It's interesting to me that the same people who claim Trump is a clinical narcissist also believe all of his intentions are Machiavellian. He is an ego-driven narcissist. Even if what you claimed was true, that the election was on the up and up (which I believe is the real lie), an ego-driven narcissist will be in complete denial about the results. All of the "intent" is manufactured. I'm happy to be proven wrong. I honestly couldn't care less about Trump, and my ego is not attached to his success.

I don't think determining which brand of bat [BLEEP] crazy Trump is really matters here. 
(it's the crimes)

---

Full indictment doc here:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-conte...ment-1.pdf

Perhaps you should read the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the introduction.  


"3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won."


The defense moves for summary judgement.

What's your point? 

Having the right to be a lying piece of [BLEEP] is not what is on trial here.

---

What did Trump say to incite others to commit crimes?

And again, most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life. But I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.
And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.
So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.
The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

But this is all digression - these are not Jack Smith's charges, so I went off topic and I apologize.

Again, what did Trump say to incite others to commit crimes?

---

But this is all digression - these are not Jack Smith's charges, so I went off topic and I apologize.

Again, what did Trump say to incite others Democrats to commit crimes?

"Friends, delegates and fellow Americans: I humbly and gratefully accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States." - DJT, 7/21/2016

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

But this is all digression - these are not Jack Smith's charges, so I went off topic and I apologize.

Again, what did Trump say to incite others to commit crimes?

The actual charge is conspiring to impede an official proceeding. 

So you can hash out the incite others bit with Mike if you'd like, but the actual indictment answers why he's facing the actual charge quite plainly. It is not limited to the rioting mob he helped to foment, it incorporates the repeated attempts to persuade Pence to participate in Trump and company's false elector scheme as well.

Here's the bit you seem to be looking for including Trump's words and encouragement to his supporters to act. 



He told his supporters that the election hinged on Pence's actions that day. 

This bit was shortly followed with the now infamous line "if you don't fight like hell, you won't have a country anymore." 

Now go right ahead and argue context all you want on that quote. You can defend it successfully, but I guarantee that most of the 2000+ ppl that actually crossed the threshold of the Capitol that day didn't give a damn about the context of that statement.

---

Again, what did Trump say to incite others to commit crimes?

The actual charge is conspiring to impede an official proceeding. 

So you can hash out the incite others bit with Mike if you'd like, but the actual indictment answers why he's facing the actual charge quite plainly. It is not limited to the rioting mob he helped to foment, it incorporates the repeated attempts to persuade Pence to participate in Trump and company's false elector scheme as well.

Here's the bit you seem to be looking for including Trump's words and encouragement to his supporters to act. 



He told his supporters that the election hinged on Pence's actions that day. 

This bit was shortly followed with the now infamous line "if you don't fight like hell, you won't have a country anymore." 

Now go right ahead and argue context all you want on that quote. You can defend it successfully, but I guarantee that most of the 2000+ ppl that actually crossed the threshold of the Capitol that day didn't give a damn about the context of that statement.

Breaking news! Local law firm threatens violence against others.

https://www.youhurtwefight.com/?utm_sour...olespa.com

You can spin it all you want but there is nothing which shows Trump incited what happened on January 6th. It sounds good for biased MSM sound bites and overzealous, politically motivated District Attorneys, but the words as they stand do not encourage anyone to violence or crime.

---

The actual charge is conspiring to impede an official proceeding. 

So you can hash out the incite others bit with Mike if you'd like, but the actual indictment answers why he's facing the actual charge quite plainly. It is not limited to the rioting mob he helped to foment, it incorporates the repeated attempts to persuade Pence to participate in Trump and company's false elector scheme as well.

Here's the bit you seem to be looking for including Trump's words and encouragement to his supporters to act. 



He told his supporters that the election hinged on Pence's actions that day. 

This bit was shortly followed with the now infamous line "if you don't fight like hell, you won't have a country anymore." 

Now go right ahead and argue context all you want on that quote. You can defend it successfully, but I guarantee that most of the 2000+ ppl that actually crossed the threshold of the Capitol that day didn't give a damn about the context of that statement.

Breaking news! Local law firm threatens violence against others.

https://www.youhurtwefight.com/?utm_sour...olespa.com

You can spin it all you want but there is nothing which shows Trump incited what happened on January 6th. It sounds good for biased MSM sound bites and overzealous, politically motivated District Attorneys, but the words as they stand do not encourage anyone to violence or crime.

Again, as stated a moment ago, that bolded bit doesn't matter. That is not the charge, and that is not what the prosecution must prove. 

You and I can have different opinions about what Trump intended the crowd to do after his speech from here to eternity and it won't matter. 

His repeated attempts to persuade Pence to impede the certification are enough to prosecute without need to prove an intent to incite the rioters.

---

Breaking news! Local law firm threatens violence against others.

https://www.youhurtwefight.com/?utm_sour...olespa.com

You can spin it all you want but there is nothing which shows Trump incited what happened on January 6th. It sounds good for biased MSM sound bites and overzealous, politically motivated District Attorneys, but the words as they stand do not encourage anyone to violence or crime.

Again, as stated a moment ago, that bolded bit doesn't matter. That is not the charge, and that is not what the prosecution must prove. 

You and I can have different opinions about what Trump intended the crowd to do after his speech from here to eternity and it won't matter. 

His repeated attempts to persuade Pence to impede the certification are enough to prosecute without need to prove an intent to incite the rioters.

And I won’t disagree with you on that. The point of my argument is people are glomming onto partisan prosecutorial rhetoric to drive their Trump hatred into spittle-flecked overreach. These indictments are being levied by lawyers who are elected by the opposing party. Hell, Bragg even ran on a platform of indicting Trump. Folks who hate Trump see this as some sort of altruistic righteousness couched in law, when in fact, many of its motivations are purely political.

---

The actual charge is conspiring to impede an official proceeding. 

So you can hash out the incite others bit with Mike if you'd like, but the actual indictment answers why he's facing the actual charge quite plainly. It is not limited to the rioting mob he helped to foment, it incorporates the repeated attempts to persuade Pence to participate in Trump and company's false elector scheme as well.

Here's the bit you seem to be looking for including Trump's words and encouragement to his supporters to act. 



He told his supporters that the election hinged on Pence's actions that day. 

This bit was shortly followed with the now infamous line "if you don't fight like hell, you won't have a country anymore." 

Now go right ahead and argue context all you want on that quote. You can defend it successfully, but I guarantee that most of the 2000+ ppl that actually crossed the threshold of the Capitol that day didn't give a damn about the context of that statement.

Breaking news! Local law firm threatens violence against others.

https://www.youhurtwefight.com/?utm_sour...olespa.com

You can spin it all you want but there is nothing which shows Trump incited what happened on January 6th. It sounds good for biased MSM sound bites and overzealous, politically motivated District Attorneys, but the words as they stand do not encourage anyone to violence or crime.

This is what's so frustrating about discussing this.  People who think of themselves as resolute tough guys suddenly become little wishy washy twinks on this subject.

"What happened on Jan 6 was a crime, but Trump didn't incite it."
"OK we prosecuted and jailed those criminals"
"No, they should be pardoned"
"Why?"
"They believed they were saving the country from a stolen election"
"Where'd they get that idea?"
"Trump said so"
"So Trump incited their crime?"
"No"
"So they are responsible for what they did?"
"No"

Y'all are all twinks for Trump.  Whatever he needs you to say, whatever he needs you to believe.  You will criticize him, yes, but you will never ever let him face consequences.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Again, as stated a moment ago, that bolded bit doesn't matter. That is not the charge, and that is not what the prosecution must prove. 

You and I can have different opinions about what Trump intended the crowd to do after his speech from here to eternity and it won't matter. 

His repeated attempts to persuade Pence to impede the certification are enough to prosecute without need to prove an intent to incite the rioters.

And I won’t disagree with you on that. The point of my argument is people are glomming onto partisan prosecutorial rhetoric to drive their Trump hatred into spittle-flecked overreach. These indictments are being levied by lawyers who are elected by the opposing party. Hell, Bragg even ran on a platform of indicting Trump. Folks who hate Trump see this as some sort of altruistic righteousness couched in law, when in fact, many of its motivations are purely political.

I'm sure there are political motivations baked into these cases brought against him. 

I also believe he'll easily be proven guilty of the majority of the various charges. 

So, I'm fine with that. 

If you want to go down the "if they can do it to the former president, they can do it to anyone" road? 
Sure, yeah.
 That all should be obvious. 
Yes, the law applies to everyone. 
If the folks across the aisle want to find legit crimes perpetrated by Democrat politicians, go get 'em, I say. 
Politicians committing crimes should always be a bad thing, and I support the prosecution of any of them if it's legit. Even if it's politically motivated -- if you can prove it -- so be it.

If the "Hunter Biden's laptop" witch hunt actually produces real evidence against Joe Biden? Throw the book at him too!
I am not in this for a party - and all about taking action to dissuade future office holders from making the same mistakes.

---

But this is all digression - these are not Jack Smith's charges, so I went off topic and I apologize.

Again, what did Trump say to incite others to commit crimes?

Go out there with all they've got and win just one for the Trumper?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

And I won’t disagree with you on that. The point of my argument is people are glomming onto partisan prosecutorial rhetoric to drive their Trump hatred into spittle-flecked overreach. These indictments are being levied by lawyers who are elected by the opposing party. Hell, Bragg even ran on a platform of indicting Trump. Folks who hate Trump see this as some sort of altruistic righteousness couched in law, when in fact, many of its motivations are purely political.

I'm sure there are political motivations baked into these cases brought against him. 

I also believe he'll easily be proven guilty of the majority of the various charges. 

So, I'm fine with that. 

If you want to go down the "if they can do it to the former president, they can do it to anyone" road? 
Sure, yeah.
 That all should be obvious. 
Yes, the law applies to everyone. 
If the folks across the aisle want to find legit crimes perpetrated by Democrat politicians, go get 'em, I say. 
Politicians committing crimes should always be a bad thing, and I support the prosecution of any of them if it's legit. Even if it's politically motivated -- if you can prove it -- so be it.

If the "Hunter Biden's laptop" witch hunt actually produces real evidence against Joe Biden? Throw the book at him too!
I am not in this for a party - and all about taking action to dissuade future office holders from making the same mistakes.

I have a friend who is a prosecutor.  I asked him about this one time.  I said, "these opening statements, and these closing statements, are so prejudiced, so biased, it seems unfair."  He replied, "we are supposed to be unbiased when we begin our investigation.  But by the end of it, we know what they did.  We had better behave as if we believe they are guilty, otherwise, how will the jury believe us? Of course we are biased against them, at that point."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

And I won’t disagree with you on that. The point of my argument is people are glomming onto partisan prosecutorial rhetoric to drive their Trump hatred into spittle-flecked overreach. These indictments are being levied by lawyers who are elected by the opposing party. Hell, Bragg even ran on a platform of indicting Trump. Folks who hate Trump see this as some sort of altruistic righteousness couched in law, when in fact, many of its motivations are purely political.

I'm sure there are political motivations baked into these cases brought against him. 

I also believe he'll easily be proven guilty of the majority of the various charges. 

So, I'm fine with that. 

If you want to go down the "if they can do it to the former president, they can do it to anyone" road? 
Sure, yeah.
 That all should be obvious. 
Yes, the law applies to everyone. 
If the folks across the aisle want to find legit crimes perpetrated by Democrat politicians, go get 'em, I say. 
Politicians committing crimes should always be a bad thing, and I support the prosecution of any of them if it's legit. Even if it's politically motivated -- if you can prove it -- so be it.

If the "Hunter Biden's laptop" witch hunt actually produces real evidence against Joe Biden? Throw the book at him too!
I am not in this for a party - and all about taking action to dissuade future office holders from making the same mistakes.

We aren’t divergent here with the exception that I believe these DAs are throwing as much as they can against the wall to see what will stick, and I don’t think it will be that much. Additionally, I believe if Trump doesn’t get the nomination some of these cases are dropped because their mission will be accomplished.

---

Again, what did Trump say to incite others to commit crimes?

Go out there with all they've got and win just one for the Trumper?

There were more crimes committed by leftist organizations from Trump’s words than by anyone.

---

If anyone was wondering whether or not Trump's defense would largely be to throw his advisors and previous lawyers under the bus... Yes, that will probably be the strategy.

A recently released statement from his camp ends with:

...Trump has always followed the law and the Constitution WITH ADVICE FROM MANY HIGHLY ACCOMPLISHED ATTORNEYS. 

---

---

Perhaps you should read the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the introduction.  


"3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won."


The defense moves for summary judgement.

What's your point? 

Having the right to be a lying piece of [BLEEP] is not what is on trial here.

The point is, if he had a legal right to make such statements, as the Prosecution concedes, how has he committed a crime in doing so?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

---

What's your point? 

Having the right to be a lying piece of [BLEEP] is not what is on trial here.

The point is, if he had a legal right to make such statements, as the Prosecution concedes, how has he committed a crime in doing so?

Read the indictment.

---

---

What's your point? 

Having the right to be a lying piece of [BLEEP] is not what is on trial here.

The point is, if he had a legal right to make such statements, as the Prosecution concedes, how has he committed a crime in doing so?

"2 + 2 is 5" is free speech.
"You need to disrupt an official federal government function because 2 + 2 = 5" is not free speech.
Neither is "you need to sign an official-looking paper in the state capital on a certain Tuesday in December at noon because 2 + 2 = 5."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I expect none of this to go down in a fair manner, but it's very, very likely that Trump just didn't believe his council. It was clear that he wanted people to march on the Capitol peacefully to protest. It should be an open and shut case. That said, even though they are doing their best to stack the deck against Trump, he is his own worst enemy. He will hang himself. If not at this trial, at another.

---

I expect none of this to go down in a fair manner, but it's very, very likely that Trump just didn't believe his council. It was clear that he wanted people to march on the Capitol peacefully to protest. It should be an open and shut case. That said, even though they are doing their best to stack the deck against Trump, he is his own worst enemy. He will hang himself. If not at this trial, at another.

Whether he believed the truth about the vote count is only material to some of the possible charges.  I haven't looked at the particular statutes in a while but there are often phrases like "knew or should have known" in the law.  Also obstruction of a proceeding is obstruction of a proceeding regardless of the reasons you give for obstructing it. It's only in the broad category of charges of fraud where "did he believe the falsehood he was saying" becomes material, typically.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

---

What's your point? 

Having the right to be a lying piece of [BLEEP] is not what is on trial here.

The point is, if he had a legal right to make such statements, as the Prosecution concedes, how has he committed a crime in doing so?

He's not being charged with lying. 

He's being charged (primarily) with attempting to impede the certification of an election, and fraud of the US by way of the false electors. The use of "deceit" is stated as one of many means by which he set out to do these things. 

Lying to Americans is not the charge being brought. They'd have to charge him with thousands of counts, LOL.

---

If anyone was wondering whether or not Trump's defense would largely be to throw his advisors and previous lawyers under the bus... Yes, that will probably be the strategy.

A recently released statement from his camp ends with:

...Trump has always followed the law and the Constitution WITH ADVICE FROM MANY HIGHLY ACCOMPLISHED ATTORNEYS. 

Welp - looks like I called this one - or at least this article sees the same thing coming:

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status...88385?s=20

---

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status...88385?s=20

It won't work because their's too much evidence showing he knew what he was doing was illegal and not just a "controversial interpretation of the law." 
It might however, get him off a little bit easier.

---