The law is a fickle thing here in America, and sometimes a single word or phrase can make the difference between an acquittal and a conviction. And legal experts are now saying that this kind of technicality could allow Trump and his buddies to get away with sedition, assuming they are even charged in the first place. Farron Cousins discusses this technicality and what it could mean for the investigation.
Link - https://www.rawstory.com/trump-sedition-investigation/
Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!
Connect with Farron on Twitter: https://twitter.com/farronbalanced
*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.
So all of us right now are still waiting for that big Christmas gift. You know, a belated Christmas gift, obviously, but what we want is criminal charges against Donald Trump and his allies for what they did on January 6th. But don't get your hopes up too high because according to legal experts, there is a small technicality that may allow these individuals to get away with potential sedition, you know, calls for action against the United States government itself. And it all comes down to what these individuals believe legal experts, uh, writing for above the law have said that criminal charges are absolutely possible, you know, with regard to sedition and things like that. However, a wrench gets thrown into the gears based on what each individual actually believes. For example, if an individual believes that the election was legitimately stolen, then suddenly their, you know, case of sedition can become far less severe almost to a non prosecutable point because they genuinely believe the United States was under attack and they were doing what they could to preserve and protect the United States, not to overthrow it.
Now that may seem ridiculous to you and me because let's face it. It is, but that is the kind of technicality, you know, these little bitty intricacies within the laws of the United States that do make cases like this. So incredibly difficult to not just prove, but to even be able to prosecute, you know, to even get to that point. And then of course you have to be able to prove it in court. Now the flip side of that is, did they know they were lying about this? You know, did they have enough evidence available to know that the election was not stolen? And I think based on what we've seen, the, the answer to that is unequivocally. Yes, yes. There was ample evidence to show that the 2020 election was not stolen because there's no evidence to suggest that it stolen. However, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
And that's another problem just because they haven't found evidence of interference doesn't mean that that's evidence, that interference didn't happen in the eyes of the law. The, see there's all these technicalities, there's all these little intricacies. And I, I hate to give everybody a big downer here on Christmas day, but that's the reality we're facing here. That's why these cases are incredibly difficult to prove. Now, again, we do know that this administration, you know, via their campaign was already telling people like Rudy Giuliani and SI Powell, that their claims of fraud were bogus. There was no fraud. They knew it. They, they, they didn't see any of it, but is that evidence that they all knew and understood and accepted it. These are things that prosecutors will eventually have to try to prove in court. If they choose to go that route, if charges are even filed or recommended by the committee, we got a long way to go. Nothing is a slam dunk, even though who and I likely see that, yes, we know this happened. We feel very strongly that this happened. We believe the available evidence suggests that it did happen, but that doesn't matter. The laws are written a certain way for a reason. And unfortunately, in a situation like this, they would benefit whoever may be hit with criminal charges for possible sedition.
0 Comments