Wrestleknownothing

I am aware. I am wondering what @Offthemat's point was.

?

Agreed. But only on here are people attempting to make this about just lying. There is a reason the whole "storm the capitol" is not part of the indictment.

"What about" one of the most effective defense strategies. It always worked with my parents, too.

It has never been legal to lie to induce someone to commit a crime. It is not even legal to tell the truth to induce someone to commit a crime. The indictment, that you have not read, says in the third paragraph "The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won." The defense, and Jack Turley, want it to be a freedom of speech case. The prosecution does not believe it is a freedom of speech case. Either way, it is still illegal to lie to induce someone to commit a crime.

What you said and what Turley said are different. Turley said it is legal to lie. You said if this case succeeds then your words can get you convicted. Your words have always and everywhere been able to send you to jail. It is why wiretaps and other recordings are such compelling evidence.

Your words have always been able to send you to jail. It is at the heart of the legal concept of conspiracy.

I agree Nov. 2020 through Jan. 6, 2021 was a crime spree.

Prosecutorial discretion is a thing.

you left out a (highly recommended).

Entrapment by lack of police?

9/11, Iran Contra, Vietnam, Cuban Missile crisis are all international political events that involved the US. Assassinations, while abhorent, are less important than threats from within. They do not strike at the fundamemtals of our democracy. And this attempt to steal the election is significantly more consequential than Watergate.

Lazy attempt.

But it is all irrelevant. It is impossible to find an impartial judge. The January 6 riot was the single most important US political event in generations. A judge who is unaware and unopinionated does not exist.

Trump is defendant 1,057. It might be hard to find anyone to meet your criteria.

But..but...

Oof. They are going after a guy who placed 559 bets with an average of $4.29 per bet? Talk about asinine and a huge waste of resources.

The food porn on this site is exceptional.

A+++

I disagree.

No, I was just making a joke based on that old commercial (showing my age), "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."

Another strategy point. I have seen the question asked elsewhere, what took so long? One of the specific statutes they are charging him under is 18 USC 1512(c)(2), an Enron era law passed in response to Arthur Anderson's destruction of documents as the government was investigating. It is the "corruptly obstruct an official proceeding" charge. This law has been used repeatedly and successfully in prosecuting the Jan. 6 rioters. It has withstood every defense attempt to say it does not apply. Establishing that history of precedence took time. I imagine that has something to do with the delay. Demonstrate success, and a lot of it, on the small fishes before going after the big fish.

Finance. But I play a lawyer on TV.