Free speech has been indicted. Read this section of the indictment:
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (39)
sorted by:
Shit, Trump is going to have to bring forth the evidence of election fraud in the trial for the centuries, he's going to do it and the whole world will see. My god, they think Trump is on trial, Trump will bring forward evidence of election steal all over this blessed world, and they asked for it.
Seems like this could go to the Supreme Court too after appeals.
Someone once said the Democrats were going to eventually concede the 2020 Election Fraud in 2024 and then say that means President Trump can’t run because he really did win 2020, and that’s his two terms.
It sounded crazy at the time but that might be their strategy. Spend four years gaslighting the world that there was zero Election Fraud, censoring anyone who suggests otherwise, only to turn around and admit the Election was fraudulent all along and then weaponize the hive mind against Republicans when they say Trump wasn’t President but Joe Biden was.
But he didn't serve his two terms.
Its a hail mary fallback when they lose the plot. They could argue it, crazy and wrong yes. But think about who were dealing with here
The sad thing is the NPCs are eating it all up like a vacuum
"Trump bad because he talked about insurrection act!!11!"
I think their trick would be to admit the Election was fraudulent and then legally install him as President maybe two weeks before the 2024 Election. That would give him about three months and they would say it’s not their fault he only served three months of a four-year term, it was the electors, it was the system, it was all a good faith mistake on the part of the courts. This would all be consistent with their Covid playbook. Even if Trump refused to take office for three months, calling it a bullshit deal, they would probably swear him in by proxy or some other made-up technical lie and use their corporate media mouthpiece to repeat the lie that Trump is President again whether he likes it or not. Anyone who says otherwise is now a Fraud Denier. It would be a total inversion of everyone’s previous position, which we know the cabal loves because it strengthens their grip on the human mind when they are able to fully invert someone’s mental state like this, just like the Democrats went from “I’ve never taking that vaccine” to “Everyone must take that vaccine”.
Doesn't the constitution allow for more than 8 years under certain circumstances?
22nd Amendment
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-we-wound-up-with-the-constitutions-only-term-limits-amendment
I still don't read it as Trump serving a week or a year of what was supposedly Biden term being considered an entire term. I fail to see how them deciding in the 11th hour that Trump really won so put him back in for a brief period would constitute an entire term and negate his ability to run for a full term. Trump seems to have the skinny on the laws - I don't believe this little trick we are afraid of them pulling wasn't seen and addressed on the Constitution level beforehand when every other trick pulled looks like a death blow but then isn't. Have faith -
Yeah I don't buy that theory either.
And he would have standing too LOL!
That wouldn’t hold because he did not serve in the 2020-2024 period.
Democrats stole the 2020 Election and then indicted President Trump for pointing it out.
A pre-teen grade schooler could write better than this. How did Trump "discount legitimate votes" and how did he "subvert election results"?
With FJB being president, it appears election results were never subverted. Contesting and challenging the election results s not a crime.
"Widespread distrust of the defendant"..... Word salad. What could this possibly mean? As if the allegation is true and correct. Judging by the sizes of his rallies compared to FJB, this is laughable.
It’s so try-hard. Jack Smith is trying so hard to convince himself of his own bullshit.
This indictment is probably covered in the dude’s cum he jacked off over it so many times.
Jack Smith is full of Jack Shit.
The charge is vague. What unlawful means? Expressing his opinions publicly? This is election interference by the DOJ. Reminds me of Pelosi's "wrap up smear". So off base and odd. Methinks Jack Shit and is about to fall back in it.
the accusation is that by claiming a different outcome of the vote, he is trying to disenfranchise those who voted for biden.
in their eyes, he did not manage to subvert election results, but he tried to.
the wording is very clear. not schizophrasic.
Welcome on board. You just joined 8 days ago. If we were take your words to task then Hillary Clinton is guilty, Al Gore is guilty, Bernie Sanders is guilty, and the list from there goes on and on. Contesting an election is lawful, requesting for a re-vote or to investigate election fraud is lawful, especially when a sitting president requests it. The Supreme Court has long held that challenging elections is free speech. There is really no case here. This is a sham. it's far more for propaganda purposes giving the Mockingbird News more sound bites for their anti-Trump narrative. This way they don't have an alibi not to report on the Biden crime revelations. Rudy Giuliani, an accomplished former federal criminal lawyer, agrees with my statement that this "indictment" (if it can be called one) is poorly written. Giuliani states he was never notified or served in the case, but the indictment reads he is one of "five" co-conspirators. To him, it is obvious that this 'piece of art' was rushed to coincide with the damning revelations of Devin Archer about the Biden crime family. Coincidence? Even Larry Kudlow noticed the obvious and has released a timeline showing at least six times now where new evidence was released implicating the Biden Crime Family and then President Trump is indicted by the Biden regime the next day. You can't make this sh$# up.
I'm not saying its a good defense, but you accused it of being unintelligible, and its far from it.
I created this account immediately after my pepe account was lost. been here years.
I never "accused it of being unintelligible". These are your interpretations of what I wrote. I said it was poorly written. Rudy Giuliani agrees with my assessment.. If you are misunderstanding my writings, it follows you are perhaps not interpreting how poorly this so-called indictment really is. Again, go to the Rudy Giuliani link to hear him say it. By the way which "pepe account" was lost? How was it lost?
word salad, or schizophrasia, is inherently unintelligible. its not an accusation that should be thrown around lightly.
289m here. never new the password for it anyways... browser session finally died. haha i accidentally hit logout. brutal way to lose a pepe
Verbatim, I stated,
Jack Smith's statement is an opinion, not fact. One could even suggest it is a 'whopper' of a tale. I used Trump's rallies compared to Biden's as an example. Nor does it provide any legal meaning. It's junk. In other words, 'word salad'. Let's not twist or conflate what I wrote.
"You know what’s not in this indictment? Anything having to do with seditious conspiracy or anything that has to do with the word insurrection. That’s what you’d have to be convicted of in order to BS barred from running for President of the United States"..... Again, junk.
Then there is Greg Jarrett, legal expert at Fox News, who sums up Jack Smith's indictment "as being amateurish joke, and Jack Smith as special counsel should be indicted "for stupidity....It's that bad". He goes on to say Jack Smith has a "disreprehensable" history of "contorting the law and mangling the evidence". Jarrett calls it a "junk indictment". Former acting Attorney General, Matt Whitaker, says that he has "never seen an indictment so messy and sloppy [as this one] in his entire life.". Again, it's junk and poorly written.
The precedent of legal opinions concerning this indictment, including several top ranked lawyers, all agree with my assessment.
it can be an opinion. it can be a bit vague. it is a very broad statement. it doesn't have to be fact.
but it is a clear statement and absolutely not word salad. we know exactly what he is trying to say, whether or not it is true or has any effect legally.
again, i'm not speaking about the quality. of course its awful. i am only correcting your misapplication of the term word salad. 'cause it ain't.
I didn't get a single scrap of the information or evidence from Trump I needed to make up my mind that 2020 was stolen. He can't have been very good at this 'mistrust' he was 'pervasively creating'.
Normies legitimately think we blindly follow Trump and say the election was rigged just because he says so.
Of everyone I know who believes the election was stolen, not one of them learned that from Trump. This accusation came from "the people" and Trump ran with it in parallel.
It cut off on the bottom, so here is the tweet: https://twitter.com/willcain/status/1686505267049979904
Their setting thier own trap.
Democrats now DEMAND President Trump prove his claim of Election Fraud before the Supreme Court as the whole world watches.
“There’s no getting out of this one, Drumpf!”
(Looks back.)
Democrats now DEMAND President Trump prove his claim of Election Fraud before the Supreme Court as the whole world watches.
“Wait - what?”
If true, best plot twist in this movie yet
He didn't discount legitimate votes, he counted illegitimate votes.
Upsidedown clown world.
All of their claims are based on their own false narratives, what a ducking joke.
I support Free Speech, but....
Lol.
Well then the media should be indicted too. Just look at all the lies told for YEARS! This trial could extend for months with all the fraud to be disclosed.