1 edit
@metal-brain said“We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
What words?
He said to peacefully protest. That is not illegal and it is certainly not an insurrection.
See, this is your problem. You only hear what you want to hear.
@metal-brain saidYou really should read the indictment. It will save us from these clarifying questions.
What words?
He said to peacefully protest. That is not illegal and it is certainly not an insurrection.
@metal-brain saidTrump is not being charged with conspiracy just for spreading lies about the election.
Whataboutism is a tacit admission of hypocrisy. You want Trump in jail for thought crimes, but all the things you want Trump in jail for Hitlery did before him spreading disinformation about Russian collusion with Trump.
https://rumble.com/v33z1p1-august-1-2023.html
If Hitlery has the right to lie about the election so does Trump. Why isn't Hitlery being indicted?
1 edit
@wildgrass saidHe wouldn't read the classified documents indictment and he won't read this one.
You really should read the indictment. It will save us from these clarifying questions.
For those interested in an annotated version of the indictment: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/01/us/politics/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election-annotated.[WORD TOO LONG]
EDIT: Damn. Just Google "trump january 6th indictment ny times" and scroll down to "The Trump Jan. 6 Indictment, Annotated - The New York Times" and follow the link.
@no1marauder saidSpreading lies about the election is not illegal. Even the DOJ stated that in the indictment. They claim it is for "conduct".
Trump is not being charged with conspiracy just for spreading lies about the election.
What conduct?
@no1marauder saidOK! I’m on it Marauder!
He wouldn't read the classified documents indictment and he won't read this one.
For those interested in an annotated version of the indictment: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/01/us/politics/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election-annotated.html?unlocked_article_code=Uk39IJIQ66_1Q92w5a3B9hVo39TJn8Yjxv18kNvcdqZwnRZGSs27xwqJqwKNfTDLyMOHzBce855oC6hVWND-F0115y3n ...[text shortened]... nd scroll down to "The Trump Jan. 6 Indictment, Annotated - The New York Times" and follow the link.
@wildgrass saidDid you read it? Did you read the part that says it is not illegal to lie about the election?
You really should read the indictment. It will save us from these clarifying questions.
@metal-brain saidAnd he's not charged with that.
Did you read it? Did you read the part that says it is not illegal to lie about the election?
@metal-brain saidRead the indictment and stop wasting our time.
Spreading lies about the election is not illegal. Even the DOJ stated that in the indictment. They claim it is for "conduct".
What conduct?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidSo you don't know either. Read the indictment. They claim it is about the false electors, but it has been done before and nobody was charged with a crime for it. That is because the election outcome changed back then. Dana Nessel wants it to be a crime this time because the outcome did not change. Not a very convincing argument.
Read the indictment and stop wasting our time.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/1960-electoral-college-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186
@no1marauder saidhttps://www.shorturl.at/
He wouldn't read the classified documents indictment and he won't read this one.
For those interested in an annotated version of the indictment: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/01/us/politics/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election-annotated.html?unlocked_article_code=Uk39IJIQ66_1Q92w5a3B9hVo39TJn8Yjxv18kNvcdqZwnRZGSs27xwqJqwKNfTDLyMOHzBce855oC6hVWND-F0115y3n ...[text shortened]... nd scroll down to "The Trump Jan. 6 Indictment, Annotated - The New York Times" and follow the link.
Not too bothered with your link. They better pull this off, let's be real , this is happening because Trump is too popular and if he comes out the other side he is in and it will be thanks to this.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidHow was the crowd on January 6, 2021 going to "fight like hell" so they could still have a country?
That is common political rhetoric used figuratively. That is your problem.
Trump summoned them to Washington, DC the day the election was to be certified. He gave an incendiary speech filled with knowing lies and then directed them to the Capitol. Once there, large portions of the crowd attacked police lines, broke into the building and disrupted the certification. Trump watched it on TV, made approving comments about the mob and refused for hours to even issue a statement demanding they stop their illegal occupation.
Deal with those facts not one throwaway line early in a half hour speech.
The mob knew what Trump wanted them to do (numerous defendants have tried to justify their actions by claiming they were "following the President's orders"😉 and the evidence is overwhelming that Trump knew what he wanted them to do.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidSo you claim he meant it literally. Prove intent or drop it.
How was the crowd on January 6, 2021 going to "fight like hell" so they could still have a country?
Trump summoned them to Washington, DC the day the election was to be certified. He gave an incendiary speech filled with knowing lies and then directed them to the Capitol. Once there, large portions of the crowd attacked police lines, broke into the building and disrup ...[text shortened]... eir illegal occupation.
Deal with those facts not one throwaway line early in a half hour speech.
"He gave an incendiary speech filled with knowing lies"
Irrelevant. That is perfectly legal and says so in the indictment.
You are also blaming him for the conduct of others. Did Trump tell them to do anything illegal? Yes or no?
@metal-brain saidThat will happen at trial using Trump's own words and actions and inactions.
So you claim he meant it literally. Prove intent or drop it.