(08-29-2023, 03:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(08-29-2023, 03:31 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Lol. No. Only in your head is that simple. If you're the president of the US, you are not required to believe your cabinet members. That's an asinine starting position for this debate.

---

Bolded the important part. Wouldn't hurt you to learn something in this thread.

Jeebus, you have a thick skull.

The prez does not have to believe his cabinet but that isn't what I said. READ IT AGAIN
Holy hell. 

If you want to know which government agencies INFORMED the loser of the election that he lost and which agencies INFORMED him that he was lying about the results, go read the indictment.
 It's all clearly cited there. 
I've already posted that info here multiple times and I'm not going to continue spoon feeding you basic information like that over and over again while you act like a 7th grade grammar student quoting definitions.

He doesn't get to decide if this INFORMATION - not advice - is credible form these agencies. 
 
It wasn't his cabinet
It wasn't "advice"

He was given credible information - ignored it - lied about it - then acted criminally to change the election result.

He doesn't have to believe it. That's the point. It's not a crime to disbelieve an authority. I used cabinet member as a stand in, mistakenly believing you would understand that he doesn't have to take any person or institution at their word. He is not required to believe any information put in front of him.

You have no PROOF he knew he was lying to the American people about what he believed. Sub in any other situation and your tiny little lizard brain might start working again. Let's see.... I was informed there was no proof of aliens by the federal government all through the 80s and 90s. I have also been informed there is unidentified craft that is beyond human capability that's also been recognized by the government. Neither position requires that I believe the other. The opposite is also true. I don't need to believe it, regardless of who informs me. If I take a contrary position, it's not evidence that I set out to deceive people.

---

(08-29-2023, 03:59 PM)mikesez Wrote: IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT.

The law doesn't care what you believed.  It cares about your conduct based on what you should have known.

Not even it pertains to free speech. You have to prove intent of a criminal action. There is zero proof of intent so far.

---