If the Democrat did the same thing, would I be okay with it. Can you answer that question in the affirmative?

He was. But you didn't "hear that argument" in McDonnell.

Im Gipper said:

---

jteAg said:

---

Casual Cynic said:

---

So firing up people is now a crime?

---

Inciting a riot is.
Oh, right, this wasn't a riot… it was a "peaceful protest ", right?

---

Correct!! Inciting a riot is a crime.

Guess what Trump has NOT been charged with?

---

Only been charged with a crime based on his thought process. The Democrats just don't think the Bill of Rights applies to any Republican.

As Jonathan Turley states...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jonathan-turley-concerned-chilling-new-trump-charges-price-high

Quote:

---

JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, 'No, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.' Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, 'But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.' Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. …

---

and he goes on...

Quote:

---

What concerns me here is that the implications of this filing for free speech are quite chilling. And those people celebrating this indictment are dismissing that, and they shouldn't. … When is the price too high? You have an indictment in Florida, which I said was a strong one. That's a solid case. Trump could still beat it, but it's a legitimate case based on established evidence and established law. This is neither. Smith is trying to create new law here. And he doesn't cite any new evidence that should disturb people. There's got to be some point where you say enough. When you start to take a hatchet to the First Amendment in this quest to nail Trump, someone's gotta say look, he's not going to be the first president you don't like. We've had this First Amendment around for a long time.

---

Hugh Hewitt referenced Trump's attorney earlier today and the opportunity Trump has with this trial to put a lot of scum under oath. Had a chance to catch some of John Lauro's comments on this subject here:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/08/01/trump_attorney_john_lauro_trump_is_being_criminalized_for_objecting_to_the_way_that_2020_election_was_handled.html

Quote:

---

BAIER: Yes, John, let me read from the indictment, and you can respond to this specifically.

It says: "The defendant lost the 2020 presidential election. Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power. So, more -- for more than two months following the Election Day, November 3, 2020, the defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the defendant knew that they were false, created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and eroded public faith in the administration of the election."

LAURO: I would like them to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump believed that these allegations were false.

What did he see in real time? He saw changes in election procedure in the middle of the game being carried out by executive-level -- people at the state level, election officials, but not the state legislatures.

He had an advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert who said: Mr. President, these states are complaining about what happened. You, as the executive, have the ability to ask Vice President Pence to pause the vote on January 6, have these states audit and recertify, and, that way, we know ultimately who won the election.

---

But since Mr. Smith has opted for a set of charges based on Trump's alleged fraud (state of mind), the light will be shined on a good many roaches in the Democrat Party who prefer to do their business in the dark in order to prove Trump had good reason to believe the fix was in.

Quote:

---

The one thing I will say, though, in 2020, Mr. Trump's campaign had a few weeks to gear up and present evidence, and it was very difficult. We now have the ability in this case to issue our own subpoenas, and we will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation.

---

At the end of the day, as LegalDrugPusher stated in his thread, Trump is being charged for exercising his free speech rights. We can't have that in Biden's America, now can we?

Quote:

---

It was quite interesting that Mr. Smith talked about the violence on Capitol Hill. He's not being charged with that. There's no allegation that President Trump incited any violence or did anything to cause any violence. Just the opposite. He's being indicted for free speech.

---

jteAg said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

Trump committed no crimes not even close on January 6 or anything leading up to January 6.

It doesn't matter in the election was stolen or not. He has the right to express his opinion.

The constitution is not a suggestion. At all of these indictments happened when he was the president he's already been impeached for them and acquitted. What we have here is a rogue DOJ and presidential administration going after the man simply because he is breathing.

They are overthrowing the constitution of the United States the guard rails are off and they don't give a damn what the law is.

---

OK… keep telling yourself that.
Love your loyalties to the loser though.
If ANY dem had given that same speech, which encouraged the minions to storm the capital, you'd have the gallows already built.
Oh, wait… they were already built…for Pence!

---

What a terrible take. Honestly, your ability to ignore the previous year of Antifa terrorism, Maxine waters screaming for violence, the left screaming for violence and perpetrating violence with people being killed…..and you want to characterize folks storming the capital and Trump being this dude who is actively calling for open violence…..is a joke.

shiftyandquick said:

---

If the Democrat did the same thing, would I be okay with it. Can you answer that question in the affirmative?

---

Your point is moot. A Democrat would never be indicted for these charges. They would never have been drafted.

Hmm.

Matt Gaetz calls for action:

Step 1: "House Republicans should immediately demand that Jack Smith present himself for a transcribed interview before the Judiciary Committee in the next 15 days."

Step 2: "We can utilize Congressional immunities to immunize President Trump." pic.twitter.com/Cod5hIHyDT

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) August 2, 2023

jteAg said:

---

Casual Cynic said:

---

So firing up people is now a crime?

---

Inciting a riot is.
Oh, right, this wasn't a riot… it was a "peaceful protest ", right?

---

What garbage.

But you were ok with Portland and Seattle, right ?

Stlkofta said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

jteAg said:

---

Casual Cynic said:

---

So firing up people is now a crime?

---

Inciting a riot is.
Oh, right, this wasn't a riot… it was a "peaceful protest ", right?

---

Correct!! Inciting a riot is a crime.

Guess what Trump has NOT been charged with?

---

Only been charged with a crime based on his thought process. The Democrats just don't think the Bill of Rights applies to any Republican.

As Jonathan Turley states...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jonathan-turley-concerned-chilling-new-trump-charges-price-high

Quote:

---

JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, 'No, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.' Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, 'But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.' Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. …

---

and he goes on...

Quote:

---

What concerns me here is that the implications of this filing for free speech are quite chilling. And those people celebrating this indictment are dismissing that, and they shouldn't. … When is the price too high? You have an indictment in Florida, which I said was a strong one. That's a solid case. Trump could still beat it, but it's a legitimate case based on established evidence and established law. This is neither. Smith is trying to create new law here. And he doesn't cite any new evidence that should disturb people. There's got to be some point where you say enough. When you start to take a hatchet to the First Amendment in this quest to nail Trump, someone's gotta say look, he's not going to be the first president you don't like. We've had this First Amendment around for a long time.

---

Hugh Hewitt referenced Trump's attorney earlier today and the opportunity Trump has with this trial to put a lot of scum under oath. Had a chance to catch some of John Lauro's comments on this subject here:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/08/01/trump_attorney_john_lauro_trump_is_being_criminalized_for_objecting_to_the_way_that_2020_election_was_handled.html

Quote:

---

BAIER: Yes, John, let me read from the indictment, and you can respond to this specifically.

It says: "The defendant lost the 2020 presidential election. Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power. So, more -- for more than two months following the Election Day, November 3, 2020, the defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the defendant knew that they were false, created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and eroded public faith in the administration of the election."

LAURO: I would like them to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump believed that these allegations were false.

What did he see in real time? He saw changes in election procedure in the middle of the game being carried out by executive-level -- people at the state level, election officials, but not the state legislatures.

He had an advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert who said: Mr. President, these states are complaining about what happened. You, as the executive, have the ability to ask Vice President Pence to pause the vote on January 6, have these states audit and recertify, and, that way, we know ultimately who won the election.

---

But since Mr. Smith has opted for a set of charges based on Trump's alleged fraud (state of mind), the light will be shined on a good many roaches in the Democrat Party who prefer to do their business in the dark in order to prove Trump had good reason to believe the fix was in.

Quote:

---

The one thing I will say, though, in 2020, Mr. Trump's campaign had a few weeks to gear up and present evidence, and it was very difficult. We now have the ability in this case to issue our own subpoenas, and we will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation.

---

At the end of the day, as LegalDrugPusher stated in his thread, Trump is being charged for exercising his free speech rights. We can't have that in Biden's America, now can we?

Quote:

---

It was quite interesting that Mr. Smith talked about the violence on Capitol Hill. He's not being charged with that. There's no allegation that President Trump incited any violence or did anything to cause any violence. Just the opposite. He's being indicted for free speech.

---

---

I can almost guarantee you this judge will never allow that. She will not allow much from the defense at all.

She has refused for every Jan 6er to have any discovery nor presentation of a meaningful defense.

Trump gets indicted every time Xiden/Hunter have more dirty grifting exposed. Nary a peep from the MSM about the RICO like activities of the real perp in the WH. Garland is just a consigliere for this political mafia bunch.

NEVER vote for a Democrat. EVER.

Quote:

---

JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, 'No, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.' Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, 'But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.' Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. …

---

Turley is mischaracterizing the Alvarez case. That case involved the Stolen Valor Act which made it illegal to simply lie about serving.

The case said the statute was unconstitutional because it simply made a lie illegal, including, to quote the Court, in "private conversations at home."

That case does NOT stand for the proposition that one can lie in order to induce actions to overturn an election (or whatever action you're trying to induce.)

As the Court says in the Read Magazine case, Virginia Board of Pharmacy, and others, the First Amendment doesn't protect someone when trying to commit fraud.

Indeed, the law in the Alvarez case was re-written by a nearly unanimous Congress to make it illegal to lie about service in order to obtain something (i.e., commit fraud via lying about your service status).

This is what occurs in communist banana countries. Positions of authorities filled by satan's minions.

Democrats shifted gears from the Hugo Chavez train they had been on and flipped over to the Mao wagon really quickly

TXAggie2011 said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

jteAg said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

Trump committed no crimes not even close on January 6 or anything leading up to January 6.

It doesn't matter in the election was stolen or not. He has the right to express his opinion.

The constitution is not a suggestion. At all of these indictments happened when he was the president he's already been impeached for them and acquitted. What we have here is a rogue DOJ and presidential administration going after the man simply because he is breathing.

They are overthrowing the constitution of the United States the guard rails are off and they don't give a damn what the law is.

---

OK… keep telling yourself that.
Love your loyalties to the loser though.
If ANY dem had given that same speech, which encouraged the minions to storm the capital, you'd have the gallows already built.
Oh, wait… they were already built…for Pence!

---

No, where in his speech did, he mention anything about storming the capital he said, go in peace and patriotism, you are a damn liar

---

The indictment lays out dozens of phone calls and contacts made to government officials asking them/telling them to take one action or another. The 1st Amendment won't get him off there.

Where "his speech" comes into play, the Indictment largely focuses on allegedly known to be false statements in order to benefit personally. The 1st Amendment won't get him off there, either.

---

Are you insane? OJ Simpson got off on murder charges and you think the former and future President Donald Trump would be convicted of a crime over his speech?

Old McDonald said:

---

great argument! trump should hire you as his lawyer

---

I really love the incorrect grammar, and the poor spelling mistakes...

but at least it is REALLY an encompassing legal analysis of exactly why the three named laws were not transgressed.

In any law school exam, that would have been an "A+" answer.

All you have to do now is just claim something isn't actually a crime, and voila- it's not a crime anymore!

Someone please inform Trump's 65 attorneys about this perfect legal defense!

agz win said:

---

Casual Cynic said:

---

So firing up people is now a crime?

---

Go yell fire in a crowded movie theater and see.

---

What are your thoughts on the Floyd Riots and Insurrections during the Summer of Love (during a pandemic) and all the democrats encouraging people to go out march and "make their voices heard"?

twk said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

Two things can coexist

Trump is a buffoon.

This whole indictment deal is politicized horse *****

---

This.

From what I've read, I feel like there is a high probability that an conviction would be thrown out on appeal on First Amendment grounds. They could have charged incitement to violence and not had a First Amendment problem, but evidently determined that the facts would not support such a charge. That should have been the end of the inquiry.

---

So all the legal minds here are just going to ignore the entire "false elector" scam that the White House came up with and organized to surreptitiously put in a fake slate of electors with the knowledge they were fake?

but it's just talking!

It's clear many of you have never actually read the 45 page indictment or don't understand it. Some of you don't even understand that the First Amendment is not a 100% license to say whatever you choose at any time you choose.

Try screaming "fire'" in a crowded theater and then claim the First Amendment protects your action.

Still, it's hilarious reading poorly spelled missives claiming "but it's the First Amendment!!"

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, 'No, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.' Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, 'But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.' Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. …

---

Turley is mischaracterizing the Alvarez case. That case involved the Stolen Valor Act which made it illegal to simply lie about serving.

The case said the statute was unconstitutional because it simply made a lie illegal, including, to quote the Court, in "private conversations at home."

That case does NOT stand for the proposition that one can lie in order to induce actions to overturn an election (or whatever action you're trying to induce.)

As the Court says in the Read Magazine case, Virginia Board of Pharmacy, and others, the First Amendment doesn't protect someone when trying to commit fraud.

Indeed, the law in the Alvarez case was re-written by a nearly unanimous Congress to make it illegal to lie about service in order to obtain something (i.e., commit fraud via lying about your service status).

---

Alvarez has never been used to apply to statements made in an election.

Two words for you: Steele Dossier.

Why wasn't this act of legal artistry applied against those in the Clinton Campaign, DNC, DoJ, and FBI who knowingly perpetrated a fraud upon the election process?

Because the Alvarez-related statutes do not apply to political processes.

Were that the case, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Mitch McConnell would be doing time for knowingly lying about candidates and their activities in order to obtain a political advantage.

Turley is right. This is a contortion in an attempt to justify a legal means to punish speech the Democrat Party. and their leaders, do not like

You have a right to what you believe to be true and also have the right to express those beliefs in the public square, regardless of the validity of those beliefs.

Smith states that himself...before he attempts to deny that basic 1st Amendment right to President Trump in a manner he has never used against anyone else.

I'm not saying Trump is going to be found guilty (he likely will be convicted and then perhaps overturned on appeal to the SCOTUS) but many of you have no idea what you are talking about legally.

"The 45-page document explains how Trump, acting with six co-conspirators, engaged in a scheme to repeatedly make false claims that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged, and to use those false claims as a predicate to try to steal the election.

The means of election theft were national, not just confined to one state, as in the expected Georgia prosecution.

And they were technicalsubmitting alternative slates of presidential electors to Congress, and arguing that state legislatures had powers under the Constitution and an old federal law, the Electoral Count Act, to ignore the will of the state's voters.

But Trump's corrupt intent was clear: He was repeatedly told that the election was not stolen, and he knew that no evidence supported his outrageous claims of ballot tampering.

He nonetheless tried to pressure state legislators, state election officials, Department of Justice officials, and his own vice president to manipulate these arcane, complex election rules to turn himself from an election loser into an election winner.

That's the definition of election subversion."

THE ACTUAL LAWS TRUMP HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH BREAKING

Interesting article


https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/08/02/exclusive-capitol-police-chief-called-jan-6-events-a-cover-up-in-tucker-carlson-interview-hidden-by-fox-news/

TXAggie2011 said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

jteAg said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

Trump committed no crimes not even close on January 6 or anything leading up to January 6.

It doesn't matter in the election was stolen or not. He has the right to express his opinion.

The constitution is not a suggestion. At all of these indictments happened when he was the president he's already been impeached for them and acquitted. What we have here is a rogue DOJ and presidential administration going after the man simply because he is breathing.

They are overthrowing the constitution of the United States the guard rails are off and they don't give a damn what the law is.

---

OK… keep telling yourself that.
Love your loyalties to the loser though.
If ANY dem had given that same speech, which encouraged the minions to storm the capital, you'd have the gallows already built.
Oh, wait… they were already built…for Pence!

---

No, where in his speech did, he mention anything about storming the capital he said, go in peace and patriotism, you are a damn liar

---

The indictment lays out dozens of phone calls and contacts made to government officials asking them/telling them to take one action or another. The 1st Amendment won't get him off there.

Where "his speech" comes into play, the Indictment largely focuses on allegedly known to be false statements in order to benefit personally. The 1st Amendment won't get him off there, either.

---

seems like TXAggie2011 is one of the few who has actually informed himself of what the indictment states and what the ACTUAL LAW is. Props to him! If only the rest of the population would do the same.

and he still didn't even go into the FAKE ELECTOR SCAM,

the pressuring of Pence and Secretaries of States around the country to "find votes" and commit unconstitutional actions,

and the Department of Justice conspiracy Trump is charged with in pressuring members of the US government to declare "irregularities' in the voting (even though there were none) and to threaten firing DOJ officials and replacing them with his own Trump stooge (Jeffery Clark) if they did not do what the White House wanted.

I can guarantee a significant amount of the Trump defenders in the country HAVE NOT READ THE INDICTMENT, never will read the indictment, never went to law school, and will still LOUDLY PROCLAIM that they know what is going on..

The amount of liberal contortionists on this board that go to no ends to fellate themselves is amazing

The indictment claims Trump, a man known to say exactly what he thinks about something whether it is to his benefit or not, knowingly lied about the election results.

That goes to his state of mind. Does he have reason to believe the election is rigged?

His attorneys only have to look up the road to Harrisburg to get a justification for why Trump believed the fix was in.

The Democrats in the Commonwealth knowingly violated election law and changed it illegally without input from the legislature. They admitted as much before the SCOTUS, claiming COVID gave them the emergency power to do so.

So if you are the GOP candidate for President, and you see perhaps the key battleground state with Democrat leaders breaking the law for their own benefit, how are you not to view those events with anything but a cynical and suspicious eye?

Quote:

---

So if you are the GOP candidate for President, and you see perhaps the key battleground state with Democrat leaders breaking the law for their own benefit, how are you not to view those events with anything but a cynical and suspicious eye?

---

Perfectly said. TDS blinds people from understanding this simple fact. Trump is just in saying it was "stolen" and is a victim of the Democratic machine. I personally blame an inept and complicit media and the Democrat party itself for not abiding by any rule of law. Banana republic.

There are limits to "free speech." You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater to cause a general panic where you know there was no fire - it causes a substantial risk of harm to the people therein.

That is an analogy for what Trump did following the election. If he truly believed the election was stolen, they (there was a fire), there is no case. However, if it is shown through his words or circumstantial evidence that he knew he lost the election and did this to sow chaos and disrupt the election process, then he might be in some hot water.

GeorgiAg said:

---

There are limits to "free speech." You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater to cause a general panic where you know there was no fire - it causes a substantial risk of harm to the people therein.

That is an analogy for what Trump did following the election. If he truly believed the election was stolen, they (there was a fire), there is no case. However, if it is shown through his words or circumstantial evidence that he knew he lost the election and did this to sow chaos and disrupt the election process, then he might be in some hot water.

---

If he had actually incited a riot, whether by lying or telling the truth, then he would have a problem. They couldn't get there based on these facts, so they went with defrauding the United States. Whatever happens at the lower courts, it won't make it past the Supreme Court.

Biden lied in order to induce people to vote for him. You don't see him being charged with defrauding the United States, because this is a political prosecution.

I find it interesting that GeorgiaAg and LMCane are essentially the same poster. Rage on, I guess.

LMCane said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

jteAg said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

Trump committed no crimes not even close on January 6 or anything leading up to January 6.

It doesn't matter in the election was stolen or not. He has the right to express his opinion.

The constitution is not a suggestion. At all of these indictments happened when he was the president he's already been impeached for them and acquitted. What we have here is a rogue DOJ and presidential administration going after the man simply because he is breathing.

They are overthrowing the constitution of the United States the guard rails are off and they don't give a damn what the law is.

---

OK… keep telling yourself that.
Love your loyalties to the loser though.
If ANY dem had given that same speech, which encouraged the minions to storm the capital, you'd have the gallows already built.
Oh, wait… they were already built…for Pence!

---

No, where in his speech did, he mention anything about storming the capital he said, go in peace and patriotism, you are a damn liar

---

The indictment lays out dozens of phone calls and contacts made to government officials asking them/telling them to take one action or another. The 1st Amendment won't get him off there.

Where "his speech" comes into play, the Indictment largely focuses on allegedly known to be false statements in order to benefit personally. The 1st Amendment won't get him off there, either.

---

seems like TXAggie2011 is one of the few who has actually informed himself of what the indictment states and what the ACTUAL LAW is. Props to him! If only the rest of the population would do the same.

and he still didn't even go into the FAKE ELECTOR SCAM,

the pressuring of Pence and Secretaries of States around the country to "find votes" and commit unconstitutional actions,

and the Department of Justice conspiracy Trump is charged with in pressuring members of the US government to declare "irregularities' in the voting (even though there were none) and to threaten firing DOJ officials and replacing them with his own Trump stooge (Jeffery Clark) if they did not do what the White House wanted.

I can guarantee a significant amount of the Trump defenders in the country HAVE NOT READ THE INDICTMENT, never will read the indictment, never went to law school, and will still LOUDLY PROCLAIM that they know what is going on..

---

Where does the Lincoln Project have you now? With your posting times the last few days, you must be out of country.

Oh, and get some help. You're either TDS deranged or not who you profess to be. Hmmm!

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

jteAg said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

Trump committed no crimes not even close on January 6 or anything leading up to January 6.

It doesn't matter in the election was stolen or not. He has the right to express his opinion.

The constitution is not a suggestion. At all of these indictments happened when he was the president he's already been impeached for them and acquitted. What we have here is a rogue DOJ and presidential administration going after the man simply because he is breathing.

They are overthrowing the constitution of the United States the guard rails are off and they don't give a damn what the law is.

---

OK… keep telling yourself that.
Love your loyalties to the loser though.
If ANY dem had given that same speech, which encouraged the minions to storm the capital, you'd have the gallows already built.
Oh, wait… they were already built…for Pence!

---

No, where in his speech did, he mention anything about storming the capital he said, go in peace and patriotism, you are a damn liar

---

The indictment lays out dozens of phone calls and contacts made to government officials asking them/telling them to take one action or another. The 1st Amendment won't get him off there.

Where "his speech" comes into play, the Indictment largely focuses on allegedly known to be false statements in order to benefit personally. The 1st Amendment won't get him off there, either.

---

Are you insane? OJ Simpson got off on murder charges and you think the former and future President Donald Trump would be convicted of a crime over his speech?

---

Very interesting point.

So Trump's first impeachment was an attempt at basically arguing the same thing.... Trump had a phone call with Zelensky asking him to investigate the firing of the Burisma prosecutor. He was subsequently impeached for "targeting a political opponent". Yet here we are years later and evidence continues to mount that Trump was correct all along.

Now Trump is criminally indicted for phone calls calling for investigation of US election tampering. What will we ultimately know 2-3 years from now?

History trends to repeat itself.

jteAg said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

jteAg said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

Trump committed no crimes not even close on January 6 or anything leading up to January 6.

It doesn't matter in the election was stolen or not. He has the right to express his opinion.

The constitution is not a suggestion. At all of these indictments happened when he was the president he's already been impeached for them and acquitted. What we have here is a rogue DOJ and presidential administration going after the man simply because he is breathing.

They are overthrowing the constitution of the United States the guard rails are off and they don't give a damn what the law is.

---

OK… keep telling yourself that.
Love your loyalties to the loser though.
If ANY dem had given that same speech, which encouraged the minions to storm the capital, you'd have the gallows already built.
Oh, wait… they were already built…for Pence!

---

No, where in his speech did, he mention anything about storming the capital he said, go in peace and patriotism, you are a damn liar

---

BS! His rhetoric in that speech fired up those minions like a coach's pre-game speech. He might had said, "go in peace" but he knew what that mob was gonna do, especially when he said, "we've got to fight like hell".
Why do you think it took him hours to call off the dogs, when members of his own party and administration beggged him to do so sooner… cause he loved what he created.

---

They didn't charge him with incitement. Wonder why?

GeorgiAg said:

---

There are limits to "free speech." You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater to cause a general panic where you know there was no fire - it causes a substantial risk of harm to the people therein.

That is an analogy for what Trump did following the election. If he truly believed the election was stolen, they (there was a fire), there is no case. However, if it is shown through his words or circumstantial evidence that he knew he lost the election and did this to sow chaos and disrupt the election process, then he might be in some hot water.

---

You mean like Hillary inciting the violence at Trump's inauguration?

jteAg said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

Trump committed no crimes not even close on January 6 or anything leading up to January 6.

It doesn't matter in the election was stolen or not. He has the right to express his opinion.

The constitution is not a suggestion. At all of these indictments happened when he was the president he's already been impeached for them and acquitted. What we have here is a rogue DOJ and presidential administration going after the man simply because he is breathing.

They are overthrowing the constitution of the United States the guard rails are off and they don't give a damn what the law is.

---

OK… keep telling yourself that.
Love your loyalties to the loser though.
If ANY dem had given that same speech, which encouraged the minions to storm the capital, you'd have the gallows already built.
Oh, wait… they were already built…for Pence!

---

paraphrased......I didn't like his speech....Throw him in prison!!!! You Democrats are a threat to democracy.

This is another can of rattlesnakes the left thinks that if they open it will benefit them exclusively.

Just wait until either Ron or Trump is elected and Kamala has to certify the votes.

Any peep from any Democrat above state level will be automatic grounds, on this new precedent, for federal charges.

I can't wait to see Harris perp walked for saying the election was rigged.

aggiehawg said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

There are limits to "free speech." You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater to cause a general panic where you know there was no fire - it causes a substantial risk of harm to the people therein.

That is an analogy for what Trump did following the election. If he truly believed the election was stolen, they (there was a fire), there is no case. However, if it is shown through his words or circumstantial evidence that he knew he lost the election and did this to sow chaos and disrupt the election process, then he might be in some hot water.

---

You mean like Hillary inciting the violence at Trump's inauguration?

---

The chyron literally says, hundreds arrested. What did Hillary do? Did she hold a rally and tell them where to march?