Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'll bet they know. They're just committed to claiming victimization and persecution.Conspiracy charges, by their very nature, include communication. But on the second page of the federal indictment, in the third enumerated paragraph, the prosecution attempts to make clear that Trump is not being prosecuted for his repeated lies about a stolen election. He is being prosecuted for the efforts he made and the actions he took to operationalize his desire to overturn the election.
You cannot simply label something a "conspiracy story" and erase the facts.Another baseless conspiracy theory. Really!
yes, everything Jack Smith says is lies. How does a man like this remain a lawyerAll lies.
Conspiracy charges, by their very nature, include communication. But on the second page of the federal indictment, in the third enumerated paragraph, the prosecution attempts to make clear that Trump is not being prosecuted for his repeated lies about a stolen election. He is being prosecuted for the efforts he made and the actions he took to operationalize his desire to overturn the election.
Jack Smith’s Trump indictment goes where free speech ends and criminal conspiracy begins
Before Monday’s additional state indictment in Georgia, former President Trump stood accused in federal court of criminal conspiracy to subvert the 2020 presidential election results. Co…thehill.com
It seems many Trumpletons continue to be hoodwinked in to thinking the crimes Don committed are protected by the 1st A. Why? Because there has been a relentless misinformation campaign to that end launched by the Orange Fraud himself and his right wing media enablers.
Allow me to disabuse all of you harboring this false narrative by suggesting you read Jack Smith's indictment of Trump. It explicitly recognizes Individual 1's right to express his opinion about the election's integrity. Then it goes on to explain the crimes Eric's dad committed.
You remember Eric. He's one of the folks included in the ruling by a NY judge that the Trump Org. was essentially built on a mountain of fraudulent financial misrepresentations.
i.e., you are jumping up and down and clenching your fists like a child.It is my habit to highlight that which Trumpletons are most likely to ignore.
The prosecution will have an easier time convincing a jury in a court of law that Trump was not engaged in constitutionally protected speech than it will in the court of public opinion. The prosecution will have the benefit of the undivided attention of the jurors and the luxury of time to educate them about First Amendment principles.You cannot simply label something a "conspiracy story" and erase the facts.
I haven't heard Trump speak in MONTHS. I don't watch his rallies. I don't watch coverage of him. None of it. I already know what Trump offers as president and if he is the nominee I am fine with it.I'll bet they know. They're just committed to claiming victimization and persecution.
Everyone is corrupt but the Trumpsters. Everyone lies but the Trumpsters. Everyone is stupid but the Trumpsters. Everyone is misinformed but the Trumpsters. Everyone is a commie but the Trumpsters. Everyone hates America but the Trumpsters.
But he just keeps repeating it, and they keep swallowing it. At some level, though, they have to know better.
ProjectionYou have a vivid imagination.
which fact is ignored the mostAllow me to fix that for you. Most of you ignore the facts.
I'm sorry you feel that way. But whining doesn't make for a cogent argument. Let me know when you have one.
The jury will learn that even highly charged political rhetoric lies within the core of First Amendment protection. A speaker must be free to persuade the audience with the use of emotional appeals. But First Amendment protections are unavailable when it comes to words that constitute a crime.And copypasting drivel doesn't make you an expert on said drivel.
The dems didn't attempt an insurrection.Democrats spent years trying to overturn the 2016 election. I don't see any of them indicted for it.
The jury will learn that even highly charged political rhetoric lies within the core of First Amendment protection. A speaker must be free to persuade the audience with the use of emotional appeals. But First Amendment protections are unavailable when it comes to words that constitute a crime.
The bogus "free speech" claim will not save your Dear Leader.
Sec. Clinton took no action like the Dirty Don did in the days following the elections. She graciously conceded and urged her followers to accept the slim defeat they suffered. Benedict Donald took exactly the opposite route. He never conceded and urged his followers to fight like hell to take it back. It was his actions mostly between when his loss was announced by the networks and his riot of Jan 6th that led to his indictment, his indictment for his plot to overturn the election of Joe Biden and remain in power. Hillary makes her statements to make money the old fashion way, to sell books!Why is it a "lie" when Trump points out that the 2020 election was stolen, while HRC's claims that the 2016 election was stolen are treated as fair commentary?
You fucking moron.
The dems didn't attempt an insurrection.
A simple protest is not an insurrection, dumb ass.The fuck they didn't. 17 minutes after inauguration they launched their attack on him.
