US vs. Alvarez

[Tinkerpeach]

Stop lying.

It specifically says the opposite as I quote above and what your quote deliberately excludes.

It is the ACTIONS taken, based on the lies, that are the crime.

That is not what the indictment says however.

It clearly states that Trumps false claims were the cause.

Not any actions of which Trump never took.

There were attorney's that took action, electors that took action but Trump never did.

LIke I said, you have no legal case against Trump as he is covered by Supreme Court precedent.

Smith will have to prove that Trump was directly involved in any of those actions for them to stick.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

This is why you need to read the actually indictment and not listen to TrumpDerp talking points by those with TDS.





Put another way, i can claim all day long i believe I am Jeff Bezos love child and heir to his estate and that is protected by my First amendments rights, even if i am lying.

But as soon as i start filling out and filing paper work with gov't agencies to that effect, i have broken the law and cannot claim 'free speech' to protect me.

And what action is Trump being charged with?

He isn't and there is nothing listed in the indictment other than the fact that he made false claims.

Trump is not responsible in a court of law for what other people do.

Trumps right to make false claims is covered under free speech.

 

[QP!]

That is not what the indictment says however.

It clearly states that Trumps false claims were the cause.

Not any actions of which Trump never took.

There were attorney's that took action, electors that took action but Trump never did.

LIke I said, you have no legal case against Trump as he is covered by Supreme Court precedent.

Smith will have to prove that Trump was directly involved in any of those actions for them to stick.

As has been explained to you the indictment is clear and it absolutely DOES say Trump committed various crimes and it spells them out and that this is NOT about his free speech and if you won't read it yourself, no is going to help you.

The facts are there for you and have been quoted and yet you keep repeating the lie 'that false claims' are the cause of the indictment when it specifically says in the indictment they were not.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

As has been explained to you the indictment is clear and it absolutely DOES say Trump committed various crimes and it spells them out and that this is NOT about his free speech and if you won't read it yourself, no is going to help you.

The facts are there for you and have been quoted and yet you keep repeating the lie 'that false claims' are the cause of the indictment when it specifically says in the indictment they were not.

It lists the results of the conspiracies but the indictment is not listing how Trump actually committed them.

That is the problem with Smiths case.

For instance, the first charge is saying Trump tried to defraud the government by using dishonesty but it doesn't tell us how he did it.

If Trump had broken an actual law in that process it would have been listed but it isn't.

Now think about this, how are you going to get a conviction of someone defrauding the government without explaining how they actually defrauded the government?

 

[Flash]

Lol, clearly, you do not understand the charges against Trump.

Correct. Nobody is being charged with lying.

 

[Jarod]

In this case the Supreme Court struck down a federal law about a person in politics lying.



While this case involves stolen valor it has broader implications by saying that it is not illegal for a politician to lie.

How Jack Smith does not know this, or maybe he does, shows he's incompetent and that these charges will not stand.

It is a major hurdle for him to overcome.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/201...une 28 2012, a,a Congressional Medal of Honor.

Trump is not charged with lying. How dumb are you? Read the indictment if you want to speak intelligently on this issue.

 

[Concart]

That is not what the indictment says however.

It clearly states that Trumps false claims were the cause.

Not any actions of which Trump never took.

There were attorney's that took action, electors that took action but Trump never did.

LIke I said, you have no legal case against Trump as he is covered by Supreme Court precedent.

Smith will have to prove that Trump was directly involved in any of those actions for them to stick.

Yes it does. It says EXACTLY that. It isn't our fault that you have the reading level of a four year old.

 

[Concart]

It lists the results of the conspiracies but the indictment is not listing how Trump actually committed them.

That is the problem with Smiths case.

For instance, the first charge is saying Trump tried to defraud the government by using dishonesty but it doesn't tell us how he did it.

If Trump had broken an actual law in that process it would have been listed but it isn't.

Now think about this, how are you going to get a conviction of someone defrauding the government without explaining how they actually defrauded the government?

ROTFLMFAO!!!! It doesn't tell how Trump furthered them? Seriously, read a fucking book. And then STFU. You are too stupid to post here. Your license should be revoked.