Trump's persecutor / prosecutor "should be indicted for stupidity" says attorney Jarrett

[Nostra]

Being delusional is not a defense against fraud.

He knew.

Your opinion means nothing.

 

[Marener]

Your opinion means nothing.

Someone sells you what they claim is a Rolex. You found out that it's not a Rolex and sue them for fraud.

The seller was told by a watch repairman it's a fake Rolex, but they disagreed with that opinion.

The seller doesn't get to claim that their belief that it was a real Rolex is sufficient to protect them from fraud.

The same stands for Trump. His mere belief that votes were fraudulent doesn't allow him the ability to say they're fraudulent and should be excluded.

 

[Nostra]

Someone sells you what they claim is a Rolex. You found out that it's not a Rolex and sue them for fraud.

The seller was told by a watch repairman it's a fake Rolex, but they disagreed with that opinion.

The seller doesn't get to claim that their belief that it was a real Rolex is sufficient to protect them from fraud.

The same stands for Trump. His mere belief that votes were fraudulent doesn't allow him the ability to say they're fraudulent and should be excluded.

Cool story, but meaningless.

And the First Amendment allows him to say they are fraudulent.

 

[Marener]

Cool story, but meaningless.

And the First Amendment allows him to say they are fraudulent.

He can say it all he wants.

The fraud comes when he tries to use those lies to get something for himself.

You can hold up a fake Rolex all day saying it’s real. Freedom of speech.

The fraud comes when you try to sell it to someone claiming it’s a real Rolex.

I’m trying to educate you by making simple analogies.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Gregg Jarrett: Jack Smith should be 'indicted for stupidity' | Fox News Video

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett deconstructs special counsel Jack Smith's indictment of Trump on 'Hannity.'

www.foxnews.com

Yeh, only I am thinking there is another word for it besides just the word Stupid?

But in any case, Fox was EXCELLENT last night. They didn't even have commercials until something like 8 pm ET

But that wasn't what was excellent. They went into details about this latest Trump indictment which... I am not sure about the other ones (they should go into details about those ones also... ) but this last one is just assinine. Basically, the persecutors are saying Trump has no right to question the election!

Well, maybe I shouldn't be so critical...

We probably should never question elections? I mean, we all know how above-board and totally upstanding and just our government always is, right?

Anyway, did you watch Fox last night?

You really missed out if you didn't

/——/ I posted a link earlier 10 minutes of democRAT election deniers.

 

[mamooth]

Good luck on that one. It requires reading his mind, as the legal experts in the OP laid out.

No, it just requires showing that multiple people --- everyone who actually knew anything about the topic -- informed Trump that the election wasn't stolen.

And that's easy.

Your response is "Well, you don't know for sure! Trump might have been too stupid to listen, so you have to find him innocent!"

First, that leaves you claiming that someone who you yourself classify as a moron should be president.

Second, that's nonsense. No other crime allows such a defense. "You can't read his mind and show that he knew murder was wrong, so he can't be convicted of murder!". Um, no.

 

[Nostra]

He can say it all he wants.

The fraud comes when he tries to use those lies to get something for himself.

You can hold up a fake Rolex all day saying it’s real. Freedom of speech.

The fraud comes when you try to sell it to someone claiming it’s a real Rolex.

I’m trying to educate you by making simple analogies.

Sorry, nobody is buying your bullshit.

 

[Nostra]

No, it just requires showing that multiple people --- everyone who actually knew anything about the topic -- informed Trump that the election wasn't stolen.

And that's easy.

Your response is "Well, you don't know for sure! Trump might have been too stupid to listen, so you have to find him innocent!"

First, that leaves you claiming that someone who you yourself classify as a moron should be president.

Second, that's nonsense. No other crime allows such a defense. "You can't read his mind and show that he knew murder was wrong, so he can't be convicted of murder!". Um, no.

The First Amendment doesn't cover murder, Dumbass.

I does cover free speech.

 

[Marener]

Sorry, nobody is buying your bullshit.

You aren’t allowed to think for yourself, so I’m not really worried.

 

[Arresmillao]

The First Amendment doesn't cover murder, Dumbass.

I does cover free speech.

HAAAA HA HA HA HA HA, the traitor is again arrested for his crimes, trump will pay for a lifetime of crime and deception with his last remaining days on earth. He is so stupid, he was getting away with a lot of stuff and instead of laying low decided to ramp up his criminal activity not counting with a brilliant Jack Smith and others were waiting for him. Not happy with being convicted for rape and serial sexual assault, serial fraud including stealing charity money. I am so happy, the orange baboon deserves the worst....

 

[mamooth]

The First Amendment doesn't cover murder, Dumbass.

I does cover free speech.

Why are you babbling about free speech? The case isn't about free speech. My analogy wasn't about free speech. You're braindead even by Trump cult standards, and that's saying something.

I'm pointing out that never in the legal system is a "Well, you can't read my client's mind and know absolutely that he knew he was doing wrong, therefore you have to find him innocent!" defense allowed. If it was, it would be impossible to convict just about anyone.

Yet it's the defense Trump's lawyers have planned.

Good luck with that.

 

[Nostra]

You aren’t allowed to think for yourself, so I’m not really worried.

You are a moron for thinking that, Simp.

How the fuck would YOU know what someone who thinks for himself does?

 

[Nostra]

Why are you babbling about free speech? The case isn't about free speech. My analogy wasn't about free speech. You're braindead even by Trump cult standards, and that's saying something.

I'm pointing out that never in the legal system is a "Well, you can't read my client's mind and know absolutely that he knew he was doing wrong, therefore you have to find him innocent!" defense allowed. If it was, it would be impossible to convict just about anyone.

Yet it's the defense Trump's lawyers have planned.

Good luck with that.

Of course your "analogy" wasn't about free speech, Simp.

That's because the Constitution destroys your " analogy".

 

[Marener]

You are a moron for thinking that, Simp.

How the fuck would YOU know what someone who thinks for himself does?

Your posts speak for themselves. You don’t formulate a counter argument. You just stick with your group think.

 

[Kilroy2]

Yes, free speech says you can lie, Stupid.

Good luck proving he incited a riot for telling the crowd to peacefully and patriotically let their voices be heard.

Hey Stupid your logic fails as usual. You point to the obvious but failed to see the full picture

Yeah he said peacefully but it also matters what he did when they weren't peaceful.

Once they became unruly what did Trump do?

I will save you from the scratching your head part

He did nothing. His failure to do nothing after the violence began will be how they smack him down and send you to your room crying "Oh it is not fair"

But hey you can redeem yourself by telling us what did he did once the riots began?

What decisive actions did he do to stop it after they rampaged for hours and vandalized the capitol

Did he tell the mob to leave the capitol once they became unruly
No

Did he place a call to any government entity to defend the Capitol
No

He called nobody not even one of his department heads

So what was he doing for hours

Well the first hour he was still talking to those fools still hanging around listening to him. Other had departed to go to the capitol and causing damages while he was making his speech.

He then tells the remaining people to quote " Fight like hell" or we won't have a country.

Trump was also informed prior to his speech that some of his supporters were carrying weapons.

His response according to testimony. " I don't care if they have weapons" as reported by his staff. " There not here to hurt ME"

There you have it. Its about Me. He does not care if anyone else gets hurt.

The first amendment does not protect him liability when he did nothing during the attack.

---

What was Trump doing while this was unfolding. Did he do anything to stop it. 1st amendment does not protect this scene.

He failed to act after he set it in motion. He had time to act but didn't. So the focus to hang him is on what he did while it was happening.

But if you know what he was doing for hours then let us know. Spending time with his family?

 

[candycorn]

so why did the dims not only try but succeed in overthrowing it?

Biden got 9M more votes than your blob.

If the "dims" did cheat...can you tell us how in the hell the GOP picked up seats in both the 2020 and 2022 elections?