If it had gone to trial and Trump had been convicted/sentenced; on appeal the appeals court might say, “Well….Trump didn’t know about the 315K unsigned by poll workers early voting ballots in Georgia that should have been rejected so it doesn’t essentially dispute the prosecution’s argument that he (Trump) “lied” about his belief that the election was “rigged”. Furthermore they would likely argue he still tried to pressure Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes. With that likely biased jury pool he probably would have been found guilty; whether he would have gone to prison would depend on the integrity of the appeals process in that state which I have little confidence in. Alan Dershowitz seems to feel that allot of it would have gone down to the judges’ instruction to the jury; if he said well the prosecution has to show that he (Trump) lied about his belief in the election being rigged in order for you to convict that would have helped Trump. But he (Dershowitz) suggested the judge might instead say something like “…Well maybe Trump believed the election was “rigged” but he should have known that it wasn’t”. That kind of instruction would likely have produced a conviction with that jury pool.
And of course their argument about the “fraudulent, fake electors” (actually a alternate slate of electors part of the process of challenging the certification). Well if Trump “fraudulently” “lied/refused” to accept the legitimacy of the election results that makes his challenge to such “illegal”. Even if it turned out later that the Georgia election results were fraudulent (315K votes that should have been rejected). Because Trump didn’t know about that at the time he undertook said “criminal” actions.
Some people need to hang.
If it had gone to trial and Trump had been convicted/sentenced; on appeal the appeals court might say, “Well….Trump didn’t know about the 315K unsigned by poll workers early voting ballots in Georgia that should have been rejected so it doesn’t essentially dispute the prosecution’s argument that he (Trump) “lied” about his belief that the election was “rigged”. Furthermore they would likely argue he still tried to pressure Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes. With that likely biased jury pool he probably would have been found guilty; whether he would have gone to prison would depend on the integrity of the appeals process in that state which I have little confidence in. Alan Dershowitz seems to feel that allot of it would have gone down to the judges’ instruction to the jury; if he said well the prosecution has to show that he (Trump) lied about his belief in the election being rigged in order for you to convict that would have helped Trump. But he (Dershowitz) suggested the judge might instead say something like “…Well maybe Trump believed the election was “rigged” but he should have known that it wasn’t”. That kind of instruction would likely have produced a conviction with that jury pool.
And of course their argument about the “fraudulent, fake electors” (actually a alternate slate of electors part of the process of challenging the certification). Well if Trump “fraudulently” “lied/refused” to accept the legitimacy of the election results that makes his challenge to such “illegal”. Even if it turned out later that the Georgia election results were fraudulent (315K votes that should have been rejected). Because Trump didn’t know about that at the time he undertook said “criminal” actions.