Read on Twitter
This supercut of democrats saying the word "fight" out of context is juvenile and sophomoric.
Here we go with conflating BLM with Democrats because Black people are mostly Democratic voters (when they do vote).
It's the "everyone who doesn't like us is a radical liberal" defense with a shot of racism.
It's the "everyone who doesn't like us is a radical liberal" defense with a shot of racism.
The thing they are missing now is that Democratic supporters never stormed the Capitol building or beat a cop to death.
When comparing the rhetoric in election challenges it is important to differentiate that in 2016, donald LOST the popular vote, and won electors in States that broke election laws according to federal courts
2020 saw none of these issues, and donald couldn't win a case anywhere
2020 saw none of these issues, and donald couldn't win a case anywhere
The "harm" of 'overturning the will of the voters' is moot here. Donald served his whole term.
Donald, however, tried to cancel voters will, and literally sent a violent mob that successfully delayed certification of those votes.
Donald, however, tried to cancel voters will, and literally sent a violent mob that successfully delayed certification of those votes.
They are trying to disassociate donald from "fringe" right wing groups Donald literally invited to the White House.
And now the "you can't take what donald says seriously" defense..
Followed by the " if he did say it, he didn't mean it" defense.
Followed by the " if he did say it, he didn't mean it" defense.
Here's a visual aid to this section of the defense:
And now the final mischaracterization: "both sides did it".
No. Only the red hats invaded the Capitol and beat a cop to death. Donald speech incited that violence. If Donald didn't say what he said, officer Sitnick would be alive today.
No. Only the red hats invaded the Capitol and beat a cop to death. Donald speech incited that violence. If Donald didn't say what he said, officer Sitnick would be alive today.
In case you think you're missing something, you are not.
This Trump attorney is slurring his words and talking in circles again.
His argument is that crimes are not crimes if they are made from non-criminal acts that became crimes, live on TV Jan 6.
This Trump attorney is slurring his words and talking in circles again.
His argument is that crimes are not crimes if they are made from non-criminal acts that became crimes, live on TV Jan 6.
This isn't how actual criminal trials look or sound. Not at all.
This is a trial to remove Donald's right to work in government again, not to take his freedom away.
Half of the jurors are donald's friends.
This is a trial to remove Donald's right to work in government again, not to take his freedom away.
Half of the jurors are donald's friends.
We don't have to test 'incitement' because donald was NOT censored, donald said whatever he wanted, and we know exactly what happened after.
Brandenburg is inapplicable here unless today is January 5th, 2021.
Brandenburg is inapplicable here unless today is January 5th, 2021.
Brandenburg contemplated speech advocating illegal action (yes) and hinged on "imminent lawless action" (they beat a cop to death).
We're done. There is no first amendment protection for incitement.
We're done. There is no first amendment protection for incitement.
Trump's defense has accepted the record that there was violence by Trump supporters immediately after donald spoke at the rally he organized.
The defense is trying to sever all other evidence and ONLY address this limited speech, but don't seem to disconnect it from the violence
The defense is trying to sever all other evidence and ONLY address this limited speech, but don't seem to disconnect it from the violence
Instead of staying "donald didn't say anything that could have incited" they have circled back to the "both sides say fight words"..
This is a terrible defense and seems to admit Donald's guilt.
This "fight" montage is mitigating, and not at all dispositive of the allegations.
This is a terrible defense and seems to admit Donald's guilt.
This "fight" montage is mitigating, and not at all dispositive of the allegations.
If you became a lawyer and took that gotcha video montage into court, including it's edm doom soundtrack, you would get an instant bench slap followed by bar complaints.
