These guys are proving that they did not read it. Trump's "stay peaceful" tweet is in there with the time stamps of when he did it.
Trust me it is not exculpatory.
I fully acknowledged I haven't and don't plan to read it unless you tell me what page this is on so I can look. But yes interestingly several people claim to have read it and yet say it's not in there so they haven't read it either.
But if I could add one more comment I can honestly say I'd never want to see a political opponent prosecuted with such weak charges. This is the sort of thing a weak party does when they're trying to cling to power rather than leave it up to the 2024 election and as some alluded to, a tactic you'd expect in a 2nd or 3rd world country.
“I would never want to see a political opponent prosecuted without even offering a written record of the basis for the charges. At least I haven’t read anything like that, and therefore this is a miscarriage of Justice!”
Only in Trump world could supporters insist so vehemently that it is fraudulent prosecution, miscarriage of justice, political retribution at the same time they admit they dont know what it says because they haven’t read it!
then they boast about their ignorance as if it a badge of courage for the team not to read it!
The “peaceful and patriotic” part is a cover your ass line that followed “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
What you're describing is a thoughtcrime. You're saying "sure, he SAID peaceful, but what he meant was ________."
That's essentially injecting your opinion and in America you can't put people in jail because of your opinion of what they were thinking.
The indictments don't seek to interpret him; they spell out what he did that constituted breaches of the law, and this will be supported by evidence from witnesses or the charges couldn't be made. You show you are both ignorant of the law as it applies here and the detail of the events it relates to.
These guys are proving that they did not read it. Trump's "stay peaceful" tweet is in there with the time stamps of when he did it.
Trust me it is not exculpatory.
I fully acknowledged I haven't and don't plan to read it unless you tell me what page this is on so I can look. But yes interestingly several people claim to have read it and yet say it's not in there so they haven't read it either.
But if I could add one more comment I can honestly say I'd never want to see a political opponent prosecuted with such weak charges. This is the sort of thing a weak party does when they're trying to cling to power rather than leave it up to the 2024 election and as some alluded to, a tactic you'd expect in a 2nd or 3rd world country.
You are saying the Indictment charges are weak in an Indictment that you admit you've never even read. Just contemplate for a few seconds how ridiculous that makes you appear to normal people. Do you behave like this in real life? How do you hold a job?
The well-publicized Trump Tweet you claim to be interested in is on page 40, paragraph 114, sub-paragraph (a).
“After Trump’s arraignment he will travel back to his Bedminster golf club where he pays $700 in property taxes on 113 acres of prime NJ real estate by keeping 8 goats and pretending its a farm, he also pretends its a cemetery and buried one of his ex’s on the back nine. Class.”
I fully acknowledged I haven't and don't plan to read it unless you tell me what page this is on so I can look. But yes interestingly several people claim to have read it and yet say it's not in there so they haven't read it either.
But if I could add one more comment I can honestly say I'd never want to see a political opponent prosecuted with such weak charges. This is the sort of thing a weak party does when they're trying to cling to power rather than leave it up to the 2024 election and as some alluded to, a tactic you'd expect in a 2nd or 3rd world country.
You are saying the Indictment charges are weak in an Indictment that you admit you've never even read. Just contemplate for a few seconds how ridiculous that makes you appear to normal people. Do you behave like this in real life? How do you hold a job?
The well-publicized Trump Tweet you claim to be interested in is on page 40, paragraph 114, sub-paragraph (a).
Thanks man, finally someone answered my basic question. Don't know why the others couldn't do this, except that they're trying to be annoying.
Let me analyze what it says and why I think it destroys the case.
"The Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including:
a. At 2:38 p.m., "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
b. At 3:13 p.m., "Ia m asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great mena nd women in Blue. Thank you!"
(End quote)
Now, here is the logical error. The indictment says that Trump falsely suggested the crowd was being peaceful. But that's not what happened because he was being prescriptive rather than descriptive. He was instructing them to be peaceful which is ultimately what this case is all about.
So it appears the indictment wrongly interpreted the Tweets, either intentionally or unintentionally. In either case I think that pretty much blows up the case, there is zero chance this will hold up.
You are saying the Indictment charges are weak in an Indictment that you admit you've never even read. Just contemplate for a few seconds how ridiculous that makes you appear to normal people. Do you behave like this in real life? How do you hold a job?
The well-publicized Trump Tweet you claim to be interested in is on page 40, paragraph 114, sub-paragraph (a).
Thanks man, finally someone answered my basic question. Don't know why the others couldn't do this, except that they're trying to be annoying.
Let me analyze what it says and why I think it destroys the case.
"The Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including:
a. At 2:38 p.m., "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
b. At 3:13 p.m., "Ia m asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great mena nd women in Blue. Thank you!"
(End quote)
Now, here is the logical error. The indictment says that Trump falsely suggested the crowd was being peaceful. But that's not what happened because he was being prescriptive rather than descriptive. He was instructing them to be peaceful which is ultimately what this case is all about.
So it appears the indictment wrongly interpreted the Tweets, either intentionally or unintentionally. In either case I think that pretty much blows up the case, there is zero chance this will hold up.
-Koko
I hope to god this isn’t how you are in your writing classes.
Thanks man, finally someone answered my basic question. Don't know why the others couldn't do this, except that they're trying to be annoying.
Let me analyze what it says and why I think it destroys the case.
"The Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including:
a. At 2:38 p.m., "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
b. At 3:13 p.m., "Ia m asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great mena nd women in Blue. Thank you!"
(End quote)
Now, here is the logical error. The indictment says that Trump falsely suggested the crowd was being peaceful. But that's not what happened because he was being prescriptive rather than descriptive. He was instructing them to be peaceful which is ultimately what this case is all about.
So it appears the indictment wrongly interpreted the Tweets, either intentionally or unintentionally. In either case I think that pretty much blows up the case, there is zero chance this will hold up.
-Koko
I hope to god this isn’t how you are in your writing classes.
I hope to god this isn’t how you are in your writing classes.
Haven't taken any.
It shows.
And you think that this case is going to boil down to whether he used the word "peaceful" in the speech before he unleashed the mob on the Capitol, telling them to go "fight like hell"?
No.
The effort to defraud the United States and to interfere in counting will be about things like creating fake electors in seven states, trying to influence elected officials to delay the counting, etc.
This case isn't about a word in a speech. It is about ongoing criminal behavior and conspiracy that went on for weeks in advance of the attack on democracy.
You are saying the Indictment charges are weak in an Indictment that you admit you've never even read. Just contemplate for a few seconds how ridiculous that makes you appear to normal people. Do you behave like this in real life? How do you hold a job?
The well-publicized Trump Tweet you claim to be interested in is on page 40, paragraph 114, sub-paragraph (a).
He was instructing them to be peaceful which is ultimately what this case is all about.
It's been pointed out to you on several occasions in this thread that Trump's Tweets on January 6th is NOT what this case is about,"ultimately" or otherwise. People on Twitter that you rely on for opinions are lying to you.
The former president's remarks are being used by Democrats hoping to convict him for incitement of insurrection — and are being defended by his lawyers in the Senate proceedings.
You are saying the Indictment charges are weak in an Indictment that you admit you've never even read. Just contemplate for a few seconds how ridiculous that makes you appear to normal people. Do you behave like this in real life? How do you hold a job?
The well-publicized Trump Tweet you claim to be interested in is on page 40, paragraph 114, sub-paragraph (a).
Thanks man, finally someone answered my basic question. Don't know why the others couldn't do this, except that they're trying to be annoying.
Let me analyze what it says and why I think it destroys the case.
"The Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including:
a. At 2:38 p.m., "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
b. At 3:13 p.m., "Ia m asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great mena nd women in Blue. Thank you!"
(End quote)
Now, here is the logical error. The indictment says that Trump falsely suggested the crowd was being peaceful. But that's not what happened because he was being prescriptive rather than descriptive. He was instructing them to be peaceful which is ultimately what this case is all about.
So it appears the indictment wrongly interpreted the Tweets, either intentionally or unintentionally. In either case I think that pretty much blows up the case, there is zero chance this will hold up.
-Koko
The indictment doesn't center around specific acts committed on January 6th. Incitement was not among the charges Trump was indicted for. Trump's actions and those of the co-conspirators on January 6th are presented as small pieces of supporting evidence that show behavior consistent with the alleged months long criminal conspiracy. It seems like the prosecutor is attempting to paint Trump's actions on January 6th in a particularly despicable light when viewed in conjuction with the mountain of evidence he will present supporting those criminal charges. Trump's tweets aren't central to the indictment.
Just curious, does the indictment mention that he told people to march peacefully? That negates any possible charge of solicitation, seditious conspiracy, incitement, fraud, or insurrection. If not then it's just a political document as I suspected.
He didn't urge peaceful protest. You are completely unaware of what he said and did that day - and afterwards. Criminal proceedings are not founded on "peaceful protest".
What the plan seemed to be was that Trump wanted his M AgA rioters to kill someone like Pence or Pelosi. He would then declare martial law because killing politicians is not allowed.
After declaring declare martial law, he would install co-conspirator Jeffrey Clark as his martial law Attorney General. Then they would impose the insurrection act which allows Trump to take full command of the military and deploy it domestically (against people living in the U.S.). Trump gets to chose who to deploy the military against using rules he gets to invent (pull out of his ass).
The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform.
Again, there are four charges and what you are refering to only tangentially relates to the enormous breadth of evidence which has been painstakingly and meticulously accumulated and documented, and upon which is being used to demonstrate his culpability on those charges
If I may be so frank, there is a mountain of evidence stacked against him. Read the indictment. Really, read it, even if just skimming. The time for Trump and the co-conspirators to be held accountable for a long litany of infractions has come.
All the talk on the the twitter accounts and message boards and you tube vids won't change that.
Thanks man, finally someone answered my basic question. Don't know why the others couldn't do this, except that they're trying to be annoying.
Let me analyze what it says and why I think it destroys the case.
"The Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including:
a. At 2:38 p.m., "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
b. At 3:13 p.m., "Ia m asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great mena nd women in Blue. Thank you!"
(End quote)
Now, here is the logical error. The indictment says that Trump falsely suggested the crowd was being peaceful. But that's not what happened because he was being prescriptive rather than descriptive. He was instructing them to be peaceful which is ultimately what this case is all about.
So it appears the indictment wrongly interpreted the Tweets, either intentionally or unintentionally. In either case I think that pretty much blows up the case, there is zero chance this will hold up.
-Koko
The indictment doesn't center around specific acts committed on January 6th. Incitement was not among the charges Trump was indicted for. Trump's actions and those of the co-conspirators on January 6th are presented as small pieces of supporting evidence that show behavior consistent with the alleged months long criminal conspiracy. It seems like the prosecutor is attempting to paint Trump's actions on January 6th in a particularly despicable light when viewed in conjuction with the mountain of evidence he will present supporting those criminal charges. Trump's tweets aren't central to the indictment.
Their end goal was to use the U.S. military domestically, and unimpeded, against civilians in selected locations. Guess where? Not where the rioting Trumpansies live. Just where people live who don't bow down to the orange one.
Many of our resident right wingers have tried to claim that the numbskulls and dimwits that breached the Capitol most certainly were not a true insurrection because there was no official coup plan and these people were not an organized militia with a war plan or agreement. As we learn in the indictment, the Jan 6th stuff was simply to delay the finalizing vote through more chaos. To stop an official public proceeding to make the election official. (That is a crime btw). All that Trump and crew wanted was more time to muddy up the water again and again and again. And if they if they happened to hit paydirt and there was counter protesters that showed up and big violence with them that would be icing on the cake for them to have more chaos to justify Martial law. The entire effort by Trump was nothing but a chaos and lie festival. Trump: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest up to us” Trump to Mike Pence in the words of Mike Pence:
“You are too honest” Keep in mind that Trump can’t refute any of the testimony of Mike Pence. They were one on one conversations. The only way Trump could refute is if he took the stand. Then he would have to answer all questions. That will never, ever happen. Trump would perjure himself in seconds. He is a liar that can't help himself from lying.
Again, there are four charges and what you are refering to only tangentially relates to the enormous breadth of evidence which has been painstakingly and meticulously accumulated and documented, and upon which is being used to demonstrate his culpability on those charges
If I may be so frank, there is a mountain of evidence stacked against him. Read the indictment. Really, read it, even if just skimming. The time for Trump and the co-conspirators to be held accountable for a long litany of infractions has come.
All the talk on the the twitter accounts and message boards and you tube vids won't change that.
dont forget about the Supreme Court. Let us know how these trials end up in a few years! we will be busy getting children away from bombs
