Trump-Defending Idiots: Free Speech Is Dead. Jack Smith Killed It All.
Trump-Defending Idiots: Free Speech Is Dead. Jack Smith Killed It All.
Free speech is still legal. Criminal conspiracy still isn't.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, in his January 6 indictment, graciously allowed that Donald Trump is free to maintain his identity as a lying scumbag.
The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won.
Trump could’ve spent the rest of his loser life whining on Fox News and Steve Bannon’s syphilis-ridden podcast about how the election was stolen from him and Joe Biden wasn’t the real president. However, Trump wasn’t content with mere speech. He wanted to fraudulently retain the presidency, so he launched conspiracy to defraud the government and disenfranchise millions of American voters. That’s bad!
It’s pretty straightforward: You can believe whatever you wish and lie to anyone who’ll listen, but you can’t act illegally on those false beliefs. Othello’s murder of Desdemona isn’t justified because he believed Iago’s lies. It’s so simple an idiot should understand, which is why Fox News contributor Will Cain declared Tuesday that Jack Smith hath murdered free speech.
Free speech has been indicted. Read this section of the indictment.
It acknowledges that Trump has the right to say, even falsely, the results were fraudulent and claim he won the election. That’s protected by the First Amendment.
But the indictment says he can’t lie about election fraud. So they must prove Trump didn’t believe his speech. And then, I would think, they’d need to indict every politician who lies (need to build more jails) about election results (Clinton, Kerry, Abrams).
The DOJ has criminalized politics. And because, who is to decide the truth, criminalized free speech.
Yes, Cain is a lawyer, but so are (were?) Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis. You can apparently get a JD from a bubblegum machine if properly motivated.
Dullards like Cain have brought up Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Stacey Abrams, and Al Gore as examples of Democratic politicians “lying” about past election losses. We can debate another time whether those candidates actually lied about anything — Hillary Clinton and Al Gore literally won the popular vote and the Supreme Court did hand the election to George W. Bush — but there’s no debate over whether Gore, Kerry, Clinton, or Abrams tried to actively steal their elections. That never happened. They all conceded, even if somewhat saltily.
Gore was even vice president when Congress met to certify Bush’s Electoral College victory. He didn’t reject Florida’s results or incite an attack on the Capitol.
I won’t share video of Clinton conceding to Trump because I watched that once and it was enough. But it happened. Pantsuit Nation didn’t bludgeon cops and threaten to hang Joe Biden if he didn’t make Clinton president.
Trump’s coup was a sinister plot to overthrow the government and employ violence if necessary (and it would’ve been) to remain in power against the public will. That’s why he was indicted, not just because he would’t keep his lying mouth shut.
The Wall Street Journal, which I won’t claim should know better, expressed similar sentiments as Cain on its editorial page Wednesday.
“This potentially criminalizes many kinds of actions and statements by a President that a prosecutor deems to be false. You don’t have to be a defender of Donald Trump to worry about where this will lead. It makes any future election challenges, however valid, legally vulnerable to a partisan prosecutor.”
This is another constitutionally protected bald-faced lie: Trump’s not being charged for his 62 failed election lawsuits. Smith specifically states in the indictment that Trump “was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures.”
Even worse is this line from the WSJ’s editorial: “There is no evidence tying Mr. Trump to the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys who planned to, and did, breach the U.S. Capitol that day. That was the worst offense against democracy, and more than 1,000 people have been prosecuted in connection with it.”
Putting aside that Trump is the only reason anyone breached the Capitol on January 6, the attack itself wasn’t the “worst offense against democracy.” That was a defeated president attempting to illegally remain in power through lies, fraud, and violence. That’s what makes a nation a banana republic, not the act of prosecuting him for his crimes.
The WSJ tries to avoid the taint of MAGA with its weaselly “You don’t have to be a defender of Donald Trump to worry about where this will lead.” No, if you pretend that holding Trump accountable for his broad daylight coup-ing potentially puts innocent citizens at risk, you’re no better than Marjorie Taylor Greene, even if you belong to a fancier country club.
[WSJ]
Follow Stephen Robinson on Bluesky and Threads.
Subscribe to his YouTube channel for more fun content.
Catch SER on his podcast, The Play Typer Guy.
willful misunderstanding of the indictment is their only defence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycTyv-Ix_R8
François Rebel & François Francœur: Suite de Simphonie