Destiny

So I'm glad that you have the attorney background. When we are assessing mens rea, when we're looking at certain criminal statutes where intent is required, it's a reasonable person standard, right?

But for first degree murder, you don't need the statement of I plan to kill this person or I intend to kill this person. We can prove that state of mind. You need circumstantial evidence. Correct. Yes. So I feel like my feeling for Donald Trump was there were all these people around him that he trusted to investigate election fraud. He trusted Barr and the DOJ.

But for first degree murder, you don't need the statement of I plan to kill this person or I intend to kill this person. We can prove that state of mind. You need circumstantial evidence. Correct. Yes. So I feel like my feeling for Donald Trump was there were all these people around him that he trusted to investigate election fraud. He trusted Barr and the DOJ.

But for first degree murder, you don't need the statement of I plan to kill this person or I intend to kill this person. We can prove that state of mind. You need circumstantial evidence. Correct. Yes. So I feel like my feeling for Donald Trump was there were all these people around him that he trusted to investigate election fraud. He trusted Barr and the DOJ.

He asked Pence, his vice president, to look into it. He asked his chief of staff. He asked his legal counsel. There's so many people that ostensibly he trusts them if he's asking them to look into it. And when all of them looked into it and reported back to him, no, we found nothing.

He asked Pence, his vice president, to look into it. He asked his chief of staff. He asked his legal counsel. There's so many people that ostensibly he trusts them if he's asking them to look into it. And when all of them looked into it and reported back to him, no, we found nothing.

He asked Pence, his vice president, to look into it. He asked his chief of staff. He asked his legal counsel. There's so many people that ostensibly he trusts them if he's asking them to look into it. And when all of them looked into it and reported back to him, no, we found nothing.

what, unless we're going to literally make the concession that Trump might actually be a delusional psycho man at that point, should he not have realized like, well, okay, maybe that's a nice thing.

what, unless we're going to literally make the concession that Trump might actually be a delusional psycho man at that point, should he not have realized like, well, okay, maybe that's a nice thing.

what, unless we're going to literally make the concession that Trump might actually be a delusional psycho man at that point, should he not have realized like, well, okay, maybe that's a nice thing.

He should have realized the day of the election that he lost the election, but that's not, but I'm just asking, I'm saying that like at that point, should he not have known that for him to go and propagate those claims that he'd asked all of the people he trusted to research and then for him to take those claims to Michigan and to Georgia and then publicly and to try to convince people to throw out the election, you don't think that you're doing the same thing.

He should have realized the day of the election that he lost the election, but that's not, but I'm just asking, I'm saying that like at that point, should he not have known that for him to go and propagate those claims that he'd asked all of the people he trusted to research and then for him to take those claims to Michigan and to Georgia and then publicly and to try to convince people to throw out the election, you don't think that you're doing the same thing.

He should have realized the day of the election that he lost the election, but that's not, but I'm just asking, I'm saying that like at that point, should he not have known that for him to go and propagate those claims that he'd asked all of the people he trusted to research and then for him to take those claims to Michigan and to Georgia and then publicly and to try to convince people to throw out the election, you don't think that you're doing the same thing.

I agree with that. But I think a lot of the underlying facts, though, because he does bring up those calls to Raffensperger in Georgia, he does bring up in the indictments that they were knowingly false information.

I agree with that. But I think a lot of the underlying facts, though, because he does bring up those calls to Raffensperger in Georgia, he does bring up in the indictments that they were knowingly false information.

I agree with that. But I think a lot of the underlying facts, though, because he does bring up those calls to Raffensperger in Georgia, he does bring up in the indictments that they were knowingly false information.

So it seems like that's going to be part of the case, maybe not to convict on any of the four particular charges that he mentioned, but it seems like that's probably going to be part of – what he's going to have to establish in court to convict Trump. So I want to look at the actual text of the charges.

So it seems like that's going to be part of the case, maybe not to convict on any of the four particular charges that he mentioned, but it seems like that's probably going to be part of – what he's going to have to establish in court to convict Trump. So I want to look at the actual text of the charges.

So it seems like that's going to be part of the case, maybe not to convict on any of the four particular charges that he mentioned, but it seems like that's probably going to be part of – what he's going to have to establish in court to convict Trump. So I want to look at the actual text of the charges.

It doesn't have to just be because Smith has done oral arguments in response to a lot of the claims by Trump's lawyers. This was one of them. The infinite civil and criminal immunity was another one of them where he cites past cases where these types of things, because I think it was to defraud of civil rights, I think was the fourth charge.