I suspect they are just spinning this. I avoid using the term "lie" due to legal liability reasons for myself but their interpretation doesn't jive with the indictment.
They crack me up, since they don’t even respond to the actual thing, but their intentionally incorrect reinterpretation of the thing. I get it, it is what the most egregious politicians do, too. But OMG it’s hard to listen to.
You’re doing great work. Thank you so much for it.
“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. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.”
So apparently they either didn’t read the indictment and/or they chose to lie about the free speech question?
It clearly spells out, IN THE VERY BEGINNING, that Trump’s *speech* questioning the 2020 election results is completely legal and constitutional.
It clearly says that he is ONLY being accused of the conspiracies to overturn the results.
I have a GREAT clip for the next newsletter/podcast that gives away the game on this and it's from Fox. A guest kind of went rogue.
Oooh, fun! Looking forward to it. :)
I suspect they are just spinning this. I avoid using the term "lie" due to legal liability reasons for myself but their interpretation doesn't jive with the indictment.
They crack me up, since they don’t even respond to the actual thing, but their intentionally incorrect reinterpretation of the thing. I get it, it is what the most egregious politicians do, too. But OMG it’s hard to listen to.
You’re doing great work. Thank you so much for it.
Paragraph 3 of the indictment:
“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. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.”