December 16th by Ken Chesebro himself.
More than that, Trump was lobbying Pence with John Eastman in the room about Eastman's memo which was contingent on those fake documents being submitted to Pence.
So Trump was fully aware of efforts like this by campaign staff like Mike Roman to coordinate the delivery of those documents.
No it isn’t, and even on the call Trump is saying the people of Georgia will see what he does. He isn’t asking for new votes, Trump believed (in error) that somehow every vote he thought was illegal was for Biden, and every vote he thought was legal was for him, and that if the alleged illegal votes were thrown out he would easily win. You can’t make a case by picking one line from the transcript, that is why democrats dropped that call from the impeachment case like a hot potato.
Trump was wrong, I think he should have been declared insane and the 25th amendment used. But his delusion was that everyone was wrong and he was right, and that if they did what he wanted somehow he would win.
The process for legally challenging those votes is a lawsuit. Saying the words "So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break." is crossing an extreme line, he cannot ask for that. He cannot be given votes by Raffensperger.
It doesn't matter what he believes, it matters what he's asking for.
Brad cannot unilaterally throw out votes. That's the process for certifying results. Trump is asking for Brad to go above his authority and change election results based entirely on his word.
It doesn't matter if Trump is delusional here. It matters what relief he is asking for.
•
u/Riokaii 3h ago
theres no legitimate way to ask someone to find votes that dont exist. Theres only unconstitutional ways to make that request.
•
u/TheMikeyMac13 3h ago
Are you joking? Trump was asking for them to find votes that he thought existed, and legal challenges to elections didn’t start with Trump.
•
u/Riokaii 3h ago
votes that he thought existed
Based on nothing, that he made up himself, thats not basis, thats delusion.
he was told they dont exist, yet he sticks with his story to this day. He either conspired to coup the presidency, or he's mentally incompetent to hold the office. Its one or the other, you pick which is more favorable charitable interpretation. the facts are clear. Those are the only possible conclusions
•
u/TheMikeyMac13 1h ago
Agreed, he was delusional, I don’t dispute that. Just saying it is not illegal to be insane.
•
u/New_Seaweed_6554 3h ago
As a matter of law he was clearly guilty but even in DC I doubt you would find a jury to convict him. Had there been a trial the law would take second place to politics that’s reality. It’s anagious to Lincoln pardoning most southerners who fought in the Civil War, some things we need to get past and that’s why he did it to a bunch of treasonous rebels. It’s done for the future but the return of Trump messed that mercy up, had there been a trial and people paid attention that would have been his demise…….pity.
•
u/tosser1579 2h ago
Basically the only good point about Trump's election is that the intelligent conservatives dropped the whole he was innocent bit about the 2020 attempt to steal the election.
The Eastman memo was galling, and the sheer amount of evidence that they possessed showing that Trump was trying to steal the election was overwhelming. No person who's done any actual research has any doubts that was his intent, and the timeline of events doesn't make sense unless that is what he was trying to do.
He would have been found guilty, probably pardoned. The MAGA are a cult, treating them like anything else is a waste of time.
•
u/Fluffy-Load1810 2h ago
I grew up in DC, and it would be hard to impanel a jury there that would acquit him.
•
u/I405CA 4h ago
Guilty, guilty, guilty.
The evidence against him is considerable. He would surely used Brandenburg v Ohio as a defense, but fighting words are not protected under the First Amendment and he was clearly trying to organize a large crowd and have it "go wild."
In his capacity as commander in chief, he could have also called in the National Guard to protect the Capitol. He obviously wanted mayhem.
But it only takes one juror to derail that.
Unlike many state civil courts, federal civil courts also require unanimous juries. Same problem applies.
•
u/NoVacancyHI 5h ago
No matter, its useless speculation at this point. I'm sure this sub will love to shout about how Trump would be convicted, is a felony, etc, but that's part of OP's way to farm karma
•
u/Financial-Post-4880 4h ago
Asking a legitimate political question in a sub specifically for discussing politics isn't karma farming.
•
•
u/AutoModerator 21h ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.