Below is my column in USA Today on the second indictment of former President Donald Trump. While many are celebrating the charges, the implications for free speech are chilling. While Smith did not charge incitement or insurrection (or seditious conspiracy), commentators (and Smith) portrayed the case as holding Trump accountable for the actual riot in the Capitol. Notably, the same pundits and politicians previously insisted that the rejected crimes were obvious and well-established. Indeed, Trump was impeached on incitement charges. They are now shrugging off the conspicuous omission of those charges while attacking those of us with free speech concerns as apologists.
Here is the column:
Special counsel Jack Smith made history on Tuesday.
It wasn’t just the federal indictment of a former president. Smith already did that in June with the indictment of Donald Trump on charges that he mishandled classified documents.
No, Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration of a politician on false claims made during and after an election.
The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment. This complaint is based largely on statements that are protected under the First Amendment. It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections.
In the 2012 United States v. Alvarez decision, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies in a case involving a politician who lied about military decorations.
The court warned such criminalization “would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition. The mere potential for the exercise of that power casts a chill, a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom.”
That precedent did not deter Smith. This indictment is reminiscent of the case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. His conviction on 11 corruption-related counts was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing that federal prosecutors relied on a “boundless” definition of actions that could trigger criminal charges against political leaders.
Smith is now showing the same abandon in pursuing Trump, including detailing his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, before the riot while omitting the line where Trump told his supporters to go to the U.S. Capitol to “peacefully” protest the certification.
While the indictment acknowledges that candidates are allowed to make false statements, Smith proceeded to charge Trump for making “knowingly false statements.”
On the election claims, Smith declares that Trump “knew that they were false” because he was “notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue.”
The problem is that Trump had lawyers and others telling him that the claims were true. Smith is indicting Trump for believing his lawyers over his other advisers.
I criticized Trump’s Jan. 6 speech while he was still giving it and wrote that his theory on the election and the certification challenge was unfounded. However, that does not make it a crime.
If you take a red pen to protected free speech in this indictment, it would be reduced to a virtual haiku. Moreover, if you concede that Trump may have believed that the election was stolen, the complaint collapses.
Smith also noted that Trump made false claims against the accuracy of voting machines in challenging the outcome of the election. In 2021, Democratic lawyers alleged that thousands of votes may have been switched or changed by voting machines in New York elections. Was that also a crime of disinformation?
Smith indicted Trump because the now former president “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.” The special counsel also says Trump “repeated and widely disseminated (the lies) anyway – to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.”
Let’s acknowledge that Trump was wrong. The election wasn’t stolen. He lost, and Joe Biden won.
But how do you prove legally that Trump truly didn’t believe his false claims? And even if you can prove that Trump lied, how do you legally distinguish his falsehoods from the lies other political leaders have told over the years? When, in politics, does making a false statement cross the line into criminal behavior? Those are questions Smith and his team must answer in court, and ones that Trump’s defense team is likely to raise.
Polls previously showed that roughly half of the public viewed earlier charges against Trump as politically motivated. That is why many of us hoped that any indictment would be based on unquestioned legal authority and unassailable evidence.
Smith offered neither. This indictment will deepen the view of many in the public that the Justice Department is thoroughly compromised in pursuing political prosecutions.
These concerns were magnified Tuesday by Smith, who announced the charges with comments that made him sound more like a pundit than a prosecutor. The special counsel gave an impassioned account of the Capitol riot that made it sound like Trump was charged with incitement. He wasn’t. Nor was he charged with seditious conspiracy, despite his second impeachment on those charges.
Notably, many of the legal experts praising the indictment previously insisted that there was a clear case for incitement against Trump. Indeed, Democratic members made the claim the center of the second impeachment, despite some of us writing that there was no actionable claim.
Even Smith wouldn’t touch the incitement or sedition claims that were endlessly pushed by legal experts and Democratic members.
Instead, Smith will seek to criminalize false political claims. To bag Trump, he will have to bulldoze through the First Amendment and a line of Supreme Court cases. That’s why this latest indictment of Trump isn’t just wrong. It is reckless.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley
It’s clear government prosecutors should not be the ones policing the infospace against deceitful infowarfare.
But, it would be a grievous mistake and a dagger thru the heart of democratic self-government to assume the 1st Amendment denies society at large such policing power — in essence, placing willful fabrication on the same level legally as provable fact. That is an open invitation to autocracy established and maintained by propaganda.
This is where our Civil Torts system can play a decisive role. Several recent defamation cases show the potential of
lawsuits brought in front of a jury to decisively knock back the false-narrative and its crafty progenitor. Think Nicholas Sandmann disciplining CNN-WaPo….or the Sandy Hill parents walloping Alex Jones….Dominion Voting denuding Fox News of nearly $1B. In a Civil Court of Law, the lying stops and the truth prevails, with both sides entering the courtroom as equals, a neutral Judge there to impose strict rules of evidence on the adversaries — and a Jury of 12 there to act as decider-of-fact. Where all 12 people can agree on the facts, their unanimous decision settles the matter for good.
That system is much superior to the Court of Public Opinion for burrowing down to ground truth. Because it is an adversarial system, all evidence is open to cross-examination. The power of subpoena can pry open the veil of secrecy behind which the devious operate, a power not shared by journalists working in the Court of Public Opinion. The Judge sets a schedule for the trial, and the controversy can be settled with finality if there are 12 votes. This important feature allows society to move on to other controversies.
So, expanding our legal process for defamation to cover Public Frauds is a measured and calibrated means of clarifying just how far the 1st Amendment reaches. The consent of the governed is baked into our Constitution as its founding principle — the presumption being informed consent. If that consent can be obtained through trickery and deceit, what remains of the ideal? This is why it is illogical to think the 1st Amendment protects government’s ability to dupe the public with the help of sympathetic media.
My worry is that the “conspiracy to defraud the United States” charge (should Trump be convicted), will be overturned by the Supreme Court in a manner that is interpreted to give a wide berth to public frauds and their perpetrators. That would be a travesty. The case review should only consider whether DOJ prosecutors overstepped 1A, leaving open civil torts as the Constitutionally-correct way to police the infospace.
Your comment is neither new nor original, and has been addressed on multiple occasions. See, e.g.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860211 (2021)
Going back even further to 2015, see: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol68/iss6/1
wherein it is said, “Beyond doctrine, we advance the thesis that constitutional protection for high value lies is firmly rooted in First Amendment theory because false speech can paradoxically facilitate or produce truth.”
Repeat, “because false speech can paradoxically facilitate or produce truth.”
This has been a basic tenet of SCOTUS as well as the professor for years, i.e. “the answer is-MORE speech”
Part of the Big Lie that was used to justify Trump’s coup attempt was that Republicans perceived themselves a “Capitalists” while portraying Democrats as “Socialists”. In other words to avoid becoming Venezuela or Cuba, Republicans need to subvert the U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter] – with such a grave threat laws and Constitution are “optional”.
Since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower until 2023, there is a strong argument (based on facts) that Democrats are more fiscally-conservative than Republicans – debunking the Venezuela and Cuba scare mothering.
Eisenhower had a top tax rate exceeding 70% – way more liberal than Bill Clinton, Obama or Biden. Republican Richard Nixon supported “Universal Healthcare” – way more liberal than Obamacare or Biden’s “Medicare for All”.
Bill Clinton was the last president to leave office with a balanced budget. Bush inherited a balanced-budget then spent tax payer money like a drunken sailor (even if you deduct wartime spending). Obama inherited Bush’s credit card bill and brought down Republican’s debt to lower than he inherited.
Actually based on facts, Republicans are more “fiscally-liberal” closer to Venezuela and Cuba. This was the justification for Trump’s coup attempt!
[source: documentary film “Saving Capitalism” starring Republican Tea Party member Dave Brat and Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary].
LMAO at ATS
The budget was balanced by a Republican congress, you dunce.
I couldn’t help but notice that he left out Ronald Reagan (PBUH). ATS isn’t big on little details like that.
Responding to Thersites:
Yes Reagan voted for 11 tax increases, not vetoing any of them.
There was no balance. Huge deficit
Your ar conflating budget with spending
“the budget was balanced” – the process of balancing a budget is an accounting exercise, necessarily involving income and expenses.
You didn’t say just the budget. And budget itself is irrelevant anyway…
Yea, you just changed your tune. The budget is the budget The deficit is how much over budget you spent.
I hope this wasn’t a reply to me? If so, you’ve actually stooped to just saying stupid sh!t for the pure joy of it. If it was to Thersites, I already gave you the civics lesson you deserved. Congress taxes and spends. That huge deficit was passed by a democrat house. When the republicans took the house after 40 years of D majorities, son of a b–ch, balanced budget!(to quote your hero, Pedo Joe Bribin’)
Last surplus was 2001. Both parties spend with reckless abandon. Full stop. Neither party tries to balance a budget.
That’s your lame ass response or is this a different anonymous? Trying to chime in when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
“while portraying Democrats as “Socialists”.”
It’s hard to get more socialistic than socializing other peoples’ student loan debt.
Many, if not most, Democrats didn’t support a total forgiveness of student loan debt. Many did not agree with Democratic leaders on that one.
Probably most voters, of both parties, agreed to restructuring that debt over a longer period to lower payments. Ultimately that plan would have increased interest income to the taxpayers.
ATS
The devil is always in the details, isn’t it. Those checks were going to end up in the hands of Jeff Bezos and the like. Very few of those entitled little twits were gonna pay off a dime of their student debt. It would be spent on cruises and widgets from Amazon. Are we to belive that it never occurred to anyone who pushed this that the checks ought to be made out to the finacial institutions? This was never about helping America, else why would he have gone against the will of every republican and “most” democrats, not to mention EVERY economist? It was about buying votes. Clever, but UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Another example of your transparent cling to the far left, regardless of logic or reason.
The contract with america was not clintons contract, lmao.
By the way, that was the first republican controlled house in 40 years.
Disingenuous lie or misinformation, which is it?
Here ya go, a little civics lesson for ATS
In the United States, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. This is also referred to as the “Taxing and Spending Clause.”
Do we really gotta do this on an elementary school level???
Where are ya, ATS?
Lets se Anonymous, basic income for all. Health care where if yo want to keep your doctor you can keep your doctor. Welfare without a work requirement. Reparations for recent black immigrants from Bolivia and Venezuela. Low test scores accepted for those with the proper skin color. Free abortion payed for directly from my wallet. Highest taxes that limit the participation in free enterprise by average citizens in the Socialist Republic of California. From 100 billion budget surplus in California to 21 billion dollars in deficits while the Capitalist state of Florida has a 22 billion dollar surplus. These facts might bring you back to reality but it’s doubtful.
“Obama inherited Bush’s credit card bill and brought down Republican’s debt to lower than he inherited.”
WTF has this site degraded to?? You just troll in here daily and say stupid sh!t like this???
My god, have some semblance of dignity.
Just looking at debt, Obama increased the debt by more than all of his predecessors combined.
More fairly
Debt Increase during Obama (method – adding all of his budget deficits)–$6.8T
Debt Increas during Bush—-3.2T
Don’t even bother trying to spin it. Besides, I already gave you the civics lesson that makes it moot.
Where ya at ATS?
Former A.G. Bill Barr: “As the indictment says, you know, they’re not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better. But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech, and all fraud involves speech. So, free speech doesn’t give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.”
The “fraudulent conspiracy” was to ask officials to take steps to reconsider or change the results of the election, on the basis that it was rigged and thus stolen. In making those requests, Trump is alleged to have knowingly relied on false constitutional theories, such as Pence’s powers, and false factual details, such as the number of dead voters. Even if he knowingly relied on these false theories and facts, all he did was speak, and he was not asking for a crime to be committed by the officials, but for them to do their duty as he saw it in overturning a rigged election. The officials disagreed with his theories and concluded that the evidence did not support his facts. So they did not do as he asked. That’s it.
This is factually untrue. Demanding officials to FIND VOTES is not an ask, is it?
Are you aware of the difference between a request and a demand?
So Trump was in a position to demand anything from the sovereign state of georgia’s secretary of state??? Spoken like a true modern lefty. In your dystopia, the federal govt has all sorts of powers not enumerated in the constitution.
Here’s your version of a valid coercion…hey ATS, if you dont wire me $200, i am gonna turn on the death ray from my personal satellite and fry your while family.
Now, try sending that to the old twitter moderators and see if they fund it a valid threat, and ban me for it. Then try sending it to the FBI and see if they act on it.
LAME
First, you are aware that Georgia is subject to federal law, right? And, you are aware that federal laws both apply to a federal election?
Second, even if he had no authority to make good on his threats, the threat still exists. Daniel’s false categorization of Trump’s “request” is simply factually untrue because it was a threat.
“First, you are aware that Georgia is subject to federal law, right?”
And what law exactly was trump threatening georgia with?….red herring alert
Your arguments get dumber as the day goes on…jeez c’mon
Threat LMAO. This is the guy who was gonna nuke a hurricane LMAO.
You act like Raffensberger was a gd 8 year old.
Keep this up, ATS and I am gonna turn my satelite death ray on you!
Your arguments are so juvenile.
“he was not asking for a crime to be committed by the officials”
Asking Pence to violate the Constitution and the ECA is asking Pence to commit a crime. Asking fake electors to falsely certify that they’re true electors when they don’t meet the legal requirements is asking them to commit a crime.
Again: Teri Kanefield is an appellate lawyer who answers questions on her blog. Post you questions and comments there and see if she gives you a better answer: https://terikanefield.com/trump-january-6-indictment-over-the-cliff-notes/
So glad we can rely on you to define what a crime is.
You said earlier is was pointless to try and convince, yet here you remain. You must have some other goal then. Like a troll’s goal.
Do you (plural) enjoy being a troll?
What the Democrats have been saying louder and louder for years is that they are the ones who want a national divorce.
The Democrats wage lawfare on our political leaders whenever those leaders set foot in blue districts (even while Democrats engage in brazen corruption), they turn public servants into totalitarian warriors to drive out fellow citizens who don’t toe the line, they lionize rioting and looting as long as they’re the ones doing it, and they use government agencies and corporate media to spy on us and silence our objections—even as they themselves become willfully objectionable and intolerant.
This isn’t just about Trump. They waged the exact same war on Scott Walker and Bob McDonnell. They create a hostile environment for anyone who is reluctant to drink their Kool-aid. I see the political refugees from CA and IL every time I visit Nashville or Houston.
If swing voters don’t send Democrats a message in 2024, the national divorce will eventually become a bloody reality.
Ignore this at your peril. Your children are next. That’s how totalitarians roll.
We thought the Democrats decided not to open the new Department Against Disinformation because of the outrage that ensued. Now we know that we were very wrong. They just put it on the back burner until now. At the time that they introduced the idea of the new DAD idea I said that they would use it for the purpose of incarcerating their political enemies and here we are. Big Brother, big DAD, what’s the difference.
The ends justify the means. The regular operating methodology of the prog/left dem. They are like islamic jihadists in that nothing is beyond the pale when in service of their fanatical adherence to their religion – the ideology/theology of progressivism.
Can anyone here assign these words to their rightful owner, non of whom were charged with a gd thing.
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Inciting and indeed threatening violence.
“No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president,” she said. “I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.”
Knows she lost legit in spite of her efforts at fraud, and continues to knowingly lie about it. Defrauded the US of millions of dollars.
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them.”
Inciting violence and harassment —-literally a slam dunk in court
Cmon ATS, you’re the smartest person here, who said those things??? Oh wait, let me rephrase, who’s actions were those??
Progressives are vile individuals.
Remember Stacy Abrahams from Georgia who said the election for Governor was rigged after she lost by 50,000 votes. She continues to this day to tell the lie. She knew and still knows that it was a lie. Why hasn’t she been indicted?
Lying to the public is legal. Trump wasn’t indicted for lying to the public. Unlike Trump, Abrams hasn’t entered into conspiracies to commit crimes.
Can ATS assign these words, no, actions, to their rightful owner, non of whom were charged with a gd thing.
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Inciting and indeed threatening violence.
“No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president,” she said. “I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.”
Knows she lost legit in spite of her efforts at fraud, and continues to knowingly lie about it. Defrauded the US of millions of dollars.
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them.”
Inciting violence and harassment —-literally a slam dunk in court
Unless Trump is receiving preferential treatment, based on existing legal precedent, Trump is likely going to prison unless he strikes a plea deal with prosecutors.
If the conservative-controlled U.S. Supreme Court rules against Trump – what will your excuse be then?
ATS
My offer still stands to put your money where your big fat atrogant mouth is.
The legal pursuit of Trump has become absurd. A first year DA can get an indictment since the only evidence presented is from the prosecutor. Remember that an indictment is not a conviction.
DJT was not under oath when he made these claims. He’s perfectly within his right to make claims that are specious. He is speech and other lies may result in life in purgatory, but they are protected speech.
Ask yourselves when will DOJ indict Biden for his lies? Will Faucci be indicted for COVID misinformation? Will Hillary be indicted for mishandling classified information and destruction of evidence?
Lying is a sin but not a crime. The government must stop censoring or criminalizing speech it does not agree with.
Trump’s constitutionally-subversive wing (regular citizens those that support coup attempts) are likely already blacklisted for life. These disloyal Americans are literally putting their families at risk.
Today, Merrick Garland (or any future AG) has legal precedent to use the federal “Material Witness Statute” in a very dangerous way. You can thank Republican Attorney General, John Ashcroft, for this very dangerous tool.
According to some of Ashcroft’s victims, Ashcroft use this MWS tool similar to a “Nixon’s Enemies List” to punish legal First Amendment activity. Having absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or protecting real witnesses.
Ashcroft would go to your employer (covertly) and force your employer to fire you. Then Ashcroft would slap a gag order on the employer so they couldn’t tell you why you were fired.
In other cases, according to Ashcroft victims, federal officials posed as co-workers and committed assault & battery or other tactics to force you to quit your job. Done over 20 years the DOJ completely destroyed the job histories of perfectly innocent Americans.
Then the entire fraud was classified for several years. Can you remain unemployed for several years with little or no income?
Ashcroft was never indicted for these felony crimes but was severely reprimanded by a federal appeals court. This is the legal precedent that Republicans created and that Merrick Garland (or a future AG) has legal precedent to use today on constitutionally-subversive citizens that support coup attempts – like some Trump supporters.
Spoken and posed like a true Stalinist! Congrats comrade!
1. There are many crimes that are committed by words alone.
2. Trump is accused of taking or asking others to take illegal actions to overturn the results of an election. This is a real crime.
3. Smith will put on many witnesses who will say that in private, Trump knew he lost. The only way to refute that is for Trump to get on the stand and be very persuasive. Since they can’t put him on the stand, the only testimony the jury will hear will be against Trump.
4. The bulk of what Trump is accused of is what he did in private, asking others to commit crimes and helping plan those crimes.
Sammy, when Trump goes on the stand he will say that he requested that the crowd should go peacefully to the Capitol to protest. Conveniently Smith left that quote out of the indictment. I understand, so that you can get it I’ll have to spell it out word for word. Next you’ll say that he was speaking in secret code.
LOL that you think Trump will take the stand. You’re deluded.
LMAO
He doesnt need to. One person in the crowd can be called to play the video on the their phone.
In fact i would call them all, one at a time, and ask each of them if they thought trumps speech was a call to violence or to enter the capital. Case close on that count.
The speech is just one small part of the charges.
… and he had no idea that people were actually attacking the Capitol at his behest for several hours because he has no TV and no phone and really likes to remain off the grid.
Is that supposed to be a response?
Because you start off with the red herring that they attacked the capital at his behest, so every word after that is useless.
“. . . to take illegal actions . . .”
Such as what *actions*, exactly?
And don’t say “read the indictment.” Since you made that claim, presumably you know. More importantly, that indictment is a masterful exercise in hand-waving.
And don’t say “conspiracy.” Since that charge piggybacks on an underlying *action*, such a reply is begging the question.
Strong-arming a state Secretary of State.
Strong-arming a state Secretary of State.
Asking is constitutional. You taught me that about the twitter files.
Do you typically make requests with threats?
If you don’t understand the difference between asking and threatening, then we are done here. Get your head out of the sand, man.
What was the threat? Georgia did what they did and there were no consequences. There is no threat. (more shit you made up)
If you want to prosecute someone for making knowingly false statements that interfered with an election, indict the 51 “spies who lie.”
“Let’s acknowledge that Trump was wrong. The election wasn’t stolen. He lost, and Joe Biden won.”
Let’s have Trump acknowledge that publicly, repeatedly and consistently, and publicly apologize for suggesting otherwise. Let’s have all his co-conspirators do the same. Let’s have the folks at FoxNews and other right wing media do the same. Let’s have all the commentators on this site do the same. Let’s have Turley do that in the lead and headline to an article rather than several paragraphs in as if it is a minor point.
Maybe then we can get to reconciling the rift in this country. But the problem is too many people in this country live in a bubble where they either believe or pretend that is not the case.
Politico, let’s have Politico Magazine apologize for the RussiaHoax that was used to undermine the Presidency of a duly elected President for four years. You know, the one who said that Trump was a Russian plant. Another one liner from someone who imagines himself a genius.
Trump spent four years as President proving he was a stooge of Putin. The apology should come from those who suggested he was not.
Politico
As soon as you, hillary, and all the other space cadets admit trump won fair and square in 2016 and he was not an “illegitimate” president.
“I reserve the right to behave like an imbecile and become apoplectic when my peers do the same”—-
The Left
Hillary spent the ENTIRE 2016 campaign claiming that, if Trump lost, he would not accept the results. She has spent every waking moment since, refusing to accept the results. And you coted for that lowlife.
“Hillary spent the ENTIRE 2016 campaign claiming that, if Trump lost, he would not accept the results. She has spent every waking moment since, refusing to accept the results.”
Actual Facts – Hillary admitted the day after the election that Trump got the most electoral college votes. But Hillary also won the popular vote, a fact that Trump never accepted as he made repeated statements to the contrary for years afterward. And of course he lost the 2020 election and Trump never accepted that. So I think Hillary was quite vindicated in her view of Trump.
LMAO
Of course u do.
Do i need to show all the quotes of hillary denying that trumps election was legit???
She conceded the election, and said Trump was now elected President.
And has spent the 7 years since saying otherwise.
Maybe then we can get to reconciling the rift in this country.
Democrats are Spying on, and now Prosecuting Donald Trump. A President, and candidate for President…Your solution is for the Republicans to apologize?
“Let’s acknowledge that Trump was wrong. The election wasn’t stolen. He lost, and Joe Biden won.”
We might acknowledge such as a sort of devil’s advocate exercize but there is no proof that a claim the election was stolen is wrong. In fact, many people have had a near hysterical, others an actual hysterical, reaction to a full audit of elections. No one in the Democratic party, and few in the GOP as well, wants to look too closely for fear of what they will find. And please do not try to gaslight people with claims of voting irregularities having been adjudicated by the courts. Throwing out complaints on the basis of standing or other technicality doesn’t constitute a fair test. It’s just kick the can down the road.
It’s true there were many zany claims from otherwise sane folks like Ms. Powell. However, I like to refer to the 1982 Illinois Gubernatorial election where there was proven to be hundreds of thousands of false votes in Chicago alone — many convictions for election fraud in that one. What the 2020 election did was to re-introduce nationally the tactics those Chicago political enforcers used in 1982. Joe Fried, a forensic accountant, has looked carefully at the swing states and found irregularities warranting a full audit.
Maybe Smith just wants his 15 minutes of fame and to pile on charges that Trump has to take time to defend. Whatever, I will never vote for a Dem, even for dog catcher. Scumbag maggots all!
The competent dems and their brilliant sycophants have got ol’ Trump now.
Bwahahahahaha
“Smith proceeded to charge Trump for making ‘knowingly false statements.’”
This indictment is *not* about free speech. Followed by a series of charges that criminalize free speech.
The Left must take us for a bunch of blithering idiots.
But Smith did NOT “charge Trump for making ‘knowingly false statements.’” A false statements charge is 18 U.S. Code § 1001, which is not among the crimes Trump was charged with.
The cult only sees and reads what they want to see and read
“The cult only sees and reads what they want to see and read”—-fishlips the cultist
Thanks for agreeing with me that he charged the wrong statutes
LMAO
“. . . while *omitting* the line where Trump told his supporters . . .”(JT, emphasis added)
If that does not convince you that Smith is dishonest and corrupt, then nothing will.
“The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment.”
Its not hatred, its fear. Fear of an outsider coming into DC and immediatley getting results. Fear that Trump will further expose the State Dept ineptitude. Fear the DoJ will be gutted and returned to non political seekers of facts and justice, and not the Gestapo for the Dems.
Lots of fear that Trump is going to bury the DC rice bowl, not just knock it over. That’s why half the Republicans are mute.
Iowan2: Well said.