• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    61
    ·
    4 months ago

    If he were legitimately convinced that the electoral college process was improper, it is his duty to pressure Pence not to certify. He can’t be criminally charged simply for pressuring Pence not to certify.

    However, that same act of pressuring Pence can be considered a component of election fraud. He cannot be charged for merely pressuring Pence, but the act of pressuring Pence can be used as evidence of that wider fraud. The trial court is free to decide that the wider fraud is not an official act.

    • kevindqc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      4 months ago

      What? His duty?

      The VP’s role is ceremonial. He counts the votes and that’s it. He has zero power in the constitution to deny certification. The guy is on the ballot too FFS.

    • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      What the vice president’s duty is is not subjective. It’s prescribed in the constitution and clear as day. Donald Trump’s specious interpretation of his role is irrelevant.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Using that as evidence would fall under questioning his motivation and intent. That’s why the language about not being able to do that is in the decision.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Take conspiracy for example. The elements of conspiracy are:

        1. Two or more people agreed to commit a crime

        2. All conspirators had the specific intent to commit the crime

        3. At least one of the conspirators committed an overt act

        Trump conspires with false electors to rig the election. Trump’s is immune to charges stemming from his conversation with Pence, but he is not immune to charges of conspiring with false electors. His communication with Pence cannot be considered evidence of intent (#2), But it can be the overt act (#3) of the conspiracy.

        • treefrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          The courts can’t even raise issue 2. That’s what you’re missing. Courts aren’t allowed to question the President’s intent.

          How can you prove conspiracy if you can’t prove that all conspirators intended to commit a crime?

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            They absolutely can question intent. They just can’t use an “official act” as evidence of intent. They can use all the “unofficial acts” they want to demonstrate intent. And, once they decide that the bribe was an unofficial act, the door is opened to use it for intent as well.

    • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I feel like it is actually not his duty to be the judge of his own election and without any evidence attempt to subvert the election. And maybe, for him to not be in trouble for the actions he took, he should present a shred of evidence to support his actions. Because either he is right and there is evidence, he is evil and is desperately trying to do everything the founding fathers tried to prevent, or he is mentally ill. I feel like it’s a combo of the last two and the country needs protection against that.

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      His position would have to have proof to back it… Otherwise a president can be “convinced” of anything convenient and be immune from everything. It is a stupid position.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You reversed the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecutor - not the accused president - who has to do the proving.

        • Freefall@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Burden of proof applies to the legal system, sure…I am saying he would have to prove he was “convinced”…like if I shoot someone in self defense, I have to prove there was a threat to my person instead of me not liking their hat. It is proving my thought process leading up to the event.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            like if I shoot someone in self defense, I have to prove there was a threat to my person instead of me not liking their hat.

            No, you don’t. The last state to place the burden of proof on you for defending yourself was Ohio, but they repealed their unconstitutional “Affirmative Defense” requirement in 2019. In every state, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that your actions were not defensive, not yours to prove they were.

            Likewise, it is the prosecutor’s burden to prove he was fraudulently “convinced”.

            • Freefall@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              That definately makes killing folks a whole lot easier, as long as I am the only witness. “I defended myself, prove otherwise…kthnxbai!”.