“Fight like Hell” is pretty motivational. “because if we don’t fight, we won’t have a country anymore.”
But he’s not charged with inciting the inurrection, but exploiting it.
And if he were being charged with insurrection, you’re right. But he’s not.
He has no real defense that I can see to what he is actually being charged with, which has nothing to do with speech. It’s what he did: Conspiring with others to organize and participate in the fake electors scheme; bullying Mike Pence to do illegal things; bullying state officials to say there were problems with the election, and attempting to subvert the DOJ to make false claims of election fraud.
Those efforts are all illegal acts.
That’s likely why Smith did NOT charge him with inciting the riot. The charges relate to the pressure campaign on state officials to illegally subvert the process, the fake electors, etc.—you know, illegal stuff. The First Amendment does not protect that kind of speech. If I order my underlings to rob a bank, I’m not off the hook because I spoke the order.
Nor is a defense that you honestly believed the bank owed you money.
Yep! And even if he legitimately believed the election was stolen (he didn’t), the proper reaction is not to steal it back.
For those stuck at your computer at work you can catch the motorcade on USA Today’s YouTube channel and likely many others. I don’t know which vehicle Donnie is in but I gave the whole lot a two handed one finger salute at my monitor.
What is so obvious is that after he tried all the legal remedies and those didn’t work (goddamn judges!), he had no problem with moving on to all the illegal ones, too. The only trick for the public is to know the difference.
Which is why I replied the way I did to Skypist, who was asking about a First Amendment issue. NOWHERE did I say that it was a positive defense for what the asshole is being charged with. I thought that by quoting Skypist and directly citing the (ir-)relevant court case I was very clear. Either I need to be even more specific in my language or y’all need more coffee and a couple of courses in reading comprehension.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood your point.
De nada.
Pence has said he would testify against Trump if needed, but I’m sure he’d still vote for him and support Donnie if Trump became the nominee without any hesitation. There’s that iron backbone.
I think we can also count on Trump’s counsel to try the “but my lawyers were all telling me …” defense.
But, IIRC, the nation’s lawyers (ie, DOJ and White House Counsel’s Office – Cipollone, Philbin, Donoghue, Rosen, Engel, et al) were all crying ‘Bullshit!’ at the top of their lungs, both to Trump’s crazy counselors and to Trump himself.
[We were probably on the verge of Saturday Night Massacre II]
Though I expect this defense to be offered, it’s hard for me to imagine a trier of fact not recognizing that, “You didn’t like being told ‘No,’ even by the people whose job it was to tell you when ‘No’ was the right answer, so you lawyer shopped until you found a crew bat-shit-crazy enough to tell you what you wanted to hear” isn’t the same thing as reasonably relying on advice of competent counsel.
Trump outsourced “digging up dirt on Biden” to Giuliani when it was clear that Biden was his likely opponent.
The Neocons outsourced “Iraqi intelligence” to the Office of Special Plans (under Doug Feith) when the regular channels weren’t giving them the answer they wanted to hear.
Separate channels has a bad track record in recent US history.
I have to imagine Trump’s legal team will try to say that Trump’s outside counsel was functionally equivalent in every way to “Team Normal” (ie, “Separate But Equal”).
It’s just extremely difficult for me to imagine that argument succeeding.
I hope.
Sheesh.
You could argue that this doesn’t work for the Jan. 6th rioters, but he’s clearly violated this with all his calls to the election officials. He clearly did intend for them to take the actions he wanted, which actions were lawless. He was informed by the officials themselves that the requests were illegal, even as he was making them, and yet he persisted in pushing for them to take those actions, on multiple occasions spread over a significant period of time.
If it’s wrong of me to hope for a repeat of this one:
Then I don’t wanna’ be right.
sadly, no cameras in federal court. only artist renditions.
hodges, fanone, and dunn (officers who were injured at the attack) will be at attendance at the arraignment. the court room is reported to be very small with only a few rows of seating.
back to the scowl, i see.
I’m reminded of the judge’s slapdown of Alex Jones to the effect of: I don’t want to hear any more about your “beliefs.” Your beliefs were wrong and contrary to fact. We are considering facts! 
This article needs to be updated with #8: the scowl.