Free speech has been indicted. Read this section of the indictment:
(media.patriots.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (39)
sorted by:
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.