USA v. Donald J. Trump – Indictment 8/1/23

[InfraBeat]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

It has a different generally held connotation in ‘modern’ political rhetoric as a term to describe a corrupt government that is just a figurehead for some oligarchic regime.

So you linked to an article that doesn't reduce the term that way. There's no point made in getting people to click to and read an article that doesn't even support you, other than as a gratuitous flourish.

Edited August 4, 2023 by InfraBeat

[necrovore]

The reason the US is resembling a "banana republic" is that this is the first time in US history (but common in the history of banana republics) that the party of an incumbent President has resorted to criminal prosecution to block a challenger in the next election.

I also found this article, which is enlightening: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/free-speech-killing-indictment-dems-move-criminalize-political-dissent

[Doug Morris]

35 minutes ago, necrovore said:

criminal prosecution to block a challenger in the next election.

That is not the reason for the prosecutions.

 

[necrovore]

38 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

That is not the reason for the prosecutions.

The banana republics say that, too.

[tadmjones]

2 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

So you linked to an article that doesn't reduce the term that way. There's no point made in getting people to click to and read an article that doesn't even support you, other than as a gratuitous flourish.

Did you know the O Henry thing ? I think I remember Rand spoke favorably about his Gift of the Magi , do you like O Henry?

[InfraBeat]

4 hours ago, necrovore said:

The reason the US is resembling a "banana republic" is that this is the first time in US history (but common in the history of banana republics) that the party of an incumbent President has resorted to criminal prosecution to block a challenger in the next election.

I enjoyed the irony that the poster linked to an article that defines 'banana republic' contrary to the poster's insinuation, by linking to the article, that the United States is a banana republic. Yes, we know the connotations of the term, but it's not supported even in a broad connotative sense that the United States is acting like a banana republic.

This is the first time such an event has happened because it's the first time in history that any American president has done* the kind of things charged in the indictment.  

* Though, of course, Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But do you claim there are any statements of facts that are not correct in the indictment?

It is a "between a rock and a hard place" situation. A democracy doesn't want to be criminally prosecuting political candidates, but a democracy also doesn't want to allow officials and candidates to criminally conspire to overturn an election.

As to the fact that there is a lack of bipartisanship, one could as easily fault the member of the party out of office for their lack of integrity and principle in their outlandish excuses, obfuscations and dishonest arguments made to save their hero. McCarthy even made the argument that Democrats who disputed the 2000 election and the 2016 election were not indicted. Of course they weren't, because they didn't conspire to defraud, obstruct and deny rights. Arguments like McCarthy's are so transparently dishonest, illustrating that the fact that it predominately Democrats that want to pursue the case is a function indeed of Republican lack of integrity and principle.

This question doesn't bear upon Trump's guilt or innocence, but I am interested: Read the indictment. But switch the parties and the candidates so that the defendant is Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Could you really, with a straight face, report here that the indictment is without merit? Really?

Edited August 4, 2023 by InfraBeat

[InfraBeat]

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

That is not the reason for the prosecutions.

The banana republics say that, too.

That's a lousy argument. You could use that reply to anyone to assert their fault. If you said, "Jack lied to the company that  Sally is embezzling just so he could get her job". Then someone says, "No, he honestly reported her embezzling because it's wrong and he took it as his duty to report it". Then you say, "That's what job grabbers all say". 

Edited August 4, 2023 by InfraBeat

[InfraBeat]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Did you know the O Henry thing ? I think I remember Rand spoke favorably about his Gift of the Magi , do you like O Henry?

What's your point?

[necrovore]

7 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

That's a lousy argument.

Isn't it funny how that works? The indictment itself is a lousy argument, but of course it's above challenge, and requires no proof, and anybody who dares to dispute it has to provide arguments and proofs forever which will never be enough.

It's just like all those old arguments for Christianity. They simply assert the divinity of Christ, you can't deny it without being required to produce piles of evidence (but of course they never have to produce any themselves at all), and they can punish you for persisting, and burn you at the stake, and you're going to hell.

[InfraBeat]

4 hours ago, necrovore said:

Isn't it funny how that works?

Your argument is mildly humorous.

4 hours ago, necrovore said:

[the indictment] is above challenge, and requires no proof, and anybody who dares to dispute it has to provide arguments and proofs forever which will never be enough.

Of course that's false. On the other hand, there are many people who claim, without proof, that the election was stolen; and we find that, for them, the final court rulings and refutations will never be enough. Contrast that with Gore accepting the final court ruling, and not conspiring to send false electors, even though Democrats took the majority opinion to be grievously argued.

I'm still interested: Read the indictment. But switch the parties and the candidates so that the defendant is Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Could you really, with a straight face, report here that the indictment is without merit? Really?

Edited August 4, 2023 by InfraBeat

[Boydstun]

5 hours ago, necrovore said:

. . . The indictment itself is a lousy argument, but of course it's above challenge, and requires no proof, and anybody who dares to dispute it has to provide arguments and proofs forever which will never be enough.

. . .

If the facts as stated in the indictment are true, then it was Pres. Trump who was making our country into a banana republic. He failed, and he was no longer the chief executive, as was the result of the election, lawfully executed. The idea that these charges, these representations of facts in the indictment require no proof, independent proof, is bigly false. So is the idea that some sort of proof that they are false is required at all for acquittal. The burden of proof of their truth is entirely on the prosecution. And it is in an adversarial trial by jury that independent proof must be obtained; that is what it means when the jury gives a guilty verdict. To give a not-guilty verdict means the prosecution did not prove the alleged facts of the indictment, and a not-guilty verdict in our system does not require that the defense prove anything at all. It only requires the defense to have cast a reasonable doubt, in the mind of one or more jurors, of the prosecution's representation of fact in support of each charge in the indictment.

I did not follow the O.J. Simpson trial, but I've gathered that most of the public thought he was guilty, even though the jury decided he was not proven guilty. The jury didn't find that he was innocent. It's not a responsibility they have to determine that.

If Mr. Trump is found not guilty in the federal cases or the coming Georgia case, tens of millions of Americans are going to be furious because of what they have themselves witnessed in his behavior. It's not that they know he committed these particular criminal acts, but they'll be sure he did all the same, just like OJ for people who watched the trial on TV. But that is not relevant to the process of law in America. We have burden of proof on the government prosecution, rights of the defendant to counsel, rights of appeal, and the adversarial setup at trial as quality-control structure for not convicting an innocent man, even if that lets a lot of guilty men remain at liberty. (It is my understanding that in recent US history prosecutors, knowing all the preceding of course, bring criminal charges only where they are very, very sure they can prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Very few of those come to trial, because the defendant pleads guilty, and the few who come to trial end mainly in conviction.)

Edited August 4, 2023 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

If Trump hadn’t announced he was seeking another term this indictment would most likely not have been brought , proof of which is the fact that all the allegations concerns conduct that occurred prior to Jan 21 2020 . The “crimes” were committed and all the evidence existed for years and immediately after the election, other than disqualifying him from office can be offered for the reason to pursue this indictment now? It is a political prosecution as are the various other indictments handed down or pending. It is laughable to defend these actions as a principled effort by the DOJ to protection the sanctity of the Republic.

They have already perpetrated three frauds (the Russian collusion hoax and subsequent special investigations) and possibly if not probably covered up enough election “irregularities” to constitute rigging/stealing the election post hoc.

Not to mention not taking any action other than covering up for a provably corrupt Biden. 

The ‘world’ was shut down for years to remove their populist demagogue thorn from their side. 
 

It’s Chiquita s all the way down.

Edited August 4, 2023 by tadmjones
Added text

[Boydstun]

Tad,

Conjecture, even hypothesis consistent with some facts, is not "proof". There is no proof that the US government staged the attack on 9/11. There is no proof that Sen. Cruz's father assisted in the assassination of JFK. There is no proof that Hitler lived out a full life in South America. There is no proof that Cary Grant was a homosexual. There is no proof that AIDS was caused by bad nutrition. There is no proof that Jesus rose from the dead, notwithstanding millions who believe he did.

If you have evidence that Pres. Biden is corrupt, specify it and send it to the FBI or perhaps your Congressperson. Proof will be responsibility of the prosecution. Since the Pres. is a public figure, you can specify the particulars in public print also, immune from liability, even if you state falsehoods, even ones that are lies. Thanks to the Court that gave us finally, literally freedom of the press (1960).

It was foreseeable that bringing indictments against Mr. Trump in this interval would help him secure the Republican nomination, which is required to give him a chance to win reelection. Foreseeable, given his manifest numerous Believing followers. Too bad for his opponents that the cases gelled now. 

Some of the crimes Bernie Madoff was indicted for were committed 17 years earlier. It can take quite a while sometimes to build a good case for successful prosecution. The law has to patiently press forward and not charge prematurely.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Boydstun

[InfraBeat]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

If Trump hadn’t announced he was seeking another term this indictment would most likely not have been brought , proof of which is the fact that all the allegations concerns conduct that occurred prior to Jan 21 2020 . The “crimes” were committed and all the evidence existed for years and immediately after the election, other than disqualifying him from office can be offered for the reason to pursue this indictment now?

It is case of great magnitude. It is not a given that it would not take a long time to arrive at an indictment. Your supposition is not supported. And even if the motivation were merely political, that would not make the evidence not exist.

/

The Mueller report was not fraud.

You assert an election "coverup". Your basis is discredited crackpot websites.

/

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

The ‘world’ was shut down for years to remove their populist demagogue thorn from their side. 

A ludicrous claim you cannot support. 

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

It’s Chiquita s all the way down.

Is that recognition of U.S. military/corporate imperialism in Central America?

Edited August 4, 2023 by InfraBeat

[InfraBeat]

Whitewater was over four years from start of the investigation until the release of the report.

The Blagojevich investigation took fours before his arrest.

The John Edwards investigation took more than two years before his indictment. 

Should we look up other cases of magnitude to see how long they took? Or should we just take tadmjones at his word that the timing can only be accounted for by political motivations? This would be to take the word of someone who claims, without a mote of evidence that U.S. news companies colluded with the Biden campaign to make Covid seem worse than it is, for the purpose of changing election laws; moreover, tadmjones most recent claim that the Covid shutdowns WORLDWIDE were for the purpose of getting Trump out of office. 

I have this question for tadmjones also: Read the indictment. But switch the parties and the candidates so that the defendant is Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Could you really, with a straight face, report here that the indictment is without merit? Really?

Edited August 4, 2023 by InfraBeat

[tadmjones]

Lol ,how many shots did you get ?!

[InfraBeat]

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Lol ,how many shots did you get ?!

I don't know what that means other than that you don't have an argument.

[tadmjones]

Given the magnitude of the case , why is abuse of power not in the indictment?

The idea that the  freest, fairest and most transparent election in history coincided with the most altered election in history in terms of process and procedures is the main thrust of indictment. 
 

Trump’s ‘false claims’ and the ‘big lie’ was the vehicle used to perpetuate fraud and enter conspiracies in order to obstruct ‘essential federal procedures’. If Trump didn’t  know the claims were false how would that color his actions and the evaluation of those actions in legal terms.

The tens of millions of people think Trump attempted to kill ‘democracy’ and somehow used force to capture the Republic , he crossed the Rubicon via the Ellipse. They can not conceive of an idea that could be characterized as Trump using personal and political persuasion/power to implement procedures and legal maneuvers up to but not beyond constitutionally ‘allowed’ means.

I don’t think the election was ‘kosher enough’ to bring this indictment against even commies.

I hope it opens the possibility of discovery to a level that can bring some of what Trump ‘claims’ as evidence for the basis of his estimation, as far as I know none of his claims were examined in open court with witnesses under oath.

[DavidOdden]

11 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Given the magnitude of the case , why is abuse of power not in the indictment?

The main legal reason is that “abuse of power” is not a federal crime. There actually is a criminal law against “abuse of office” in 25 CFR § 11.448, which applies to tribal police and courts, thus is not applicable to Trump, though given the vague metaphorical slop in the indictment it is a little surprising that they didn’t overlook the limit in the scope of the law. Trump did abuse his power while in office, and the courts did rule against him (see for example travel ban 1.0). But SCOTUS can only say “no, you can’t do that”, they cannot punish a president for exceeding authority. This is the essence of objective law: that a person know in advance what things are forbidden. If there is no law against it, you cannot charge a person.

The matter of intent to deceive is a fundamental tenet of criminal fraud. I doubt that the defense will try to argue that the election fraud charges are true, since that would be an irrelevant side-show. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the claims were actually false, which would require proof that he said something crazy like “What if we make up some story about there being massive voter fraud in those states?”. OTOH, Nixon did have a tape recorder running in his office when he confessed to his crimes, so stranger things have happened.

[necrovore]

I read that a brand of car was once marketed as "unstealable" as a result of having some new electronic key fob technology. Some hackers figured out how to steal these cars anyway. Owners of the stolen cars reported to the police that their cars had been stolen, and were immediately arrested for insurance fraud because the police and the insurance companies believed the cars were "unstealable." I hear the courts did eventually figure everything out, but it took a while, and it was probably pretty traumatic for the owners of these cars.

But hey, we're supposed to believe that elections are "unstealable," even though a car has more security features than our elections, and even though the party that won made a lot of suspicious moves before the election, and bitterly opposes any election security features even now. (Except that they want to prevent anyone from reporting election fraud or trying to overturn a fraudulent election.) In fact we're supposed to believe in the unstealability of elections so thoroughly that we would indict someone for claiming that the election was stolen. (And presumably convict them, too, because that's what indictments are for.)

[Boydstun]

52 minutes ago, necrovore said:

. . . we would indict someone for claiming that the election was stolen. (And presumably convict them, too, because that's what indictments are for.)

nec,

I read the indictment, and I linked to it at the outset of this thread. It's not that hard to read. It does not indict former Pres. Trump on account of him believing the election had been stolen from him. It presents evidence that he believed no such thing, and publicly lied that it had been stolen from him, in an effort coordinated with others to steal the election for himself by creating fake panels of electors (some of whom were lied to about the legality of what they were doing), attempting (with considerable threat of violence to boot) to rip away America's legal process of electing its President under the Constitution. Defendant is not indicted for claiming the election was stolen, but trying to commit a fraud and deprive Americans of the right to elect their President. More completely: the four counts in the indictment, which I've made convenient for you to read in the first post.

Note: when the indictment claims "Defendant made knowingly false claims" that does not mean claims known to be false by someone else. It means claims known to be false by the Defendant. This knowledge of Defendant is something the prosecution has to prove.

Some evidence put forth in the indictment for a portion of the conspiracy to defraud (which defense for Defendant can try to undermine so as to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror at trial):

 

Quote

 

93. During the meeting, as reflected in the Vice President's contemporaneous notes, the Defendant made knowingly false claims of election fraud, including, "Bottom line—won every state by 100,000s of votes" and "We won every state," and asked—regarding a claim his senior Justice Department officials previously had told him was false, including as recently as the night before—"What about 205,000 votes more in PA than voters?" The Defendant and CoConspirator 2 [lawyer, John Eastman] then asked the Vice President to either unilaterally reject the legitimate electors from the seven targeted states, or send the question of which slate was legitimate to the targeted states' legislatures. When the Vice President challenged Co-Conspirator 2 on whether the proposal to return the question to the states was defensible, Co-Conspirator 2 responded, "Well, nobody's tested it before." The Vice President then told the Defendant, "Did you hear that? Even your own counsel is not saying I have that authority." The Defendant responded, "That's okay, I prefer the other suggestion" of the Vice President rejecting the electors unilaterally.

94. Also on January 4, when Co-Conspirator 2 acknowledged to the Defendant's Senior Advisor [Stephen Miller?] that no court would support his proposal, the Senior Advisor told Co-Conspirator 2, "[Y]ou're going to cause riots in the streets." Co-Conspirator 2 responded that there had previously been points in the nation's history where violence was necessary to protect the republic. After that conversation, the Senior Advisor notified the Defendant that Co-Conspirator 2 had conceded that his plan was "not going to work."

95. On the morning of January 5, at the Defendant's direction, the Vice President's Chief of Staff and the Vice President's Counsel met again with Co-Conspirator 2. CoConspirator 2 now advocated that the Vice President do what the Defendant had said he preferred the day before: unilaterally reject electors from the targeted states. During this meeting, CoConspirator 2 privately acknowledged to the Vice President's Counsel that he hoped to prevent judicial review of his proposal because he understood that it would be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. The Vice President's Counsel expressed to Co-Conspirator 2 that following through with the proposal would result in a "disastrous situation" where the election might "have to be decided in the streets."

96. That same day, the Defendant encouraged supporters to travel to Washington on January 6, and he set the false expectation that the Vice President had the authority to and might use his ceremonial role at the certification proceeding to reverse the election outcome in the Defendant's favor, including issuing the following Tweets: . . .

97. Also on January 5, the Defendant met alone with the Vice President. When the Vice President refused to agree to the Defendant's request that he obstruct the certification, the Defendant grew frustrated and told the Vice President that the Defendant would have to publicly criticize him. Upon learning of this, the Vice President's Chief of Staff was concerned for the Vice President's safety and alerted the head of the Vice President's Secret Service detail.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Boydstun

[necrovore]

There have been many other elections where alternate slates of electors were made available, and also where existing electors were lobbied to change their vote. This sort of thing has been done by both parties. But it's apparently only illegal when Trump does it.

With point 93, I would want more context. There's a difference between the way a person might talk in a casual conversation and the way they might talk in a more formal setting, like when they're under oath in a case. So this can be like quoting someone out of context. I think this is not the first prosecutor to apply the standards of one to the other, either.

If I say there's a million reasons for questioning this point, does that mean exactly one million reasons, as if I counted them? And if not, am I knowingly lying? The question is whether the listener expected (or had any right to expect) an exact count. It depends on the context. There are even set phrases like "Pleased to meet you," where the speaker and the listener might both know the phrase is not literally true in that particular context. (That's different from a "white lie," which Ayn Rand rightly spoke against, because in the case of a white lie there's an intent to deceive but also a belief that the deception won't matter. Here I'm talking about a context where there's no possibility of deception, because in one case the statement is a "set phrase," and in the other it's so outlandish that it cannot be literally true, and the speaker expects that the listener would understand that, and it's a reasonable expectation. So I think it's malicious context-dropping.)

As to point 96, it was a subject of debate at the time whether the Vice President's role was merely ceremonial or whether he really does have the power to refuse to certify the results. The prosecutor here presents an opinion (that it is merely ceremonial) as if it were fact. Suspected election fraud might be a valid basis for refusing to certify. So I think Trump had something there, but on the other hand the Vice President apparently thought the case for fraud was too weak (or perhaps that he was required to certify regardless), and the Vice President did what he thought was right.

(Of course there was a case recently where they tried to say that an Alaska politician was ineligible to serve in office because he was a former member of the Oath Keepers. There we learned that the oath to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, is merely ceremonial, and if taken literally leads to the desire to overthrow the government. [The judge disagreed.] So it's very important that ceremonial things remain ceremonial, which is why Nancy Pelosi's House wanted to pass a law ensuring that future Vice Presidents were required to certify regardless of any fraud that may have occurred.)

It would take a long time to go point-by-point and find all the problems...

Edited August 5, 2023 by necrovore

[DavidOdden]

Stephen,

The essential question regarding para 93-97 is, what do they show? In 93, the cited evidence indicates that Trump said "Bottom line—won every state by 100,000s of votes", "We won every state," and "What about 205,000 votes more in PA than voters?". Funny thing is, the third one is not even a statement. The indictment claims that these are knowingly false claims. The fact that senior Justice Department officials disputed the implied statement about PA over-voting is not proof that the statement was knowingly false. For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that it was false. I also stipulate that Bush’s statement about Hussein’s arsenal of WMDs was not proven true, but was also not proven to be a lie, as the lying liars repeatedly insist.

I do not have any evidence that Trump knows the statements (and presuppositions w.r.t. PA) to be false. I firmly believe that Trump is between somewhat and rather delusional, and was willing to not believe a statement made by DoJ officials. As for the proposal to return the question to the states, the question of authority is not even a question of fact, it is a conjecture based on untested legal theories (not a theory that I dispute, but let me remind you that Roe v. Wade was established law until it became unestablished, and it is not fraud to hold that when you take an untested theory to court, you might actually win).

Para 94: again, making a proposal and being advised “that no court would support his proposal” does not make a proposal fraudulent, or even false. Para 96: it is not false or fraudulent to set an expectation that the Vice President has a particular authority.

I don’t dispute that Trump is a delusional megalomaniac, what I dispute is the claim that he attempted to defraud the US government in an official US government proceeding. The smoking gun that would have to be produced is actual evidence that he knew the statements to be false while at the same time entering them into an official proceeding. Not every false statement is a crime. Perhaps there should be a law criminalizing being a delusional megalomaniac in an office of public trust, though that would require a Constitutional amendment since Congress can't add qualifications to those few set out in the Constitution.

The trial could well have the consequence of concretizing the informal conclusion that Trump is a delusional megalomaniac, and I have no problem with people knowing that fact. The problem I have is with misusing law as a tool to achieve a political end. The other problem (one of many) I have is that abuse of law to achieve a political end is not extremely rare.

[Boydstun]

Some thoughts at Reason:

How Can Jack Smith Prove That Trump Knew He Lost the Election?

[necrovore]

8 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Some thoughts at Reason:

So the deciding factor is what was in Trump's head... which makes this thoughtcrime.

Rationally, it would be a tough case to prove, which is why I don't think the approach they have in mind is to prove Trump guilty by rational means.

Life is lived first-draft and by successive approximation. Further, one's opinion can change as evidence comes in, and as people's statements come in and sometimes are not properly evaluated until later (where somebody might say something, and you might believe it at first, and then you think about it, and decide they are wrong).

It's one thing to have reached a conclusion and another to have thoughts in progress, and an active mind usually is more like the latter, so that even conclusions that have been reached can be tentative and subject to revision if more information comes in. Information about the election continued to come in over a long period of time. So Trump could easily have been listening to a lot of people, and there was no shortage of people around him on both sides of the issue, and so he could have been going back and forth about whether he should believe this or that statement and whether he was cheated out of victory or not. There may have been times that he leaned toward thinking he had lost the election fairly.

Even if they have him on tape saying something, it's hard to say that he knew that what he was saying was absolutely true. He may have been considering it possibly true at the time, he may have been seeing if he could get used to the idea. Sometimes you "try out" an idea to see if you have any subconscious doubts.

When I'm editing posts like this, I frequently put sentences in, then decide they are wrong, and take them back out. I cannot know before I put the sentence in that it is wrong. I have to write at least part of the sentence before I can judge it. In speech it is not possible to delete sentences. I'd end up saying wrong sentences and then having to contradict them later. It would be easy to play a tape of those wrong sentences and then say that I "knew" something that I later decided wasn't true at all.

There are also cases such as sarcasm where what you say isn't what you believe. I don't know if that applies here but it might.

Further, Trump didn't seem to know what options were legally available to him, which might lead to conversations like "Can we try X? Can we try Y?" and maybe X is illegal and Y is debatable. Since he's not a lawyer, he has no way to find this stuff out except to ask. Further, in a case where you don't know if the election is fraudulent or not, and you are going back and forth about it, it might still be legitimate to see if there are ways of winning. (Lawyers also are known to look for ways to try to win cases for their clients even when their clients are guilty, and that by itself is not fraud.)

Ayn Rand also wrote about the danger of psychologizing, where you attack a person's subconscious instead of addressing their conscious mind. This is particularly pernicious when the person is still thinking and working out conclusions about events that are still in progress.

5 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

I firmly believe that Trump is between somewhat and rather delusional, and was willing to not believe a statement made by DoJ officials.

Of course that's a non-sequitur; one does not have to be delusional to question the credibility of statements made by DoJ officials. (I am not sure you meant it that way.)

I think the impression of Trump as a maniac has been manufactured by the media. In the media's opinion, the Democrats are always right about everything, they have science on their side, and the only way you can disagree with them is to be delusional. The more you disagree, the more delusional you are. This applies not only to Trump himself but to everyone who thinks independently (i.e., without Leftist guidance).

The Left (especially in the media and such) uses ad hominem attacks and social pressures and intimidation. Not so much rationality. If the election was not affected by fraud, then people who believe it was affected may be rational but mistaken. However, there is a certain specific proper way to address a rational but mistaken mind, and this is not it.

The Left's approach to disagreement is very alienating, and as for me, it makes me more likely to believe that the election was stolen. Their approach is less like "Here's how you can see the election wasn't stolen," and more like "You can't prove I did it because you'll never find the body." I am not the only person alienated in that way. So if the election really wasn't stolen, they aren't doing themselves any favors. (Even though it's true that I can't find the body.)

This prosecution makes that situation even worse. It's saying that "deep down, everybody knows that Leftism is true (or that the election was fair), including people who claim to deny it, in which case, they're lying to themselves and defrauding everybody else." Which seems like a religious argument.