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 Smithย made history on Tuesday.
It wasn’t just the federal indictment of a former president.ย Smith already did that in June with the indictment of Donald Trump onย 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 2012ย United States v. Alvarezย 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 Courtโs cases or in our constitutional tradition. The mere potential for the exercise of that power casts a chill,ย a chill the First Amendment cannot permitย 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 onย 11 corruption-related countsย was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing thatย federal prosecutors relied on a “boundless” definitionย of actions that could trigger criminal charges against political leaders.
Smith is now showing the same abandon in pursuing Trump, includingย detailing his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, before the riotย 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 speechย 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 allegedย that thousands of votes may have been switched or changedย by voting machinesย in New York elections.ย 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 โ to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, andย 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 anย impassioned account of the Capitol riotย that made it sound like Trump was charged with incitement. He wasn’t. Nor was he charged with seditious conspiracy, despite hisย second impeachmentย on those charges.
Notably, many of the legal experts praising the indictment previously insisted that there was aย clear case for incitementย against Trump. Indeed, Democratic members made the claim the center of the second impeachment, despite some of us writing thatย 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,ย is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.ย Follow him on Twitterย @JonathanTurley
One thing is for certain, the fiasco of weaponized legal warfare will likely make the former President the most sued individual in history.
This reminds me of the classic cartoon episode of the Pink Panther vs the termite. The Pink Panther destroys his own home In pursuit of getting the termite.
How bizarre. What weirdos! Apparently they have no idea how ridiculous and irrational they really are.
https://youtu.be/tSygG3dNbyM
NEWS FLASH – WASHINGTON, D.C. โ Trump appeared in court after Special Council Jack Smith charged him with the high crime of questioning his election results while not being a Democrat.
“The sacred words penned in our Constitution, which I have so much reverence for, make it clear that only Democrats are allowed to question election results,” said Smith to reporters. “Trump brazenly questioned an election even though his name isn’t Hillary and he didn’t even have a fake Russian dossier to prove his case. This is a dark, dank, and dangerous day for our democracy.”
“We must be clear: no one who is a Republican is above the law.”
The former President has also been charged with 5 other counts, including:
1. Removing a USB drive without ejecting it first
2. Going to McDonald’s and getting a cup for water but filling it with Sprite
3. Wearing a National Park Junior Ranger badge without finishing the activity booklet
4. Pressing the ‘credit’ button on a card reader even though he was using a debit card
5. Clicking the box saying he had actually read the Terms Of Service when he merely scrolled through it
At publishing time, Trump had pleaded “not guilty” on all charges on the grounds that he actually identifies as a Democrat.
Dont forget tearing the tag off of a mattress. In a russian hotel after peeing in prostitutes.
Nor forget this beauty:
https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-elections-politics-campaigns-5e833a62e9492f6a66624b7920cc846a
Some perspective: Lying is not illegal; making mistakes is not illegal; being angry at losing and lashing out is not illegal. Asking someone to protest peacefully and patriotically isn’t illegal. Choosing to believe lawyers over bureacrats isn’t illegal. Being stabbed in the back by your appointees in the DOJ and elsewhere isn’t illegal but it ought to be.
The First Amendment protects all of the above under the New York Times v. Sullivan case – about the only good thing out of that opinion. This is a political dirty trick perpetrated by a prosecutor who knows better and lied (by omission) in the indictment. That’s really all the “law” you need to know.
Here’s the math:
Indictment Langauage: “Finally, after exhorting that “we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t
fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” the Defendant
directed the people in front of him to head to the Capitol, suggested he was
going with them, and told them to give Members of Congress “the kind of
pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”
Speech Transcript: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. … And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
I disagree with most things you said.
1. The idea that asking someone to protest peacefully is actually illegal if person saying this is a Repubican. Rioting and looting, and encouraging riots and lootings, on the other hand, are perfectly lawful if carried out by Democrats, provided such acts are performed with good cause, consistent with Democrat Party values.
2. The First Amendment only applies to individuals that hold officially approved narratives. Anything else is dangerous and racist.
3. Individuals are indictable if they do not share our sacred Democrat Party principles of transferring wealth from Republicans to Democrats, favoring the rights of criminals over victims, and ensuring that our Democrat leaders can engage in bribery, extortion, and other variations from legal activities as necessary to enrich Democrat leaders without obstruction.
JF:
Don’t let that tongue get stuck in that cheek!
Mepo, how come you immediately recognize when I’m indulging in a little political satire, as I do now and then? But when Biden fans read my satiric stuff they say, “Where is the link to the story you posted?”
Likely because they had the โjudgmentโ to vote for the Biden Gang.
Lol
Question. When will Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, Al Gore, and all the other Democrats who claim they really won their elections be indicted for misinformation?
When will Dr Fauci be indicted for makingknowlingly false statements that Covid 19 occurred naturally when behind the scenes he was discussing genetic indicators that it was engineered at the same time?
Why is Trump held responsible for a riot when he told people to peacefully let their voices be heard, but Pelosi isnโt responsible for riots when she said, โI donโt know why there arenโt riots. Maybe there will be.โ So many politicians parroted โNo justice, no peace.โ
Then there were all the politicians who lied in their โHands up, donโt shootโ shenanigans, when it was proven Michael Brown had grappled with the officerโs gun and was in the act of charging him again.
There is no justice.
Trump wasn’t indicted for misinformation. Read the indictment. Educate yourself.
Turley should read it too.
You read the indictment, yet act totally uneducated. Oh wait, were those 2 unrelated statements?
Karen, if someone pointed a gun at you you while holding you hostage with their other hand, you too would try to grab the gun away from him. Youโre in a natural fight or flight situation. Youโre being held by the gunman so fleeing isnโt an option when he points his gun at you. Fighting is your only option left. Michael Brown was murdered.
Kid, when you grab a cop’s gun you are no longer unarmed. I guess Obama and his DOJ led by Eric Holder are just cop loving white supremacists.
You better hope you never run into guy who acts like Brown in a dark alley or have your wife or kids meet him while working in a convenience store. Odd that you have no issue with the cop that killed actual unarmed Ashley Babbitt??? Why do you think that is?
Michael Brown was looking for trouble. He just stole cigarillos, then he punched a cop in his face and took his gun. No one wanted Michael Brown killed but that is what happens when people act stupidly.
https://news.sky.com/story/michael-brown-shooting-what-really-happened-10381243
Police are killed at a much higher frequency than police kill innocent people. Michael Brown was not innocent. His actions led to his death which no one wanted.
The idea that anyone bases their opinion on the honesty of the 2020 potus election because Trump said something, is utterly PREPOSTEROUS.
Apparently the DC gulag masters have no idea there is something called the internet with millions of videos about the 2020 election and all the frauds in various states and counties.
There are also PROFESSORS, who the DC elite claim they worship, who have proven mathematically the electi0on was stolen. There is “the 19 counties” that always predict the winner, also foiled this time, indicating Trump won.
There are the 3 -4 am near simultaneous election night spikes of hundreds of thousands of votes all for Biden in one fell swoop in all the 5 swing states, all with various shut down like burst pipes or other excuses.
The number of votes separating the winner with electoral additions from the swing states is MINISCULE, thus even minimal cheating by the biden team would secure the win unfairly.
There are many documentaries proving the election was stolen.
So, claiming the election was “the fairest election ever” is the BIG LIE the homeland security doofus blabbered out like a compromised idiot. Same as the 51 three letter sigs denying Hunter’s laptop and blaming it on Russia.
Then we also have the nefarious three letters embedded in social media banning conservatives 99% of the time, with mere window dressing against inconsequential demoncrats.
The list is so long and so large I have only touched maybe half of what went on in stealing votes away from Trump.
Too bad most all the DC elite are hellbound to protect the status quo lest they be tossed overboard. My condolences for your pressure cooker positions.
Tom – simple questions:
Did Trump lose the 2020 election?
Absolutely.
Thank you for that.
Sorry, i only saw one question.
And by the way, I didnt vote for him. Unlike ATS, Dennis, Gigi, and fish lips, i understand that I can have my independent political beliefs, and still condemn wrongdoing when i see it. They toe the party line like brainless lemmings (or paid trolls) and its hard not to point out their many shortfalls in logic and reasoning. Not to mention the outright lies.
Any publicity is good publicity. Trump will have a ton of free publicity between now and Election Day. But then again the big guy will probably get his fair share of free publicity
Well Tom, we can debate back and forth who is right, but the courts are going to decide this along with a jury.
And other than the NY case, he’s got huge problems.
But don’t worry, he won’t see jail time and when a Republican does get back in the WH, he’ll be pardoned. But he might be dead at that point.
U wanna debate the probability of a 12 person unbiased jury?? What country have u been living in. One juror is all it takes. One.
Trump knows it. Its how he sleeps at night. You are now starring in ATSโs wet dream. Congrats.
JFeldman –
Got a link to that story you just posted?
“The rioters at the capital had no such free will??? Nice Bill, keep the hits coming.”
Absolutely was their free will…….reading comprehension appears to be your weakness.
Walk the walk means Trump engaged in ACTIVITIES……not speech. See the difference?
Get a clue lol
Naw, u get a clue, Bill. U came late to the party, regurgitating the tired rants of the lefties i addressed in my original post. They claim that trumps speech incited violence, as many on the left have. โFight like hellโ is a figure of speech, just like โyou wont know what hit youโ. Again, thanks for making my point and i am sorry that my next level sarcasm was lost on you. I thought at first you were being disingenuous, now o realize youโre just a dunce, like ATS.
And, please bill, do me a favor and send a letter to your democrat congresswoman, telling her to vote a certain way on a certain topic or she โwont know what hit herโ. Make sure its addressed to her home address. Get back to us on the outcome.
Kinda like Trump in his Tweets (see baseball bat, see actually tonight)?
While youโre at it, get a clue as to how to reply to a specific post, instead of narcissistically posting yours to the top. It will make it a little easier for people to follow your incoherent thoughts.
Thanks for the tip (legitimately).
Oh, and you now seem agitated (legitimately lol).
Nah, its just lost in text. If i was agitated i would have used term as a noun instead of an adverb(wink and smile)
In a shocking turn of events, Prosecutor Jack Smith indicted himself today at 3:30 pm EST. In his self-indictment, Smith acknowledged that he omitted a vital sentence in the DOJโs rush to indict Trump in their latest case against him.
Smith admitted in his self-indictment that he focused on Trumpโs use of the phrase โfight like hellโ and omitted the following sentence from Trumpโs original public statements: โI know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.โ
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed with Smith to hear his self-indictment arguments. Smith apologized to the Court for making this โmistake.โ
Smith proposed as a remedy to this serious omission to make a plea agreement with himself that would exonerate him of any wrongdoing in connection with this or another filing he may make in the future.
At 4:57 pm EST today, Judge Chutkan concurred with Smithโs self-indictment plea bargain, stating that โJack Smith has suffered enough hardship from the verbal abuse heโs received from those opposed to Mr. Smithโs previous indictments of Mr. Trump. And besides, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Mr. Trump was disingenuous when he told his supporters to march โpeacefully and patriotically.โโ
The members of the mainstream media then subsequently met to discuss these latest developments and agreed not cover any part of the story. โReporting on these latest developments could confuse the public, so we have declined to report on these events,โ a representative of Associated Press said today.
“Wow, just wow. Bill says that threats of violence are protected free speech”
Did I say that? Someone (maybe you?) asked if Shumur should be held accountable……the answer is no in legal terms. What he said was not prudent – but I can easily make the case what he said was no where even near a violent comment.
“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You wonโt know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.โ
That quote can be taken a million different ways.
Big swing and miss by you, Tom.
U could make that case and u would be trashed by webster.
Hitting is violence. Just like โfight like hellโ is. Strike 3 for you Bill (juvenile).
“Fraud is lying and deception”,
Lying: Trump said he won the election when it is a fact he lost, and knew he lost (which will be confirmed by his own hires at the trial). While he is allowed to say anything he wants, this will be used to establish what his state of mind was.
Deception: Setting up fake alternate electors/coordinating with Republican State legislators to find “inaccuracies in voting”.
Deception can be done right in front of your eyes, doesn’t have to be under the covers.
The AP reported, โMichiganโs attorney general filed felony charges Tuesday against 16 Republicans who acted as fake electors [in the electoral college] for then-President Donald Trump in 2020, accusing them of submitting false certificates that confirmed they were legitimate electors despite Joe Bidenโs victory in the state.โ
In addition, there are 7 states where the Trump team created alternative slates of electors: Wisconsin, Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, & Pennsylvania.
We hear that staff members of republican representatives attempted to submit some (or all?) of these false electors to Vice President Pence on 6 January. That is the real crux of this case. It is a felony to falsify a single vote. The Trump team attempted to subvert the entire 2020 Presidential election.
I voted for that SOB, but never again.
It is not illegal to enlist alternate slates of electors. It has been done in the past and no one was charged with any crime for doing so. Congress decides which electors to accept.
Well, it was done once in a race (Kennedy/Nixon) that was already decided. Kennedy already been declared the overall election winner, and they simply wanted to determine who would collect the electoral votes in a state (Hawaii) where the race was extremely cost (approx 150 votes). So the Dems absolutely came up with the alternate electors to prepare for what was probably a reversal (which happened). And, the big point here is, the electors were approved beforehand by the courts.
That’s quite different than doing it in seven states under the covers AFTER all attempts at bringing up charges election fraud were thrown out by the courts AND the Republican led state legislators were chopping at the bit to cheat their way to a Trump win.
Quite different. Illegal? Courts to decide.
I want to recheck your history on that one bill. That is not the only time it has been done not even close.
*might no i
“โI want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh โ you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You wonโt know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions”
No, because it’s free speech and he had zero to do with the person who showed up at the Justice’s house. That was that person’s free will. Now…..Shumur was wrong to use that speech, but it’s by no means illegal.
Do you see how that differs from Trump? Trump talked, then walked the walk as far as he possibly could until he was ultimately denied.
Wow, just wow. Bill says that threats of violence are protected free speech. Not sure i concur with that Bill, but thanks for making my point.
And because he was saying it in front of a crowd gathered around him, he was also guilty of inciting violence.
Whats incredible is your inability to see the irony in your remarks.
Trump followed thru (walked the walk) on threats of violence???
โI reject your reality and substitute my ownโโโBill
Trump followed thru (walked the walk) on threats of violence???
Tom – please understand no where did I say Trump followed thru on threats of violence. Are you that dense?
He followed thru on activities that I consider to be illegal – trying to remain in power with a grand scheme to say the election was rigged and he actually won. That’s not speech. That’s actions.
The legality of it will be decided in court.
But let’s face facts, the GOP Senate lacked the balls to impeachment him which would have saved us from all this. McConnell makes a speech burying the guy but won’t pull the trigger on impeachment.
Embarrassing.
The rioters at the capital had no such free will??? Nice Bill, keep the hits coming.
“Trump left the Whitehouse exactly on schedule.”
Well you got me there. And all because Pence didn’t follow thru sending it back to the House with those State legislatures all set up to investigate what really went on (wink wink).
And you’re right it was all done out in the open, so much that sycophants decided to go to DC and do what they did.
I’ll give Turley credit, at least he prefaces any debate with establishing Biden did in fact win, and Trump lost. Think some of you need to get over this first hurdle before continuing.
There are legitimate questions about how far a free society can go in allowing deceitful political infowarfare. These questions are not new, but the techniques & toolset available for professionals intent on duping the public are advancing very rapidly — adding to the tradecraft known as psyOps. The sorry endpoint of failing to adequately deter the intentional use of falsehoods is a despotic dictatorship kept in power through propaganda pushed out into sympathetic media (or media under state intimidation).
Particularly odious are false narratives originating from within government, as a means of opinion-shaping the public, and thus policy and leadership choices. These frauds only need to have “legs” temporarily during decision-making timeframes. I’m thinking about Tony Blinken and Mike Morrell’s whopper used to misdirect the electorate 3 weeks before the 2020 election….it worked during the voting timeframe, and now that it no longer needs to be believed, the truth can spill out. This highlights the highly temporal nature of disinformation — only if it can be effectively challenged while it still matters can society approach impending decisions based on truth and fact. Otherwise, “the consent of the governed” is a hollow promise, i.e., if public consent can be obtained through trickery and deceit, what is left of that ideal?
And that is precisely why an interpretation of 1A going so far as to protect the waging of public-frauds-of-consequence is inconsistent with the main body of the Constitution. The real question needing to be addressed is, “How best to deter deceitful infowarfare campaigns, especially those pushed out by govt. and political actors via sympathetic media?”
What Jack Smith is doing (government prosecution of a political fraud) is the wrong approach, and a clear violation of 1A. Government officers should not be the ones deciding fact from fiction. Rather, the People should be able to sue perpetrators of Public Frauds in Civil Court, and after subpoenas, discovery, adversarial arguments, and a full consideration of factual evidence, a Jury of 12 citizens serves as finders-of-fact. Public Frauds lawsuits would work very similar to defamation — the Public as Plaintiff defending itself from falsehoods injurious to its present and future decisionmaking. The major difference is these PF Courts would need rapid-response due-diligence. As previously noted, deciding fact from fiction has to observe decisionmaking timeframes to be effective. The deterrent effect of being sued and found liable years after a successful con-job is simply not that strong for political zealots.
Now that journalism is unabashedly taking up advocacy, the Court Of Public Opinion has become a playground for infowarriors. It may still be able to expose the truth in many instances, but we need a back-up system to COPO for those controversies where false narratives are alive-and-kicking and the stakes are very high for getting it wrong….e.g., the public frauds that led the US into the Iraq War, or the J6th rioters into storming the Capitol.
This debate cannot be allowed to descend into a false dichotomy between ceding govt. advanced powers of mind-control vs. ceding non-govt. actors advanced powers of mind-control — over the long haul, these are the exact same threat since politicians come and go. A free society where The People reign supreme runs on the fuel of truth, and if the 4th Estate cannot supply it in realtime, we need a civil torts process as a backstop. In order to skillfully navigate a complex future, we need both freedom-of-expression steeped in honesty and truth-seeking, and the means to challenge the artful deceivers before their cons can gain the desired purchase. We need something akin to a fast defamation court to do this consistent with 1A.
Open question for ATS, Gigi, Dennis, Wally, and FishLips
Should Chuck Shumer have been charged with a crime for this?:
โI want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh – you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You wonโt know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,โ Schumer told the cheering crowd. Some days later, an armed man was arrested enroute to “assassinate Justice Kavanaugh”.
Was there a conspiracy between the man and Schumer? Any evidence of a plan to to assassinate?
If there was, then yes. For criminal conspiracy.
Verbal assault requires a willful verbal threat to inflict injury upon another person, under such circumstances, which create a reasonable fear of imminent injury, coupled with an apparent ability to inflict injury.
The speech alone does not suffice, but if there was the men’s rea (willfulness), a reasonable fear on injury (ie flashing a gun), and an ability to inflict injury (i.e., cornering Kavanaugh in a room and getting very close to him), then yes that would be criminal assault.
One Life to Live: [The Cover-Up Continues – The New 2023-2024 Season Premiere]
~Breaking the News~ [!Special Report!]
This is the Opening Salvo by the United States of America’s Department of Justice – THE INDICTMENT –
This Seasons line-up promises to be full of Action Packed Court Dramas,
You’ll witness the:
The Mar-A-Logo Defense Documents Trial – Co-staring Special Counsel Jack Smith is scheduled for May 2024
The January 6th Indictments and Trial – Co-staring Special Counsel Jack Smith is scheduled for May 2024
The Fulton County Georgia Election Case – Co-staring Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis starting May 2022
The NYC Manhattan District Hush Money Case – Co-staring Mr. Bragg Trial is scheduled for March 25, 2024
Plus excepts from the E. Jean Carroll’s Case
In addition there will lots of Side Trials of Former Associates, along with plenty of Side-Bar Commentaries and Pundit Opinions.
Until this all culminates on Election Day November 5th, 2024 – When YOU DECIDE THE VERDICT.
Will Donald J. Trump be GUILTY or Will He be FREE to be THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES [?]
Yes indeed, it going to be a scintillating sensational Trail Of The Century, Hold on to your Seat, This is the BIG ONE!
It’s going to be Bigger than the O.J. and Watergate trials combined!
Will America become a bonafide Totalitarian Government under the auspices of Democracy or will it beat the odds and remain the G.O.A.T.
You’ll be the Judge, Will it be ๐ or ๐ .
Tune in America, You and the whole wide World are watching.
We’ll be bring this all to You ‘FREE*’ here on the Political Sports Channel
Where 24/7/365 We’re always ready to Rummmmmmble!
Disclaimer: We reserve the rights to Deni, a Denial, wherein Denied, Let’s just skip to the chase: We Deni Everything.
We do not warrant anything, Void where prohibited, and The Truth-Is-Not the Truth. After all We are the Media, Believe it or Not.
Not recommended for Children under 65, Common minor side effects of viewing programmed propaganda may include the following: :
Diarrhea.
Dizziness.
Drowsiness.
Fatigue.
Heart issues (palpitations, irregular heartbeats, and failure)
Hives.
Nausea and vomiting.
Rash.
Greasy Discharge.
and an occasional Death.
*(Sponsored by your Tax Dollars at Work)
Framed
Tucker Carlson
Watch: ๐๐๐ฏ๐จ๐ง ๐๐ซ๐๐ก๐๐ซ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ค๐๐ซ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ “๐๐๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ” ๐๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐๐๐ง ๐๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐จ ๐ ๐๐ซ
“Burisma released it, didn’t tell us, and it was like the most Googled news story like in the world for 18 hours…”
@TuckerCarlson
Ep. 13 Part 2. Devon Archer
Tucker Carlson ยท Aug 4, 2023
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1687436522625159168
Video:
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1687416636481916928/vid/1920×1080/a9uU2fHKSCYd0LJm.mp4?tag=16
“If the Capital had never been breached, and it had been reported that Trump had made this request of Pence, is there anyone who is going to argue with a straight face that Trump would have been indicted for that?”
Are you seriously saying that’s all Trump did since election day?
No. Of course not. It’s an example of several things he did to try to get legislative activity in his favor. All of them inappropriate. And all them perfectly legal. The whole manner in which Smith brings up things having nothing to do with legal statutes is troubling. His indictment is loaded with that kind of stuff. What is Smith doing going on about Trump’s January 6th speech? There’s no legal foundation for him to be talking about it.