—
Many Trump-defenders are now parroting excuses from the same pathetic playbook:
Donald Trump’s lawyer, John Lauro, said the indictment brought against the former president for conspiring to seize a second term after losing the 2020 election was an attack on “free speech” and “political speech.”
“This is an attack on free speech and political advocacy. And there’s nothing that’s more protected under the First Amendment than political speech,” Lauro said on CNN Tuesday evening. [...]
www.politico.com — 08/02/2023
Others are falling in line behind this shallow defense, including Rudy Giuliani, Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley:
“This Indictment is an attack on Free Speech!”
Kevin McCarthy is complaining that this new Indictment is ‘interference with his Hunter Biden hearings. A distraction. An example of a two-tiered justice system.’
What these foot-soldiers of dementia dare not discuss though — are the other Rights, that were being “directly attacked” by the 1-6 conspiracy participants … both by word and by deeds:
—
pg 8
12. [...] The Defendant’s knowingly false statements were integral to his criminal plans to defeat the federal government function, obstruct the certification, and interfere with others’ right to vote and have their votes counted.
[Emphasis added]
pg 5-6
Manner and Means
10. The Defendant’s conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means:
a. The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.
b. [...] Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. [...]
d. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results. First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince the Vice President to use the Defendant’s fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them.
[Emphasis added]
pg 44
COUNT FOUR
(Conspiracy Against Rights — 18 U.S.C. § 241)
130. [...]
DONALD J. TRUMP,
did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States — that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 241)
[Emphasis added]
Instead of defending the Constitution, and the rights to vote that it protects and enshrines — the Defendant did exactly the opposite. Defendant Trump use his own right to Free Speech to engage in a false conspiracy to deprive millions of Americans our RIGHT TO VOTE.
pg 2
3). The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He 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. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.
[Emphasis added]
pg 39-40
107. Before the Defendant had finished speaking, a crowd began to gather at the Capitol. Thereafter, a mass of people — including individuals who had traveled to Washington and to the Capitol at the Defendant’s direction — broke through barriers cordoning off the Capitol grounds and advanced on the building, including by violently attacking law enforcement officers trying to secure it.
108. The Defendant, who had returned to the White House after concluding his remarks, watched events at the Capitol unfold on the television in the dining room next to the Oval Office.
[...]
110. Upon receiving news that individuals had breached the Capitol, the Defendant’s advisors told him that there was a riot there and that rioters had breached the building. When advisors urged the Defendant to issue a calming message aimed at the rioters, the Defendant refused, instead repeatedly remarking that the people at the Capitol were angry because the election had been stolen.
[Emphasis added]
—
The Oath of President requires all holders of this high office to:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
https://www.usa.gov/inauguration
Defendant Trump actions and inactions on and preceding Jan. 6th, demonstrate his abject failure at upholding his own Constitutional Oath.
Not only did the Defendant’s actions attempt to deprive millions of Americans of our Constitutionally-protected right to vote and have our votes counted — the Defendant’s actions and inactions on the day of the Capitol riot, amounted to a betrayal his very own Oath of Office.
The right to Free Speech may have allowed him to pursue these lying acts and actions — but the right to Free Speech DOES NOT PROTECT HIM from being charged for his criminal acts and actions.
In America no one is above the law — no matter how much the Defendant insists that he only is.
— —
Transcript of J6 Indictment:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a7503af-fde7-4061-818c-7d7e0ee06036.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4
from this Washington Post source page:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/01/indictment-document-trump-jan-6-pdf/
— —