Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

Fraud is fraud regardless of intent. The fact that Trump tried to appoint fake electors is what dooms him. Even if he believed he was not doing anything wrong, the fact is, the act of appointing fake electors and pushing that true is a crime.

There's no escape - if they have evidence that he did indeed do that, and apparently they have that - he's smoked.

 

But the Dersh says otherwise - free speech is free speech, even if you use it to commit fraud!

@Os Trigonum

 

What a whiner…

 

The other idiot son babbles…

 

“Until his last breathalyzer”…

 

You have to admit, they know how to spin the issues back to the base.

I never thought they could turn a conspiracy to commit election fraud into a free speech issue.

 

I missed this part. The right propaganda messaging machine is in overdrive to convince their followers that among other abhorrent anti-constitutional behaviors, planning to use martial law to squash protesters after overturning the results is just free speech.

Link
Observers today called out the part of the indictment that describes how Trump and Co-Conspirator 4, who appears to be Jeffrey Clark, the man Trump wanted to make attorney general, intended to use the military to quell any protests against Trump’s overturning of the election results. When warned that staying in power would lead to “riots in every major city in the United States,” Co-Conspirator 4 replied, “Well…that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”

The Insurrection Act of 1807 permits the president to use the military to enforce domestic laws, invoking martial law. Trump’s allies urged him to do just that to stay in power. Fears that Trump might do such a thing were strong enough that on January 3, 2021, all 10 living former defense secretaries signed a Washington Post op-ed warning that “[e]fforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory.”

They put their colleagues on notice: “Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.” Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo recalled today that military leaders told Congress they were reluctant to respond to the violence at the Capitol out of concern about how Trump might use the military under the Insurrection Act.

 

Dershowitz appears to have missed the Jan 6th hearings which presented a lot of evidence that not only did Trump know he lost the election he knew there was no fraud enougth to have changed the results. His own AG told him that.

 

I can believe it. The Right only seemed to get interested in free speech when it involved people expressing views aligned with the Right. As we’ve seen with Rightwing governors pushing policies to restrict views in media they don’t like or that the Trump Admin also asked social media to restrict posts negative about Trump they don’t really believe in the principle.

 

dershowitz didn't miss the hearings, he is ignoring them so that he can spin out trump's defense. Pretty amazing how easily trump defenders can swallow their own integrity (if they ever had any) to defend him...

 

trump's lawyer floated out another possible defense... "he only wanted a "pause""...

 

My point is that it's not even a free speech issue. It's not about Trump expressing the election was fraudulent, it's about the actions he took to overturn the election. Telling people to reject the vote isn't a free speech issue. Arranging to have fake electors isn't a free speech issue. Calling AG's and pressuring them to reject votes isn't a free speech issue.

These things are called election fraud. It's like a mobster puts a hit on someone and their defense is that it's free speech.

 

It's like saying Ken Lay never committed fraud because he didn't adjust the financial spreadsheets himself.

 

I agree and I brought up earlier in this thread the difference between expressing free speech versus actions that actually try to overturn the election.

It would be like if someone said “I hate that person and wished they were dead” versus “telling people they need to go take that person out.”

My point though is they the sudden embrace of free speech only occurred when they felt views aligned with them were being “censored”. They were all for social media keeping out views by groups like ISIS and I doubt even now they would consider Meta and Twitter blocking accounts associated with ISIS a problem. At the same time GOP elected leaders are enacting policies cracking down on views from private entities they don’t like.

It doesn’t seem a stretch to me at all that Republicans would make a free speech argument to defend Trump.

 

it might not be that hard to convince 1 juror that Trump is devoid of reality

 

And the indictment clearly states how and where it is not a "free speech" issue.

 

Traitor Ted and his relentless defense and bootlicking of Donald Trump.

Cruz: Judge assigned to Jan. 6 case ‘relentlessly hostile to Donald Trump’

Cruz voted for Chutkan’s confirmation in 2014, when she was confirmed unanimously by the Senate after being nominated by former President Obama. He said that if the case goes to trial in Washington, D.C., there is an “exceptionally high” chance the jury will vote to convict him because D.C. leans Democrat.

“They are not Donald Trump supporters,” he said. “The likelihood that a D.C. jury will vote to convict Donald Trump is exceptionally high, and the facts don’t matter. The laws don’t matter. They hate him. That’s a big part of the reason why the Biden DOJ wants to bring this case in D.C., which means with a far-left judge and a far-left jury, there is a very real possibility that Donald Trump ends up being convicted.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...-6-case-relentlessly-hostile-to-donald-trump/

 

I guess we'll never see Bill Barr on Fox News getting to say this.

"He just leaves so much carnage in his wake." That really sums it up. Even his followers might see this, after all his former associates have been charged with crimes and many of them serving time, disbarred, etc? I guess they actually either don't see it, refuse to see it, or digest it as "well, you got to break a few eggs to make an omelette" sort of thing.