Droppersneck
Bluelighter
It’s sort of insane the establishment left can be critical of this with a straight face. The hypocrisy is blinding, but some how they can’t see it.
In these latest charges, why do you think trump isn’t afforded first amendment protections? That’s what it will essentially come down to. He’s already convicted in DC, that’s not even up for debate. This will ultimately be decided by John roberts, that’s why trump said what he said imo. The scotus will have to decide where or not he had first amendment protection, as president. Also challenging the electors was a legal remedy up until very recently. It’s why they used a clown prosecutor, it will likely get thrown out. Unless the establishment has something on Roberts, which is very possible.trump is threatening prosecutors/witnesses/etc. good luck with that.
he's also pleading publicly for the supreme court to "intercede" is his various legal cases.
what does he think they should - or even can - do (at this time)?
he was the president and he seems to have an extremely limited understanding of how the legal system works...
alasdair
Why wouldn’t he be allowed to have the opinion that the election was rigged? More than half of the country thinks this. It’s setting up for a horrifying ruling, that what the establishment deems misinformation is speech you are not allowed to speak, which arguably ends the first amendment."this is protected speech" is just a fox news talking point. again, not a great look to just be repeating that. switch off the tv.
maybe the supreme court will get to hear this but the cases haven't even started yet.
it's telling that he seems to have no idea how the justice system works.
alasdair
The simple fact is that there was a provision to challenge the electors and send them back to the state. There’s is no wiggle room here, it’s just fact. They didn’t use jack smith for no reason at all. This guy has already been unanimously over ruled by the scotus.also "challenging the electors" is a rather naive analysis of what he and his co-conspirators allegedly did. there was a little more to their scheme than that...
alasdair
Why wouldn’t he be allowed to have the opinion that the election was rigged?
he told his followers to March patriotically and peacefully to the capital
The simple fact is that there was a provision to challenge the electors and send them back to the state.
The censoring of the laptop story was wrong-headed, no doubt. But if you defend one of the greatest shit talker in history by accusing his opponents of obfuscation and dishonesty (of which I am sure there is plenty) it starts to seem selective. You're acting like Trump himself isn't knowingly lying with every breath. Including about nearly every element of the election and the subsequent capitol 'protest'.Furthermore the two major take aways from the indictment is that they had to doctor what he said to create the narrative, they had to remove where he told his followers to March patriotically and peacefully to the capital.
And that if the judge isn’t subverted his defense will be able to prove the establishment interfered in the election. They have proof that some of the intelligence folx that signed off on the letter that declared the Hunter Biden lap top story to be Russian disinfo knew that the story was real. Yet they still used their influence to censor it. And that definitely effected the outcome of the election.
Wow... when I step back and remove myself from the situation, it becomes very clear how the two "sides" (manufactured) of this "debate" (shouting match with earplugs in) are living in totally separate versions of reality.
Why wouldn’t he be allowed to have the opinion that the election was rigged? More than half of the country thinks this. It’s setting up for a horrifying ruling, that what the establishment deems misinformation is speech you are not allowed to speak, which arguably ends the first amendment.