The normies are screaming about Trump's post: "If you are coming after me, I will come after you!" They are claiming he is inciting violence, like Jan 6th.

I told my normie friend that by his logic, if Trump meant by the second half of the sentence that he was going to incite violence or cause physical harm, then the same meaning has to be applied to the first half of the sentence. After all, it is a short sentence, and the same exact words were used. "Coming after me" = "coming after you." Trump obviously meant "legally".

Then, I asked, "Are you saying the first half of the sentence means that democrats have been inciting violence and threatening bodily harm to Trump? No? Then you are being disingenuous to claim that is what Trump meant."

I also showed him the clip of Alvin Bragg telling us he had brought 100 cases against Trump, so he was the best candidtate for NY DA to "get Trump". I again asked if he meant he would be violent to Trump. No? He meant legally. (What a great example of legal harrassment this statement by Bragg is, though...using our legal system as a weapon.)

I told my friend, "Here is an example of what Trump meant by his words 'coming after you': If Jack Smith purposefully hid exculpatory evidence that would have helped Trump, then that would be a crime, and Jack Smith could be prosecuted for it."

The normies are screaming about Trump's post: "If you are coming after me, I will come after you!" They are claiming he is inciting violence, like Jan 6th.

I told my normie friend that by his logic, if Trump meant by the second half of the sentence that he was going to incite violence or cause physical harm, then the same meaning has to be applied to the first half of the sentence. After all, it is a short sentence, and the same exact words were used. "Coming after me" = "coming after you." Trump obviously meant "legally".

Then, I asked, "Are you saying the first half of the sentence means that democrats have been inciting violence and threatening bodily harm to Trump? No? Then you are being disingenuous to claim that is what Trump meant."

I also showed him the clip of Alvin Bragg telling us he had brought 100 cases against Trump, so he was the best candidtate for NY DA to "get Trump". I again asked if he meant he would be violent to Trump. No? He meant legally. (What a great example of legal harrassment this statement by Bragg is, though...using our legal system as a weapon.)

I told my friend that an example of what Trump meant would be if Jack Smith purposefully hid exculpatory evidence that would have helped Trump, then that would be a crime, and Jack Smith could be prosecuted for it.

The normies are screaming about Trump's post: "If you are coming after me, I will come after you!" They are claiming he is inciting violence, like Jan 6th.

I told my normie friend that by his logic, if Trump meant by the second half of the sentence that he was going to incite violence or cause physical harm, then the same meaning has to be applied to the first half of the sentence. After all, it is a short sentence, and the same exact words were used. "Coming after me" = "coming after you." Trump obviously meant "legally".

Then, I asked, "Are you saying the first half of the sentence means that democrats have been inciting violence and threatening bodily harm to Trump? No? Then you are being disingenuous to claim that is what Trump meant."

I also showed him the clip of Alvin Bragg telling us he had brought 100 cases against Trump, so he was the best candidtate for NY DA to get Trump. I again asked if he meant he would be violent to Trump. No? He meant legally. (What a great example of legal harrassment this statement by Bragg is, though...using our legal system as a weapon.)

I told my friend that an example of what Trump meant would be if Jack Smith purposefully hid exculpatory evidence that would have helped Trump, then that would be a crime, and Jack Smith could be prosecuted for it.

The normies are screaming about Trump's post: "If you are coming after me, I will come after you!" They are claiming he is inciting violence, like Jan 6th.

I told my normie friend that by his logic, if Trump meant by the second half of the sentence that he was going to incite violence or cause physical harm, then the same meaning has to be applied to the first half of the sentence. After all, it is a short sentence, and the same exact words were used. "Coming after me" = "coming after you." Trump obviously meant "legally".

Then, I asked, "Are you saying the first half of the sentence means that democrats have been inciting violence and threatening bodily harm to Trump? No? Then you are being disingenuous to claim that is what Trump meant."

I also showed him the clip of Alvin Bragg telling us he had brought 100 cases against Trump, so he was the best candidtate for NY DA to get Trump. I again asked if he meant he would be violent to Trump. No? Logic.

I told my friend that an example of what Trump meant would be if Jack Smith purposefully hid exculpatory evidence that would have helped Trump, then that would be a crime, and Jack Smith could be prosecuted for it.