RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 18,045
- Reaction score
- 37,518
The 1st Amendment defense looks good to me. I see nothing but a lot of "defendant said this" throughout the entire document.
JMO.
DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024
- Thread starter sds71
- Start date
- Status
JMO.
Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 25,310
- Reaction score
- 153,758
I will annoy fellow WSers if I post once again that the indictment clearly states the defendant has the right to speak and even the right to lie. jmo
I have a ton of patience but not for whistling in the wind.
Page 2:
Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election
Former President Donald Trump has been indicted on four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering, for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
www.pbs.org
edited to correct typo
Vern
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 2,512
- Reaction score
- 24,180
The wind is blowing strong; most of us are no longer holding our breath though.I will annoy fellow WSers if I post once again that the indictment clearly states the defendant has the right to speak and even the right to lie. jmo
I have a ton of patience but not for whistling in the wind.
Page 2:
Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election
Former President Donald Trump has been indicted on four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering, for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
edited to correct typo
I am really looking forward to these trials and seeing justice be done as to Trump's alleged criminal actions; you've yet to annoy me as I've read the indictments - so much more than mere "speech" in there too.
Elliot_Alderson
Well-Known Idiot
*sneakily twirls evil mustache* .....or did he?!?!
Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 25,310
- Reaction score
- 153,758
Snipped.
Interesting approach by Ramaswamy considering Trump hasn't been charged with causing the Jan 6 riot.
He is charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding (count 2) and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding (count 3). Those charges refer to the certification of electoral votes, but not for causing a riot.
On page 38, item 104, the indictment states that on the morning of Jan 6, the defendant "directed the crowd in front of him to go to the Capitol as a means to obstruct the certification and pressure the Vice President to fraudulently obstruct the certification."
To me, that looks like causing the riot, but my opinion has no legal bearing lol, and Trump has not been charged with causing the riot. You would think Ramaswamy knows that, imo.
Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election
Former President Donald Trump has been indicted on four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering, for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
www.pbs.org
Last edited:
Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 25,310
- Reaction score
- 153,758
A former U.S. Assistant Attorney General says these are the most serious charges that could be brought in a court in the United States (at about the 40 second mark).
She addresses the free-speech issue (at about 1:20 mark).
She discusses the issue of proving "did Trump know" (at about 1:48 mark).
She mentions people at high levels advised Trump of the truth (at about 2:24 mark)
Not accused with causing a riot addressed (at about 3:07 mark)
The former U.S. Assistant AG refers to the indictment as she discusses the case and reminds viewers that we don't have the entirety of the evidence, but just what is in the indictment.
It's an ABC interview segment, posted on youtube:
She addresses the free-speech issue (at about 1:20 mark).
She discusses the issue of proving "did Trump know" (at about 1:48 mark).
She mentions people at high levels advised Trump of the truth (at about 2:24 mark)
Not accused with causing a riot addressed (at about 3:07 mark)
The former U.S. Assistant AG refers to the indictment as she discusses the case and reminds viewers that we don't have the entirety of the evidence, but just what is in the indictment.
It's an ABC interview segment, posted on youtube:
Last edited:
RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 18,045
- Reaction score
- 37,518
Bump.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,830
- Reaction score
- 182,044
Okay - I started taking notes a while back - so I will definitely shorten this up a bit now.
Thursday, August 3rd:
*First Appearance Hearing (@ 4pm ET) - DC – Donald John Trump has been indicted & charged (8/1/23) with four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud & deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting & certifying the results of the presidential election"; conspiracy to impede the Jan. 6 congressional proceeding; a conspiracy against the right to vote & to have that vote counted; and obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct & impede, the certification of the electoral vote.
Five of the six alleged co-conspirators, based on details provided in transcripts of testimony to the Jan. 6 Committee and other records, appear to be: longtime Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani; lawyer John Eastman, who helped architect the "fake electors scheme"; attorney Sidney Powell, who helped lead Trump's post-campaign legal efforts; former Justice Dept. official Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump considered making his attorney general; and Kenneth Chesebro, another attorney pushing the "fake electors scheme." It is not clear who co-conspirator 6 is.
Trump's alleged role in the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the building in an effort to stop the confirmation of President Joe Biden's election victory, is under scrutiny from several federal government bodies. The most visible has been a congressional committee that spent 18 months looking into Trump's actions. They held a series of televised hearings laying out their case that his election fraud claims led directly to the riot. Following these hearings, the committee accused Trump of inciting insurrection & other crimes. Attorney: Evan Corcoran, John Eastman.
Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya.
3/25/23 Update: In a sealed order last week, Judge Beryl Howell rejected Trump's claim of executive privilege for Meadows & a number of others, including Trump's former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, his former national security adviser Robert O'Brien, former top aide Stephen Miller & former deputy chief of staff & social media director Dan Scavino. Former Trump aides Nick Luna & John McEntee, along with former top DHS official Ken Cuccinelli, were also included in the order. The ruling paves the way for testimony from Mark Meadows and others. Separately, a Trump lawyer appeared before a grand jury looking into the former president’s handling of classified documents. The recent ruling by Judge Beryl A. Howell paves the way for the former White House officials to answer questions from federal prosecutors, according to two people briefed on the matter. Judge Howell ruled on the matter in a closed-door proceeding in her role as chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, a job in which she oversaw the grand juries taking testimony in the Justice Dept.’s investigations into Trump. Judge Howell’s term as chief judge ended last week. See more info here:
[I]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03...rk-meadows-executive-privilege-jan-6.html[/I]
Word of the ruling came as the Justice Department pressed ahead in its parallel investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving office & whether he obstructed the government’s efforts to reclaim them. The twin federal investigations are being led by Jack Smith, the special counsel who was appointed after Mr. Trump announced his latest candidacy in November. 3/29/23 Update: Trump’s lawyers have filed an appeal on Judge Howell’s decision.
3/27/23 Update: A federal judge has ordered former Vice President Mike Pence to comply with a subpoena in the investigation into former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, according to a source familiar with the decision. The ruling from Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, requires Pence to testify before the grand jury tied to the probe led by special counsel Jack Smith. The ruling, which was issued Monday, remains under seal because it involves grand jury matters. The order was a partial victory for Pence & his argument that he was shielded from having to testify about Jan. 6 because of his constitutional role as part of the legislative branch. Pence's team has argued that the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution, which can protect lawmakers from being compelled to discuss legislative activity, granted him immunity from testifying. Judge Boasberg ruled that while Pence does have some limited protections because of that, the immunity does not prevent him from testifying about conversations related to alleged “illegality” on Trump’s part.
4/3/23 Update: A Federal appeals court panel has rejected Trump’s bid to block top aides from testifying to special counsel Jack Smith's Jan. 6 investigation. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Dept. of Justice Tuesday in ordering testimony from former chief of staff Mark Meadows & other top Trump White House staffers in the DOJ’s Jan. 6 investigation. A sealed Tuesday order denying an emergency motion from former President Trump’s team came after a flurry of late night activity in the case. Trump had appealed a sealed decision from then-D.C. District Court Judge Beryl Howell last week that rejected his claims of executive privilege over the officials, ordering them to testify. Aide Stephen Miller, former Dept. of Homeland Security official Ken Cuccinelli, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe & former national security adviser Robert O’Brien were also all directed to testify in Howell’s decision, as were John McEntee, then-director of the Presidential Personnel Office & Nick Luna, an assistant to Trump.
4/5/23 Update: Former Vice President Mike Pence will not appeal a judge’s ruling requiring him to testify before a grand jury considering ex-President Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol riot.
4/12/23 Update: Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s role on Jan. 6 has launched a probe into allegations the former president & his allies defrauded donors by touting false claims of election fraud. According to a report from The Washington Post, Smith’s office has issued a series of wide-ranging subpoenas to Trump advisers & former campaign staff requesting materials on the matter. Sources tell the Post that the investigation is honing in on $200 million dollars generated by Trump & various PAC’s during the period between Nov. 3, 2020 & Jan. 20, 2021. Prosecutors are seeking to identify if campaign staff & fundraising operatives misrepresented claims of election fraud in order to drive donations toward Trump.
4/27/23 Update: U.S. appeals court denies Trump’s emergency motion to block his former VP Mike Pence from testifying to the grand jury in the Jan. 6 criminal investigation, per notice of sealed ruling on the docket. Pence spent more than five hours in front of the grand jury on Thursday. The former vice president is considered a key witness in Smith's probe into Trump's actions leading up to January 6, 2021, including pressuring Pence to throw out the 2020 election results while Congress certified the Electoral College votes. Trump repeatedly claimed that Pence had the power to block Congress' certification progress, although Pence has disputed the argument. Pence also attempted to fight the DOJ's subpoena, & was granted limitations by the judge overseeing the grand jury about what could be discussed during his testimony. According to The New York Times, Pence was not forced to discuss any matters related to his role as president of the Senate on January 6, but he did have to testify about potential criminal actions by Trump.
4/29/23 Update: Pence's appearance comes as Smith is believed to be wrapping up his investigation & possibly preparing to indict Trump on charges that could include obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States and insurrection.
5/2/23 Update: As they investigate Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, federal prosecutors have also been drilling down on whether Trump & a range of political aides knew that he had lost the race but still raised money off claims that they were fighting widespread fraud in the vote results, according to three people familiar with the matter. Led by the special counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors are trying to determine whether Trump & his aides violated federal wire fraud statutes as they raised as much as $250 million through a political action committee by saying they needed the money to fight to reverse election fraud even though they had been told repeatedly that there was no evidence to back up those fraud claims. The prosecutors are looking at the inner workings of the committee, Save America PAC & at the Trump campaign’s efforts to prove its baseless case that Trump had been cheated out of victory.
5/23/23 Update: Trump's attorneys John Rowley & James Trusty have written to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland requesting a meeting to discuss the ongoing injustice that is being perpetrated by your Special Counsel & his prosecutors. This was in regards to the removal of government documents, not the riot.
6/8/23 Update: Steve Bannon has been subpoenaed by a Federal grand jury in Washington as part of the special counsel's investigation into Jan. 6th riot.
6/9/23 Update: U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg’s 19-page opinion — which the judge partially unsealed Friday, 6/9/23 at the urging of media organizations — cleared the way for special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors to question the former vice president about his conversations with a wide array of figures who leaned on him to reject Biden’s electors, possibly including Trump. The figures pressuring Mike Pence to reject Joe Biden’s electoral votes on Jan. 6 were asking him to act “unlawfully,” the chief judge of Washington D.C.’s federal district court ruled in a secret April decision. “The bottom line is that conversations exhorting Pence to reject electors on January 6th are not protected,” Boasberg wrote in the ruling, dated March 27, 2023 adding, “There is no dispute in this case that Pence lacked the authority to reject certified electoral votes.” Pence appeared for that closed-door testimony on April 27, 2023 & answered questions for more than six hours. The substance of the questions & answers remain almost entirely shielded from public view but nevertheless marked a historic moment in Smith’s unprecedented criminal probe of Trump & his allies’ efforts to subvert the 2020 election. Both Trump & Pence had fought to sharply restrict questions that Smith’s team could pose to the former vice president. Trump claimed his conversations with Pence were shielded by executive privilege — an argument Boasberg squarely rejected. Pence, however, took a different tack, arguing that he should be afforded the same immunity from DOJ questioning that members of Congress receive.
6/23/23 Update: Special counsel Jack Smith has compelled at least two Republican fake electors to testify to a federal grand jury in Washington in recent weeks by giving them limited immunity, part of a current push by federal prosecutors to swiftly nail down evidence in the sprawling criminal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The testimony comes after a year of relative dormancy around the fake electors portion of the investigation & as a parade of related witnesses are being told to appear before the grand jury with no chance for delay. Prosecutors initially obtained documents & interviews last spring from many of the Republicans who signed false certificates to the federal government, asserting they were the rightful electors for Trump in seven battleground states won by Joe Biden.
6/27/23 Update: Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger will be interviewed by investigators from special counsel Jack Smith’s office Wednesday in Atlanta, his office. Raffensperger’s interview with the special counsel’s office will be his first with the Justice Department. Smith subpoenaed Raffensperger in December for documents but not for him to appear or testify in person, a source familiar with the matter told NBC News at the time.
6/28/23 Update: Rudy Giuliani, a former top lawyer for Trump, met in recent weeks with federal prosecutors who are investigating the ex-president for his efforts to reverse his loss in the 2020 election, NBC News confirmed Wednesday. The news of Giuliani's voluntary interview with special counsel Jack Smith's prosecutors came as investigators prepared to meet Wednesday in Atlanta with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger as part of that criminal probe.
7/14/23 Update: Federal prosecutors investigating Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election have questioned multiple witnesses in recent weeks — including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner — about whether Trump had privately acknowledged in the days after the 2020 election that he had lost, according to four people briefed on the matter. The line of questioning suggests prosecutors are trying to establish whether Trump was acting with corrupt intent as he sought to remain in power — essentially that his efforts were knowingly based on a lie — evidence that could substantially bolster any case they might decide to bring against him. Mr. Kushner testified before a grand jury at the federal courthouse in Washington last month, where he is said to have maintained that it was his impression that Mr. Trump truly believed the election was stolen, according to a person briefed on the matter. The questioning of Mr. Kushner shows that the federal investigation being led by the special counsel Jack Smith continues to pierce the layers closest to Mr. Trump as prosecutors weigh whether to bring charges against the former president in connection with the efforts to promote baseless assertions of widespread voter fraud and block or delay congressional certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s Electoral College victory.
7/17/23 Update: Special counsel Jack Smith has informed Trump that he is a target in his investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. A grand jury is expected to meet again on Thursday in Washington DC as Trump faces the prospect of a new criminal indictment. On Tuesday, Trump said he expected to be arrested in connection with the federal investigation into efforts to undermine the 2020 presidential election that culminated in a riot at the US Capitol. Justice Dept. special counsel Jack Smith has declined to comment, so it is unclear what charges prosecutors might bring against Trump. And until an indictment is unsealed, we will not know specifically what each count will entail. The Wall Street Journal, citing a person familiar with the investigation, has reported Trump's target letter mentioned three specific charges: conspiracy to defraud the US, deprivation of rights, and tampering with a witness. The federal inquiry followed a 16-month investigation by the US House of Representatives Select Committee on the January 6 Attack made up of seven Democrats & two Republicans. In its final report last December, that panel recommended four separate charges for Trump and his associates: Insurrection, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the US, and conspiracy to make a false statement.
7/24/23 Update: A Trump ally has turned over thousands of documents to special counsel Jack Smith related to efforts to find supposed voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election – including materials that haven’t been previously disclosed to investigators looking into events surrounding January 6, 2021. Former New York Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik was part of the team led by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani trying to uncover fraud that would swing the election in favor of Trump.For months, Kerik had tried to shield some of the documents from investigators, citing privilege.
8/1/23 Update: Trump has been indicted & charged with four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud & deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting & certifying the results of the presidential election"; conspiracy to impede the Jan. 6 congressional proceeding; a conspiracy against the right to vote & to have that vote counted; and obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct and impede, the certification of the electoral vote. Five of the six alleged co-conspirators, based on details provided in transcripts of testimony to the Jan. 6 Committee and other records, appear to be: longtime Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani; lawyer John Eastman, who helped architect the "fake electors scheme"; attorney Sidney Powell, who helped lead Trump's post-campaign legal efforts; former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump considered making his attorney general; and Kenneth Chesebro, another attorney pushing the "fake electors scheme." It is not clear who co-conspirator 6 is. Trump is scheduled to appear at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington on Thursday, 8/3/23 after being indicted in connection with efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya.
Just for your notes, in case you want it, Bloomberg says the case number is US v. Trump, 23-cr-00257, US District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC) Link
Court Listener has a few items under the case number.
United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257 - CourtListener.com
Docket for United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
I feel like it needs to be repeated regularly that Jeffrey Clark recommended that the military be used to gun down anyone who protested the illegal conspiracy being outlined by Trump and his inner circle. I’m sure that many of us would have taken to the streets, and what would’ve happened next would have made other political massacres look quaint.
I’d like an explanation from Trump defenders as to why this is acceptable to them. The mere suggestion of using the insurrection act in this situation is contra to every single platform of American government and history, especially since it wasn’t used when there was an actual insurrection occurring.
I’d like an explanation from Trump defenders as to why this is acceptable to them. The mere suggestion of using the insurrection act in this situation is contra to every single platform of American government and history, especially since it wasn’t used when there was an actual insurrection occurring.
PommyMommy
#ShinelikeShanann
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 57,783
- Reaction score
- 457,766
Live updates: Trump to be arraigned for Jan. 6 and 2020 election indictment
Former President Donald Trump is scheduled to appear in a federal courthouse Thursday afternoon in Washington, DC, after being indicted by a grand jury in the special counsel's investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Follow here for the latest live updates.
US Marshals, Secret Service and other security detail at DC courthouse ahead of Trump arrival
Deputy US Marshals, including members of the service’s special operations unit, have been seen inside a federal courthouse where former President Donald Trump is set to appear Thursday.
A group of over 20 heavily armed men were seen arriving inside the court at 8 a.m. ET with tactical gear and rifles. A bomb-sniffing dog, a black lab named Legend, was also seen on patrol.
Secret Service agents have also been seen patrolling inside the building.
Chief Judge James Boasberg walked down a line of dozens of reporters, greeting them as they waited for a seat inside the courthouse hallways.
The former president's appearance will take place inside Boasberg's courtroom so that audio and video feeds of the proceeding can be streamed to several media and public overflow rooms around the courthouse.
What struck me as I read the indictment was that it was just a handful of men in the pivotal states who refused to participate in the various schemes to throw a monkey wrench into the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6. They stood up to the President and his representatives on the side of the constitution and the law. Most of them were Trump supporters, but they took their oaths of office seriously. The indictment is worth reading, if only to see how close this country came to putting Trump back in office illegitimately. Just a few good men made the difference. JMO
Former President Donald Trump's third indictment, annotated
Read CNN's page-by-page annotated analysis of the federal indictment of Trump on four charges related to alleged election interference after his loss in 2020.www.cnn.com
This. I think this is a big part of how we move forward as a country. It’s hard for me to praise individuals like Rusty Bowers, because Arizonans have suffered due to his politics. But when the day of reckoning came, he chose the country over Trump. And for that, I am able to see him and some other Republicans in a different light. This recognition, I think (and I think Jack Smith and the J6 committee also think), is how we can perhaps grab a foothold on moving forward as a country. It will be those who are unable to see any good in what they view as “the other side”who will continue to drag the US down, particularly when they deny objective facts.
Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 25,310
- Reaction score
- 153,758
There is also this, on page 6, that refers to the J6 violence but does not allege the Defendant caused the violence. It does allege he used the violent situation to commit the crimes he is charged with (counts 2 and 3 regarding obstruction of official proceedings):Snipped.
Interesting approach by Ramaswamy considering Trump hasn't been charged with causing the Jan 6 riot.
He is charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding (count 2) and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding (count 3). Those charges refer to the certification of electoral votes, but not for causing a riot.
On page 38, item 104, the indictment states that on the morning of Jan 6, the defendant "directed the crowd in front of him to go to the Capitol as a means to obstruct the certification and pressure the Vice President to fraudulently obstruct the certification."
To me, that looks like causing the riot, but my opinion has no legal bearing lol, and Trump has not been charged with causing the riot. You would think Ramaswamy knows that, imo.
Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election
Former President Donald Trump has been indicted on four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering, for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
"...a very large and angry crowd - including many individuals whom the Defendant deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results - violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling effort to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims." (page 6, item e)
If any talking heads or candidates continue to say Trump is charged with inciting the riot in this legal case, I hope they refer to where they are getting that info because it's not what he has been charged with to date.
Instead, Trump used his supporters on J6 as tools to commit the crimes he is charged with imo. Ouch, that has got to hurt. imo
Source: Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election
ilovewings
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,052
- Reaction score
- 69,006
From listening to the pundits on MSNBC, most of whom are retired Federal Prosecutors, Trump cannot pardon himself from a state conviction. He must fear the Georgia one even more than the Jan 6 indictment because of this.
ilovewings
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,052
- Reaction score
- 69,006
And many of those "tools" are now sitting in prison because of Trump--- I imagine they are pretty po'd at being used this way
ilovewings
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,052
- Reaction score
- 69,006
Open mouth ( wide) and insert a very very big foot! He cannot ever let one comment against him go, which is one reason he is where he is today, which is in very very big legal trouble.
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 55,637
- Reaction score
- 192,490
Bill Barr Trashes Trump’s First Amendment Argument in Jan. 6 Case
“Free speech doesn’t give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.”
www.thedailybeast.com
Bill Barr expressed a damning view of Donald Trump’s attorney’s arguments that the latest indictment of the former president—this time in relation to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election—constituted an “attack on free speech.”
“They’re not attacking his First Amendment right, he can say whatever he wants,” the former Trump administration attorney general said in an interview Wednesday. “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 you know, free speech doesn’t give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.” Later, Barr said he believed “we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg” and that special counsel Jack Smith’s team may “have a lot more evidence” about Trump’s state of mind that could help prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew that the election had not been stolen through fraud.
Elliot_Alderson
Well-Known Idiot
They got me out here agreeing with Bill Barr. What world am I living in?
MrsWatson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 7,983
- Reaction score
- 65,178
I've had a couple moments like that with Pence, and I lived in IN when he was governor and know better.
Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 25,310
- Reaction score
- 153,758
When I find common ground with someone, even if it's Bill Barr, I will stand on it.
jmo
Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 25,310
- Reaction score
- 153,758
bbm
I will jump at the chance to praise someone's actions* when they follow the law, uphold the Constitution, and honor our nation, no matter what political party. That is step 1 to restoration of the division in our country, and I'll take it.
jmo
* doesn't mean I'll vote for them, though.
- Status