TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed

TrumpWarRoom
Posted - February 10, 2021 at 2:21 AM
Saved - February 18, 2025 at 1:57 AM

@TrumpWarRoom - Trump War Room

WATCH: @seanhannity highlights how the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th were preplanned. "If it was planned in advance no argument can be made that [President Trump] in anyway through his words was responsible for what they had preplanned." https://t.co/aSVZmaB0N7

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Democrats' snap impeachment of the president is complete with hysteria and hypocrisy. They didn't gather evidence or allow due process, and now they're short on facts. They claim the president incited an insurrection with his January 6th remarks, but major media outlets, the FBI, court documents, and even AOC confirm the Capitol breach was pre-planned by violent agitators. Reports show the FBI warned of a potential "war at the Capitol" beforehand, contradicting claims of no prior indication of violence. The Capitol Police Chief requested the National Guard multiple times, but his pleas were rejected. The federal government needs to investigate why the Capitol Police were unprepared and why Pelosi didn't have the sergeant of arms prepare. We need a nine eleven style commission to investigate this so it never happens again. If the riot was planned in advance, the argument that Trump incited the insurrection is invalid.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is, well, we'll call it sewer swamp theater. Now it's complete with hysteria, hyperbole, and of course, well, rank hypocrisy. Now it caused the Democrats conducted the snap impeachment in the house without taking the time to gather evidence, build a case, allow for due process or a defense or even a rudimentary investigation, they are now short on something called facts. This is why you don't rush to judgment. That's why we have due process. That's why a snap impeachment is so dangerous to this country. They claim the president incited an insurrection, their new favorite word, because of his insightful remarks on January 6. But now, according to every major media outlet and the FBI and court documents and even AOC. Yeah. The capital breach was we now know predetermined, pre planned. It was plotting, planning, scheming by violent agitators while way before the president ever spoke at the rally, days, weeks before. How do I know? The mob and the media even has to admit it. Take a look. Speaker 1: The investigation into the deadly insurrection at The US Capitol A Week ago had new evidence that it was planned. Speaker 2: Also shocking, new reporting that the FBI received a very specific warning before the riot. Speaker 1: That FBI notice warned of war at the Capitol, but for some reason, security wasn't stepped up there to meet the challenge that that attack would pose. FBI admitting that it had intelligence before the insurrection, that people were planning to travel to DC with the intent to cause violence. Speaker 3: One week before the week prior to the insurrection, I started to get text messages that I needed to be careful, and that in particular, I needed to be careful about the sixth. Speaker 0: Now according to Forbes, quote, the capital attack was planned openly online for weeks, and police, law enforcement, they still weren't ready. Washington Post, the FBI report warned of, quote, war at the Capitol, contradicting claims that there was no indication of any looming violence. And even the New York Times, FBI warned of violence before the siege. This is why the Capitol Police Chief actually requested the National Guard before, during, and after. He as a matter of fact, he made six separate appeals for help, but his pleas for help were rejected every single time. In fact, according to Trump chief of staff, Mark Meadows, he was on with our own Maria Bartiromo over the weekend. The president was very vocal about offering security assistance prior to the sixth and even ordered 10,000 national guard troops to stand ready, but they were never called on even when the chief of police of the capital was calling them until, of course, it was too late. The federal government has a duty to figure out exactly what went wrong here, why those capital police were left out to dry, why didn't Pelosi have the sergeant of arms prepare, when are we gonna discuss her dereliction of duty and failure to protect the capital? By the way, that's your capital. We the people, that's our capital. Those are our elected official officials. This transcends any politics in my mind. Doesn't matter. Whoever's elected needs to be protected. Period. End of sentence. So that's why I've been saying we need a nine eleven style commission to investigate and give us a full report and put in changes so this never happens again. Well, not the snap impeachment of a former president. That directly impacts the argument, by the way, that president Trump's rally speech was responsible for inciting the insurrection. If it was planned in advance, no argument can be made that the president in any way through his words was responsible for what they had pre planned, unless he was part of the planning. And, of course, nobody's making that allegation because that never happened. So now the entire impeachment shift shows charade and the charge is dead in the water. Democrats now are left arguing that president Trump told
RepThomasMassie
Posted - November 23, 2021 at 10:35 AM
Saved - October 12, 2025 at 8:18 PM

@RepThomasMassie - Thomas Massie

I asked Atty General Merrick Garland, who was under oath, if agents or assets of the federal government were encouraging or directing protestors on Jan 5 and Jan 6. He refused to answer on the grounds that there were ongoing investigations. He could have answered that question.

@ColumbiaBugle - The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸

.@joerogan Discussing The Curious Case Of Ray Epps & January 6th "He did it pre-January 6th, he did it during the January 6th thing, and that this guy has faced no legal charges whatsoever, and people are like well wtf is going on here?" https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/

Video Transcript AI Summary
Discussion centers on the agent provocateur angle of January 6. They claim there were federal agents involved in instigating the violence and entering the Capitol, and that "this one guy" has faced no legal consequences while others face "massive federal charges and four years plus in jail." They compare to the World Trade Organization riots in Seattle '99, saying "literal government agents went in wearing antifa outfits" to provoke violence and were released conveniently. They focus on "Ray Epps, the Fed protected provocateur who appears to have led the first January 6 attack on the US Capitol," referencing a Revolver article and a video. They debate whether he was initiated by government, radicalized and acting on his own, or a rogue agent; they note it shows intelligence agency problems. They worry about autocratic solutions and how social media exposes such cases; they end with "Red or black" and Ray Epps.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are you aware of the agent provocateur aspect of January 6? Speaker 1: Say more. Speaker 0: I don't exactly know what the reality is, but the what people insinuating is that there was federal agents that were involved in instigating the violence, instigating the entering into the capital, and that there's this one guy in specific that they've got him isolated on video. They've shown him over and over again. He's faced no legal consequences. They know this guy's name. They know exactly who he is. All these other guys are in jail. All these other guys who got into the capital, I mean, so many of them are facing, like, these massive federal charges and four years plus in jail. This one guy is like, we have to go in there. We have to take back. We have to get inside there. And people start calling him a thud in in one one of these videos, and I think he, like, takes off and runs away. But this is what it seems like. It seems like and this is something that governments have done forever. Mhmm. Right? You take a peaceful protest. What's the best way to break up a peaceful protest? You bring in agent provocateurs to turn it into a non peaceful, a violent protest, smash windows, light things on fire, then you can send in the troops and you can clean up the mess, and then you don't have any protest anymore. This was the World Trade Organization in where was it? In Seattle in '99 or whatever it was. That's what they did. And it's been documented that that is what happened. I mean, like, literal government agents went in wearing antifa outfits and starts this is pre antifa. Right? Smashing windows, lighting things on fire, and they were all eventually released conveniently. Well, this guy do you know about this, Jamie? You know what? See if you can find it. Because it's a curious case of this one particular individual who's, like, yelling in these various groups that we have to get in there where and it like, he did it pre January 6. They did it during the January 6 thing, and then these guys faced no legal charges whatsoever. And people are like, well, what the fuck is going on here? Because when you see some kind of organized debacle like that and then you see people insisting that we have to take this further and we have to go inside. And then if you find out that those people are actually federal agents Mhmm. That are doing that, you're like, well, what is happening here? And how is that possible? And how is this legal? That's a problem. Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean Speaker 2: I haven't seen this one. I remember the umbrella man who was breaking windows at the George Floyd riots. Speaker 0: I think they found out that that guy was a cop and that I think that was like a rogue human, but no. I'm not sure if that's true. Speaker 2: But So this is where it's interesting with in this case, I don't know the case at all, but is it that somebody in government actually initiated him doing it as an agent provocateur to shut down the protest, or was he someone who happened to be in government who was himself radicalized who acting on his own because of radicalization did the thing? Speaker 0: Or is he an agent provocateur but he's doing so independently just because he's a fucking psycho? You know, some firemen start fires. Speaker 1: Right. But notice that's, like, whichever view you have, you probably had a motivated interest to see it that way. Right? Speaker 0: Yeah. I didn't have any view on it. Right. That's the thing. I'm looking at it like this. Like, what is it? What is this video? Yeah. I'm watching this guy eat like, this one big beefy looking federal agent guy telling them they gotta go inside, and I think he was wearing a MAGA hat. And, you know, it was like a guy in his fifties then and he's like, I'll you what we gotta do. We gotta get inside there. We gotta go inside the Capitol. Speaker 1: And these people are like, inside? Like, isn't that illegal? Like, what the fuck? Speaker 0: This guy's taking it to the next level. But he's doing it, like, multiple times. That's the the the there's a there is a real problem with intelligence agencies doing that kind of shit. Totally. Because they do do it. And I think they do it thinking that this is like these group of fucking psychos, like, we gotta stop this from escalating, so here's the way. We get them to do something really stupid, then we can put fences up and create a green zone, and then we lock this down. Meet Ray Epps. Fucking ad clicks. Meet Ray Epps, the Fed protected provocateur who appears to have led the very first one six attack January 6 attack on The US capital. So let's watch some of this because it's fucking crazy. It's really weird. This guy is doing this, like, over and over and over again. Speaker 3: Yeah. This was there's a video of it, but this is an article about Speaker 0: probably So this is an article that's in Revolver. Speaker 3: Hold on. I'll get the video. Speaker 0: We'll find the video because the video is fucking strange. Ray Epps' video. Speaker 3: Here it is. Like this. Well, that's twenty minutes long. Speaker 0: Well, just watch we'll see some of it. Oh, these are guys that are watching it. What about that one? Speaker 3: That's goes to a website. These are on Twitter. Speaker 0: Arrest rave epps. So so people are some people are hip to it. But most people, like, including you guys, have no idea that this is a a person. Right? You've never heard of this before. What terrifies me is a solution of this is an autocratic government that controls all aspects of society so none of this ever happens. That scares the shit out of me because that seems to be where there's that fuck. Let's play this. Speaker 1: The capital. What? Tomorrow? Speaker 0: Wait. Do it from the beginning. Speaker 1: I don't even like to say Tomorrow. I'm not We need to go into the capital. Jesus. Hang on. Into the capital. What? Tomorrow? Speaker 0: Either what? Speaker 1: I don't even like to say it because I'll be arrested. Well, let's not say it. We need we need to go I'll say it. Alright. We need to go in Speaker 0: Shut the fuck up, boomer. Speaker 1: To the Capitol. Alright. No, Dave. But one more thing. Yeah. So can we go up there? No? When we go in? Are we gonna get arrested if go out there? Yeah. You don't need to get shot. You're gonna arrest us all? Speaker 0: Okay. I think we see enough. There's a lot of instances. It goes on for quite a while. There's a lot of videos of this guy, is really fascinating because I think these methods that they've used forever are kinda subverted by social media because you have a 100,000 different cameras pointed at this guy from all these and when someone starts screaming loudly, people start filming it, and then you get a conglomeration or or collection of these rather. Mhmm. And you can go, oh, what is happening here? Like like, I don't think they've realized that people would be so cynical that they would go over all these various videos and find this one guy who's not being prosecuted or arrested. Speaker 1: He's not being prosecuted or arrested. Speaker 0: Ting. Congratulations. Speaker 1: Yeah. Know. No. He's not. Speaker 0: Look at that guy. Yeah. I mean, if you had a guess, if you had, like, $50, what are you gonna put your your chips on? Red or black?
Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears to Have Led the Very First 1/6 Attack on the US Capitol - Revolver News In order to protect the country from fictional right-wing "patriot" groups, did the FBI become an insurrectionist "patriot" movement? revolver.news
bennyjohnson
Posted - July 18, 2023 at 9:42 PM
Saved - December 13, 2023 at 12:16 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The new indictment against Trump reveals a dark and depraved plan. During the 2020 elections, numerous events occurred simultaneously: George Floyd protests, COVID release, lockdowns, election rule changes, mail-in ballots, no voter ID, free speech destruction, and censorship. They broke every rule to ensure Biden's victory. But they fear Trump's potential in 2024. They orchestrated January 6th, framing it as an insurrection. Now, they aim to charge Trump and disqualify him from future presidential runs using the 14th Amendment. This plan is cravenly evil.

@bennyjohnson - Benny Johnson

This is what is so duplicitous about this new indictment against Trump— this is what makes it so unbelievably dark and depraved: It was ALL a set up. So many things were hitting all at once during the 2020 elections: -George Floyd protests -release of COVID from China -COVID lockdowns -changing of all election rules -mail in ballots -ballot dumps -no voter ID -destruction of free speech -online “misinformation” censorship -Hunter Biden laptop censorship They were able to break EVERY SINGLE RULE in the book to drag Joe Biden across the finish line while he sat in his basement like a muppet. But they know they can’t do it again. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice— the American people won’t let it happen. Donald Trump won 75 million LEGAL votes in 2020 and they are terrified he will do it again in 2024. So they have to do everything in their power to make sure he can’t. They orchestrated January 6th with undercover agents dressed as Trump supporters encouraging people to trespass into the Capitol. The crowd was FILLED with federal agents. The goal was to get people INSIDE the building. The Capitol Police Chief begged Nancy Pelosi to send the National Guard. 71 mins passed by and Nancy Pelosi REFUSED to answer calls for back up. The breach happened at the Capitol BEFORE Trump was even finished speaking. And then they framed the whole event as an “insurrection”. So now, they can charge Donald Trump for “insurrection” and use the 14th Amendment to disqualify him from ever running for president again. Do you understand now? Do you see how cravenly evil the plan has been all along?

julie_kelly2
Posted - July 19, 2023 at 2:28 PM
Saved - July 20, 2023 at 5:08 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The looming indictment against Trump for January 6 poses legal jeopardy. DOJ's success in prosecuting over 1000 individuals establishes new precedents. Judges have created separate laws for J6ers, denying bail and treating defendants as part of a mob. Trump could face obstruction and seditious conspiracy charges, resulting in long prison time. The goal is to keep Trump out of office. Other charges like fraud and perjury may also hang over his head. How these legal problems will influence the electorate remains to be seen. Biden hopes for political damage to Trump.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Big question: What criminal charges might Jack Smith bring against Trump related to January 6? As I've explained in interviews and columns for over a year, DOJs looming indictment against Trump for January 6 poses tremendous legal jeopardy to the former president. Why? Because DOJs 2 1/2 year-record of success in prosecuting more than 1,000 individuals for even minimal participation in Jan 6 has established new legal precedents that apply to anyone involved in the Capitol protest. This will include Trump and his co-defendants. January 6 Jurisprudence It's important to emphasize how DOJ--DC US Attorney's office in particular--and both the DC district and appellate court have established an entirely separate set of laws for J6ers. Some defense lawyers call this "January 6 Jurisprudence," a dig at the prosecutors and judges who've created this inescapable circle of hell for Americans who protested Joe Biden's election that afternoon. Quick example: Chief Judge Beryl Howell, public enemy #1 when it comes to the Bill of Rights, in early 2021 authored unique "factors" for judges to consider when deciding whether a Jan 6 defendant should be denied bail and remain in custody until trial. This is unprecedented--imagine a federal judge creating no-bail rules that applied only to BLM or Antifa or pro-abortion protesters. But Howell's court order allowed judges to treat an individual defendant as part of a "mob" to be punished accordingly. This egregious sort of precedent is permitted because DOJ and judges routinely refer to the events of January 6 as "unprecedented." Further, they collectively are OFFENDED that Americans traveled to THEIR FIEFDOM to support a president they loathe. Howell condescendingly marveled in one hearing how the defendant "traveled all the way here from Texas," as if he had no right to visit his nation's capital city to express his political views. Building Case Law to Wield Against Trump Not only have judges essentially rewritten federal bail statutes to justify the indefinite incarceration of Trump supporters, those same judges--at the behest of Biden's DOJ--have sanctioned the bastardization of other laws to criminalize political dissent. And this spells big trouble for Trump. The likeliest charge Smith will seek against Trump is obstruction of an official proceeding. More than 300 J6ers have been charged with this post-Enron law originally intended to address tampering with evidence/witnesses in an investigation. (1512(c)(2) is one of the criminal referrals made to DOJ by Jan 6 select committee) DOJ has successfully redefined the law to punish trespassers--think Jacob Chansley, i.e., the QAnon shaman--and send them to jail. Prosecutors claim anyone who contributed to interrupting Congress that day committed obstruction, a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. (A mixed opinion by DC appellate court offered no clarity on the legitimacy of the offense against J6ers; one defendant is seeking cert at SCOTUS with more petitions to follow.) Some J6ers have been convicted of obstruction even though they didn't go inside the building. A DC jury convicted Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio of obstruction of an official proceeding AND HE WASN'T EVEN IN DC ON JANUARY 6. Which leads to another likely charge facing Trump: seditious conspiracy. This Civil War-era statute is rarely used against Americans; in fact, before Jan 6, no American had ever been convicted of it. By exploiting the law's vague language--"to oppose by force...to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States"--prosecutors have won easy guilty verdicts before DC juries. (Force, by the way, does not require the use of a weapon. It could be something as minimal as pushing over a bike rack or posting inflammatory texts in group chats. One prosecutor claimed agreeing to a conspiracy could be something as fuzzy as nodding one's head. This is your DOJ, folks.) Straining the Connection Between J6 "Militias" and Trump The ten defendants so far convicted of seditious conspiracy are tied to either the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers--and that's the legal pathway to Trump. Prosecutors made Trump a key figure in the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial by claiming they were "Trump's army." DOJ played the 2020 debate clip where Trump said "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by" on several occasions during the 4-month trial. The Jan 6 committee attempted to tie the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to Trump and his associates including Roger Stone; committee members also advised DOJ to pursue seditious conspiracy charges against Trump. Both the obstruction and seditious conspiracy counts could result in long prison time for Trump if he's convicted by a DC jury. (Keep in mind, DOJ has a near-perfect conviction rate before jurors in a city that voted 92% for Biden.) Indictments could also result in pretrial detention since DC judges have denied release to J6ers based on one or both counts. DOJ asked for 25 years in prison for Stewart Rhodes, for his conviction on seditious conspiracy. (He was sentenced to 18 years, which DOJ is now appealing). Kelly Meggs, an Oath Keeper who committed no violence, spent almost 2 years in jail before his trial began. He was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 14 years in jail. (DOJ also appealing his sentence.) I'll have more later on possible co-conspirators but suffice to say it could be a very long and distinguished list. Keeping Trump Out of Office But the real bombshell charge would be 18 U.S. Code § 2383, inciting a rebellion or insurrection. Anyone convicted, per the statute, "shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." That is, of course, the Biden regime's ultimate goal in regard to Trump. Even if Smith doesn't bring the 2383 charge, a multi-felony indictment--other offenses may include fraud, perjury, tampering with witnesses--will hang over Trump's head throughout 2024. How Trump's mounting legal problems will influence the electorate as a whole remains to be seen. And if Smith successfully seeks pretrial detention or even strict release conditions--home confinement, a nightly curfew, wearing a monitoring device--who knows how voters will react? It could be political death by a thousand cuts--something Joe Biden, who remains just a few points ahead of Trump in many general election polls, is undoubtedly hoping for.

ClayTravis
Posted - August 1, 2023 at 9:44 PM
Saved - August 16, 2023 at 10:15 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Trump indictment aims to criminalize a legal theory pursued by his attorneys. However, it's based on already reported allegations. The legal theory was significant enough for Congress to close the vice president loophole. If any conviction occurs, the Supreme Court may strike down the indictment. Debating legal theories is common in law practice and education.

@ClayTravis - Clay Travis

Here is the full Trump indictment. Just read it quickly. Appears to be a recitation of already reported allegations. Clear intent to criminalize a legal theory that Trump’s attorneys pursued. Garbage indictment. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_1.pdf

@ClayTravis - Clay Travis

Remember, Trump’s legal theory on January 6th while aggressive and expansive was legally significant enough that Congress voted to close the vice president loophole after Biden’s inauguration. This indictment is a clear intent to criminalize a legal theory. Prediction: It will be struck down by Supreme Court if any conviction occurs. And that’s if it ever goes to trial at all.

@ClayTravis - Clay Travis

Citing lawyers and others who disagree with other lawyers about a legal theory as evidence that a conspiracy existed is breathtakingly insane. Many novel and untested legal theories are attacked as unlikely to succeed. Any lawyer who has ever practiced law has been involved in vigorous debate about what a court is likely to do with a novel argument. Hell, this is the entire basis of law school itself.

kylenabecker
Posted - August 2, 2023 at 1:37 PM
Saved - August 2, 2023 at 2:30 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Special Counsel charges former President Donald J Trump with conspiring against the nation, invoking Civil War-era laws. However, these charges seem politically motivated and lack evidence. The alleged incitement of the January 6 riot falls flat, as Trump called for peaceful protests. Moreover, the Supreme Court is asked to review a potential charge of obstruction, which raises questions about the logic behind accusing a former president of participating in an insurrection. Charging Trump for contesting an election sets a dangerous precedent for curtailing freedom of speech.

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

Special Counsel Jack Smith just commited one of the greatest acts of election interference in U.S. history.  The special prosecutor just charged the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, with conspiring against the nation that he once led to peace and prosperity. The J6 indictment against Biden's chief 2024 adversary provides interference for a sitting president whom is undoubtedly one of the most corrupt presidents the nation has ever witnessed. The grand inquisitor is bringing forth Civil War era charges against Trump last seen during Reconstruction; namely, Section 241 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which makes it a crime for people to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in the “free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” This antedated statute invokes racial overtones to smear the former president through insinuation. Congress passed the law after the Civil War with the aim of giving federal agents the means to pursue Southern whites, including Ku Klux Klan members who perpetrated acts of terrorism to hinder the voting rights of freed slaves. It has recently been resurrected for the singular purpose of charging J6 defendants; by extension, of course, former President Donald J. Trump. Another charge, conspiracy to defraud the government, is risible given the U.S. government has done nothing but defraud the American people since Donald Trump appeared as a presidential candidate. Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election, an implicit charge of treason for which he was later exonerated. Trump was impeached as president for seeking information on former Vice President Biden's actions in Ukraine, a request that has borne out to have significant merit. Indeed, then Speaker Pelosi undoubtedly impeached Donald Trump in search of a crime in order to stop any further investigation into the matter. Most pertinently, Trump was impeached for his alleged incitement of the January 6 riot. Never mind that he told the crowd before the Capitol Riots begin to 'peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard.' And that he told the rioters to stand down on social media platforms before he was banned in a transparent act of political collusion. And that the rioters themselves were penetrated by FBI agents months in advance, who subsequently did nothing to stop them. One agent even admitted by text message that there appeared to be no substantive plot to overthrow the government, as the dejected New York Times reported. Trump was also ultimately exonerated in a Senate trial. Thus, the constitutional process for adjudicating high crimes and misdemeanors that applies to U.S. presidents because they have sovereign immunity as head of state, namely, impeachment, is being completely undermined in a reckless DOJ effort to fling spaghetti against a judicial wall to see if anything sticks. But most interestingly, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to adjudicate a third potential charge that applies directly to Donald Trump: Obstruction of an official proceeding. A J6 defendant named Edward Lang recently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, a type of appeal to the Supreme Court to review a lower court case. As the petition states, the SCOTUS’ decision “will influence scores, if not hundreds, of prosecutions arising from the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.” The writ of certiorari suggested that Lang's appeal could impact the Justice Department’s potential January 6 case against Trump. Lang emphasized the timing of the filing, noting that Trump is currently a leading figure within the Republican Party. At the heart of the case is the alleged misapplication of 18 U.S. Code 1512 (c)(2), which regards to the obstruction of official proceedings, particularly with a “corrupt purpose.”

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

Prosecutors have argued that the “corrupt purpose” is rioting, purportedly at the behest of former President Donald Trump, with the aim of the president unlawfully retaining power by halting the Electoral College proceedings. As the legal writ points out, there has been no plausible explanation given by prosecutors about how rioters temporarily obstructing the Electoral College vote count would lead to Donald Trump retaining his office. This is, of course, exposes the illogical nature of charging a former Commander-in-Chief with participation in an "insurrection." As we are being asked to believe, then President Donald Trump apparently declined to issue any commands to the U.S. military to carry out a 'coup,' and instead directed an unarmed rabble to the capitol building to foment aimless chaos without any means to capture and hold the federal government. In the film "Knives Out," private detective Benoit Blanc sums up the problem with the deceptively straightforward narrative that millionaire benefactor Harlan Thrombey had been accidentally poisoned and had slit his own throat. “I spoke in the car about the hole at the center of this donut," Benoit says with a wry southern drawl. "And yes, what you and Harlan did that fateful night seems at first glance to fill that hole perfectly. A donut hole in the donut's hole. But we must look a little closer. And when we do, we see that the donut hole has a hole in its center -- it is not a donut hole at all but a smaller donut with its own hole, and our donut is not a hole at all!" If you examine the J6 matter closely, it is not what the federal government did on January 6 that raises the most serious questions, it is what it didn't do that defies belief. If Donald Trump was an existential threat to the country, the capitol would have been flooded with National Guard members, instead of crawling with armed undercover agents, as it was later revealed. The dire matter of charging a former president for the crime of “knowing deceit” based foundationally upon political speech was trenchantly summarized by the great French scholar Baron de Montesquieu in "Spirit of the Laws." “Nothing renders the crime of high treason more arbitrary than declaring people guilty of it for indiscreet speeches," Montesquieu wrote. "Speech is so subject to interpretation; there is so great a difference between indiscretion and malice; and frequently so little is there of the latter in the freedom of expression, that the law can hardly subject people to a capital punishment for words unless it expressly declares what words they are." “Words do not constitute an overt act; they remain only in idea," he continued. "When considered by themselves, they have generally no determinate signification; for this depends on the tone in which they are uttered. It often happens that in repeating the same words they have not the same meaning; this depends on their connection with other things, and sometimes more is signified by silence than by any expression whatever. Since there can be nothing so equivocal and ambiguous as all this, how is it possible to convert it into a crime of high treason?" “Wherever this law is established, there is an end not only of liberty, but even of its very shadow," he added. That is what America is now countenancing with the indictment of Donald Trump for January 6. If the former president can be indicted for contesting an election, then Americans can be indicted for anything.

KimWexlerMAJD
Posted - August 4, 2023 at 1:10 PM
Saved - August 7, 2023 at 12:59 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
In a peculiar document, Dershowitz criticizes Smith's indictment of Trump. Smith's omission of crucial words from Trump's speech raises concerns. The indictment threatens free speech rights. Politicians' lies turned into crimes would overcrowd prisons. Prosecutors must be honest and fair.

@KimWexlerMAJD - Kimberly “Kim” Wexler, MA JD

DERSHOWITZ: Smith’s indictment of Trump is “one of the strangest documents I’ve ever read. Under the terms of this indictment, JACK SMITH COULD BE INDICTED.” (He won’t.) “Jack Smith lied. In the core of his indictment, he outlines the speech that Trump made on January 6. But he deliberately, willfully and with malice leaves out the key words. He doctors the speech. He leaves out the fact that Donald Trump said ‘I want you to protest PEACEFULLY and PATRIOTICALLY.’ Those are the two words that bring him within the First Amendment.” “An honest prosecutor doesn’t leave those words out of the indictment. And that’s what Jack Smith did.” JACK SMITH THREATENED THE FREE EXERCISE OF SPEECH. “It’s the first indictment that turns lies — if they are lies, political lies — into a crime. If every politician who told a lie … were prosecuted, Congress and the state legislatures would have to meet in Allenwood Prison.”

@AlanDersh - Alan Dershowitz

My analysis on the Trump indictment has more than 300K views. All platforms are up. Rumble, Youtube , Apple and Spotify are all available. Be part of the debate. Leave questions and comments in the chat. https://rumble.com/v344i3s-ive-read-the-indictment-and-here-is-my-legal-analysis.html

I've read the indictment and here is my legal analysis Alan Dershowitz's podcast. Dershow media APPLE PODCAST:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-dershow/id1531775772 SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/show/7Cx3Okc9mMNWtQyKJZoqVO?si=1164392dd4144a99 _ rumble.com
nancy_hamm1
Posted - August 7, 2023 at 1:27 AM
Saved - August 7, 2023 at 1:08 PM

@nancy_hamm1 - 🌟🇺🇸Nancy Hamm🇺🇸🌟

TRUMP IS INNOCENT-All these false allegations and absurd indictments!!! Barr: Trump's Jan. 6 Case Doesn't Violate First Amendment | http://Newsmax.com

Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe Top news headlines, videos and comments from Newsmax.com covering politics, the White House, Congress, Hollywood. U.S. news you can trust on health, personal finance, faith, freedom issues and more. newsmax.com
Barr: Trump's Jan. 6 Case Doesn't Violate First Amendment The Jan. 6 case against Donald Trump does not run afoul of the First Amendment, former Attorney General Bill Barr said, pushing back on the former president's legal argument concerning his most recent indictment over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. newsmax.com
LauraLoomer
Posted - October 30, 2023 at 5:47 PM
Saved - October 30, 2023 at 5:58 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
President Trump's speech urged peaceful protest at the Capitol, without inciting violence or confrontation. He did not lead or engage in any aggressive actions. This clarifies his stance amidst allegations of election interference. #Trump2024 #Colorado

@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer

WATCH: “Frankly, President Trump didn’t engage. He didn’t carry a pitchfork to the Capitol grounds. He didn’t lead a charge. He didn’t get in a fist fight with legislators. He didn’t goad President Biden into going out back and having a fight. He gave a speech in which he asked people to peacefully and patriotically go to the Capitol to protest.” #ElectionInterference #Colorado #Trump2024

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that the definition of an insurrection should be based on historical usage and not made up after the fact. They claim that the term "engage" means to do something, but it is unclear what exactly that entails. They assert that President Trump did not engage in an insurrection as he did not incite violence or physically lead an attack. They criticize the argument that he should have done more, calling it Monday morning quarterbacking. They reject the claim that Trump was negligent and argue that he took actions to prevent violence. They emphasize that he called for peace multiple times in his speech and messages on January 6th.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What constitutes an insurrection needs to be grounded in historical usage because that's what the law demands. That's what equality under the law demands. That's what fairness, so we understand what the standards are by which we comport our behavior. Not, post facto making it up to try and figure that out. The term engage. The term engage means to do something. Frankly, no one really knows what that means, but I think we can all agree it means to do something. That's what the word engage means. Okay? There's substantial local evidence that engage does not mean mere incitement through words. It doesn't mean that. And frankly, president Trump didn't engage. He didn't carry a pitchfork to the Capitol grounds. He didn't lead a charge. He didn't get a fist fight with legislators. He didn't goad president fighting into a going out back and having a fight. He gave a speech in which he asked people to peacefully and radically go to the capital to protest. Now I understand that there are several experts that are going to testify, and one's gonna testify that president Trump, he just didn't do enough. He should've done more. Now that's a case of Monday morning quarterbacking, what he's saying. You should've done more. You didn't do enough. Should've done more. Should've done early more stuff earlier. I can come up with all kinds of theories this professor will say as to why you shouldn't have done enough stuff. And that professor is no doubt a learned man and very claw on this. But his basic argument when it comes down to it is they're claiming President Trump was negligent. And we reject that factual claim, of course. And you'll hear that care evidence that that characterization is completely wrong. But more fundamentally, the entire theory is wrong. The failure to do something is the opposite of the word engage. It's the opposite of the word engage. And well and we've argued engage requires specific intent. Someone doesn't just sort of stumble into starting an insurrection. They have to have the tends to do that. And you'll hear evidence, that president Trump took very specific actions to to try to prevent violence, to take precautions that he didn't want there to be violence on January 6th. And on January 6th, he called for peace, and he used the word peace at least 4 times in his speech at the Ellipse and 2 tweets and a video message. So he asked for peace.
MaxEvansUMP
Posted - November 3, 2023 at 1:14 AM
Saved - November 3, 2023 at 3:28 AM

@MaxEvansUMP - ULTRA MAGA PARTY 👑

"Is your testimony one of the key reasons Jack Smith can't and won't indict President Trump for insurrection?" @KashsCorner https://t.co/TNfTDSBgOM

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump's authorization was needed for the deployment of National Guard troops on January 6th. However, the mayor of Washington DC, in a letter, stated that no additional troops were required. Kashyap Patel testified about this before the January 6th select committee, but his testimony was not made public. Despite negotiations, the committee refused to release the transcript until the eve of its dissolution. Patel's testimony may be a key reason why President Trump was not indicted for insurrection.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think we were gonna start with, president Trump. Are they ready to call their 1st witness? Speaker 1: Yes. We have called Kashyap Patel. To your knowledge, did any senior DOJ leader ever state words or substance that they felt they needed more different authorization from president Trump before they could deploy National Guard troops to keep the peace on January 6th. No. So why didn't we have 10,000 National Guard troops suited up and armed guarding the capitol in the morning January 6th. Speaker 2: There's a multitude of reasons, but namely, step 1 was the commander in chief's authorization, which we had. Step 2 was a Quest by the governing body, the local governing body. It's the mayor since it's Washington DC and or the heads of the Capitol Police the bureau. Speaker 1: And mister Patel, I would ask you, if you recognize this letter? Speaker 2: I do. It's the letter I referenced from mayor Bowser, I believe on January 5th, the Department of Defense, where she specifically stated, we would not be requesting any additional National Guards men and women. And That was her letter to us. That was the declination of a request, and so we were on standby. Speaker 1: Did you testify before the January 6th select committee? I did. Were you questioned in a public hearing? Speaker 2: No. They declined my request for a public hearing. Speaker 1: Was your testimony public when given. No. Did you tell them what you told us today about the president and the deployment of National Guard troops? Speaker 2: I believe so. Speaker 1: Did the committee ever call you to testify about those issues in public session? Speaker 0: No. Some of the senior officials, Speaker 3: people like Kash Patel, apparently, not available. Speaker 2: We felt it appropriate that the transcript should be made public at some point. And after months long negotiations, they refused to do so and publish their final report. And to my memory, it had been excluded. Think on the eve of the dissolution of the committee, my transcript was the last one released. Speaker 1: I have no further questions, sir. Sir, thank you very much. Speaker 4: You called their bluff. And what's shocking to me, because I didn't even really understand this, is that you gave this testimony. Liz Cheney and and and Kinzinger and you guys, out. He gave this testimony essentially to j six, and they buried it. Speaker 0: Some of the senior officials, Speaker 3: people like Kash Patel, Apparently, not available. Speaker 5: Point blank. Is your testimony Basically, one of the key reasons that Jack Smith can't and won't indict president Trump for insurrection? Speaker 2: You know, I believe so. It's the truth. If if they could've, if anyone could've charged president Trump at this direction, this special counsel, Jack Smith, would have done it.
nancy_hamm1
Posted - November 3, 2023 at 12:06 PM
Saved - November 5, 2023 at 2:08 PM

@nancy_hamm1 - 🌟🇺🇸Nancy Hamm🇺🇸🌟

🚨🚨🚨BOOM - “"Is your testimony one of the key reasons Jack Smith can't and won't indict President Trump for insurrection?" https://t.co/3WXG626EhB

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump's authorization was needed for the deployment of National Guard troops on January 6th. However, the local governing body, including the mayor and Capitol Police, did not request additional troops. Kashyap Patel testified about this before the January 6th select committee, but his testimony was not made public. Despite negotiations, the committee refused to release his transcript until the eve of its dissolution. Patel believes his testimony is a key reason why President Trump was not indicted for insurrection.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think we were gonna start with, president Trump. Are they ready to call their 1st witness? Speaker 1: Yes. We have called Kashyap Patel. To your knowledge, did any senior DOJ leader ever state words or substance that they felt they needed more different authorization from president Trump before they could deploy National Guard troops to keep the peace on January 6th. No. So why didn't we have 10,000 National Guard troops suited up and armed guarding the capitol in the morning January 6th. Speaker 2: There's a multitude of reasons, but namely, step 1 was the commander in chief's authorization, which we had. Step 2 was a Quest by the governing body, the local governing body. It's the mayor since it's Washington DC and or the heads of the Capitol Police the bureau. Speaker 1: And mister Patel, I would ask you, if you recognize this letter? Speaker 2: I do. It's the letter I referenced from mayor Bowser, I believe on January 5th, the Department of Defense, where she specifically stated, we would not be requesting any additional National Guards men and women. And That was her letter to us. That was the declination of a request, and so we were on standby. Speaker 1: Did you testify before the January 6th select committee? I did. Were you questioned in a public hearing? Speaker 2: No. They declined my request for a public hearing. Speaker 1: Was your testimony public when given. No. Did you tell them what you told us today about the president and the deployment of National Guard troops? Speaker 2: I believe so. Speaker 1: Did the committee ever call you to testify about those issues in public session? Speaker 0: No. Some of the senior officials, Speaker 3: people like Kash Patel, apparently, not available. Speaker 2: We felt it appropriate that the transcript should be made public at some point. And after months long negotiations, they refused to do so and publish their final report. And to my memory, it had been excluded. Think on the eve of the dissolution of the committee, my transcript was the last one released. Speaker 1: I have no further questions, sir. Sir, thank you very much. Speaker 4: You called their bluff. And what's shocking to me, because I didn't even really understand this, is that you gave this testimony. Liz Cheney and and and Kinzinger and you guys, out. He gave this testimony essentially to j six, and they buried it. Speaker 0: Some of the senior officials, Speaker 3: people like Kash Patel, Apparently, not available. Speaker 5: Point blank. Is your testimony Basically, one of the key reasons that Jack Smith can't and won't indict president Trump for insurrection? Speaker 2: You know, I believe so. It's the truth. If if they could've, if anyone could've charged president Trump at this direction, this special counsel, Jack Smith, would have done it.
KauiAlohaHI
Posted - November 13, 2023 at 1:22 AM
Saved - November 13, 2023 at 11:12 PM

@KauiAlohaHI - KauiAlohaHawaii1

"Is your testimony one of the key reasons Jack Smith can't and won't indict President Trump for insurrection?" @realDonaldTrump #Trump #Trump2024 https://t.co/VmRitfe6gu

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump's first witness, Kashyap Patel, was called to testify. He confirmed that no senior DOJ leader stated they needed more authorization from the president to deploy National Guard troops on January 6th. The reason for not having 10,000 troops guarding the Capitol was due to the need for authorization from the commander in chief and the local governing body, including the mayor and the heads of the Capitol Police. Patel's testimony was not made public, despite his request for a public hearing. The committee refused to release his transcript until the last moment. Patel believes his testimony is a key reason why President Trump was not indicted for insurrection.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think we were gonna start with, president Trump. Are they ready to call their 1st witness? Speaker 1: Yes. We would call Kashyap Patel. To your knowledge, did any senior DOJ leader ever state words or substance that they felt they needed more different authorization from president before they could deploy National Guard troops to keep the peace on January 6th? No. So why didn't we have 10,000 National Guard troops suited up and armed guarding the capital in the morning of January Speaker 2: this There's a multitude of reasons. But namely, step 1 was a commander in chief's authorization, which we had. Step 2 was a did Quest by the governing body, the local governing body. It's the mayor since it's Washington DC and or the heads of the Capitol Police Speaker 3: this bureau Speaker 1: and Mr. Patel, I would ask you if you recognize this letter. Speaker 2: I do. It's the letter I referenced from Mayor Bowser, I believe, on January 5th to the Department of defense where she specifically stated we would not be requesting any additional National Guards men and women. And that was her letter to us. Did That was the declination of a request, and so we were on standby. Speaker 1: Did you testify before the January 6th select committee? I did. Were you questioned in a public hearing? Speaker 2: No. They declined my request for a public hearing. Speaker 1: Was your testimony public when given? No. Did you tell them what you told us today about the president and the deployment of National Guard troops? Speaker 2: I believe so. Speaker 1: Did the committee ever call you to testify about those issues in public session? Speaker 0: No. Some of the senior officials, people like Kash Patel, apparently, not available. Speaker 2: We felt it appropriate that the transcript should be made public At some point, and after months long negotiations, they refused to do so and published their final report. And to my memory, it had been excluded. I think on the Eve of the dissolution of the committee, my transcript was the last one released. Speaker 1: I have no further questions, sir. Prisar, thank you very much. Speaker 3: You called their bluff. And what's shocking to me, because I didn't even really understand this, is that did You gave this testimony. Liz Cheney and and and Kinzinger and you guys, he gave this testimony essentially to j six, and they buried it. Speaker 1: Did Some Speaker 0: of the senior officials, people like Kash Patel, apparently, not available. Speaker 3: Did Point blank. Is your testimony basically one of the key reasons that Jack Smith if Can't and won't indict president Trump for insurrection? Speaker 2: You know, I believe so. It's the truth. If if they could've if anyone could've charged president Trump with did Special counsel Jack Smith would have done it.
TiffMoodNukes
Posted - November 17, 2023 at 9:38 PM
Saved - November 18, 2023 at 5:05 PM

@TiffMoodNukes - It's 🇺🇸 Tiff 🇺🇸

There was no “insurrection”. Now release the prisoners https://t.co/JbpmkTnYRP

simonateba
Posted - December 2, 2023 at 12:58 PM
Saved - December 2, 2023 at 7:27 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
In a recent ruling against Trump, a DC judge claimed his speech on January 6th was not protected by the First Amendment. The judge also stated that Trump did not have "presidential immunity" on that day. However, some argue these conclusions are false. The case raises questions about whether a crime was committed and if Trump's speech was protected. It's important not to undermine the law and Constitution for political reasons. Let's focus on the facts rather than personal backgrounds. The ruling is likely to be appealed.

@simonateba - Simon Ateba

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't work for anyone's social media account, but I completely disagree with the ruling against Trump last night. It's a total disgrace and unconstitutional. It's actually a shame and will not stand on appeal. The DC judge claimed that when Trump was speaking on January 6 before the protests at the US Capitol, that speech was not protected by his First Amendment rights. Second and more shockingly, the DC judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, also claimed that Trump was not protected by "presidential immunity" on January 6, 2021, while he was still president. These are very false conclusions by the judge. If Trump had sent American troops to capture a terrorist that day or announced it at that gathering, was that a presidential duty or not? The prosecutors claim that the January 6 event was organized by the campaign. That's completely nonsense. When you're President, you're president until you're no longer in office. But I am no lawyer, and I may be wrong. I just believe that this will not stand on appeal.

@simonateba - Simon Ateba

For those who have not been following, the case is so crazy, was Trump a barber that day? Was he a painter? Could he grant pardon that day or announce it at that event? Was he a driver or the President? And just to clarify again, the judge ruled that Trump and other former presidents "do not have absolute (presidential) immunity for federal crimes committed while in office." Has a crime been established? Was Trump protected by the First Amendment that day? Could he talk about the election? Could he say these elections were rigged against me? Doesn't the First Amendment protect him? You cannot destroy the law and the Constitution to convict one mam ahead of 2024. I'm also against those who claim the judge is ruling this way because she was not born in the United States. That's the wrong way of looking at it. Whether born here or elsewhere, Washington works the same way.....

RealJamesWoods
Posted - December 20, 2023 at 10:36 PM
Saved - December 21, 2023 at 2:18 PM

@RealJamesWoods - James Woods

Garland’s mob never charged Trump with insurrection, because they knew they couldn’t win. So Democrats did the next best thing. Kept repeating a mantra that wasn’t true. Over and over and over again. It’s a trick called the Big Lie, created and perfected by Joseph Goebbels.

13NVESTR13
Posted - December 21, 2023 at 3:30 PM
Saved - December 21, 2023 at 8:11 PM

@13NVESTR13 - Dr. Joker

This is the Twitter 1.0 video that Trump released on Jan. 6th, which was removed. Should Twitter 1.0 be held responsible for promoting an insurrection? Also, what was the FBI’s role? Did they tell Twitter 1.0 to take it down? https://t.co/vZpRjMvqhx

Video Transcript AI Summary
I acknowledge your pain over the election being stolen, which was a landslide victory. It's crucial that we maintain peace, law, and order. We don't want anyone to get hurt. This is an unprecedented time where they took away our victory. Although the election was fraudulent, we must not play into their hands. Please go home peacefully. We love you and appreciate you. You've witnessed the mistreatment of others who are wicked. I understand your emotions, but it's time to go home and find peace.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to Our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt. It's a very tough period of time. There's never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home, we love you, you're very special, you've seen what happens, you see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home at peace.
DC_Draino
Posted - December 22, 2023 at 3:16 PM
Saved - December 22, 2023 at 5:15 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Twitter's deletion of Trump's request for people to go home on J6 raised questions about their intentions. Some speculate that they were trying to limit his ability to activate the Insurrection Act. Deleting the video after 5 minutes could provide a legal argument against the invocation. It's unclear if Trump was attempting to invoke the IA, but these questions remain.

@DC_Draino - DC_Draino

When Twitter deleted Trump’s public request for people to go home on J6 only 5 minutes after he posted it, it seemed very strange Wouldn’t they want peace? Were they trying to frame him for their narrative? But what if there was something else at play… What if they were trying to limit his ability to activate the Insurrection Act? The 1 prerequisite for invoking the IA is to first call for disorderly citizens to go home And what did he say in his video? He called for people to go home Was Twitter trying to thwart Trump’s attempt to comply with these requirements? If so, who was orchestrating this?

@DC_Draino - DC_Draino

Twitter deleted this video of Trump calling for peace & for everyone to go home just minutes after he posted it They wanted J6 chaos to get worse Then they suspended Trump on all social media & said he incited an insurrection He couldn’t defend himself https://t.co/F4LRtWJfua

Video Transcript AI Summary
I acknowledge your pain. The election was stolen from us, despite being a landslide victory. We must now prioritize peace, law, and order. Our aim is to protect our people and prevent any harm. This is an unprecedented time where our democracy has been undermined. Although the election was fraudulent, we must not fall into the trap set by our opponents. I urge you to return home peacefully. Remember, we appreciate and value you. We have witnessed the mistreatment of others who are wicked and malicious. I understand your frustration, but please go home and do so peacefully.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to Our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt. It's a very tough period of time. There's never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home, we love you, you're very special, you've seen what happens, you see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home at peace.

@DC_Draino - DC_Draino

I’m not saying that Twitter deleting the video after 5 minutes nullifies the legality of the IA invocation But it sure does give opposing counsel a compelling legal argument that the public proclamation was only up for 5 minutes so it didn’t fully satisfy the legal requirement under the IA Not saying it’s a winning argument, but it’s a good one To be clear, I don’t know if Trump was attempting to invoke the IA with this video Just asking questions here

kylenabecker
Posted - December 28, 2023 at 3:55 PM
Saved - December 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Donald Trump's alleged promise to step down after the 2020 Election certification is highlighted. The author argues against claims of an insurrection, election overturning, incitement, or coup. They mention Trump's call for peace, which led to his social media ban. Biden's attempt to criminalize calling the election rigged is criticized. The author blames the FBI, Capitol Police, D.C. Mayor, and Pentagon for the Capitol security failure. They suggest an intentional riot by the federal government. The banning of evidence submission and Trump's ability to contest charges are criticized. The author accuses elites of caring only about power and interfering in elections. They claim that election rigging is now openly visible.

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

Did you know: Donald Trump said he would step down from office within hours of the 2020 Election being certified? There was no "insurrection." There was no order to "overturn" the election. There was no "incitement" of the pre-planned riot. There was no "coup." Trump called for peace within hours of the J6 riots. This caused him to be *banned* on all major social media platforms in a breathtaking act of Big Tech collusion that only served to underscore the president's narrative that the election was "rigged." Now, Biden wants to criminalize calling the 2020 election "rigged" while he and his cohorts openly rig the 2024 election. The dirty open secret is that the failure to secure the capitol was not Trump's failure; it was the failure of the FBI, Capitol Police, D.C. Mayor, and Pentagon, who all knew what was coming but conveniently failed to act in order to frame Trump and his supporters. But there is a more insidious truth suggested by videos of undercover police officers urging Trump supporters to "go to the capitol," as well as Capitol Police opening doors and removing barricades, and tear gas being wantonly dispersed into a restrained crowd of Trump supporters. The ugly truth is that the federal government wanted a riot in order to obstruct the election challenges. Now, Jack Smith wants to ban the submission of January 6 evidence that would exonerate Trump with a fair jury and a competent judge. This is in addition to his exculpation under the constitutional process of impeachment, which saw Donald Trump prevail despite dubious proceedings. Judge Chutkan and Jack Smith want to deny Trump the ability to contest these politically motivated charges with facts and evidence that go directly to the heart of the case. It is a further insult to the American people's intelligence proceeding from the January 6 cover-up committee's partisan vendetta to sully a political enemy, rather than seek to find the truth. But the truth is not being allowed to prevail against corrupted elites who care only about their illegitimate ends and nothing about the legitimate means of attaining power. There were legal election challenges, a Constitutionally authorized objection to state elections, and a staged riot that D.C. elites in the Uniparty knew was coming. The ultimate irony is that Jack Smith's purported case against Trump for 'election interference' is itself the most brazen form of election interference in U.S. history. America's elections are no longer being rigged in secret; they are being rigged out in the open for everyone to see.

kylenabecker
Posted - December 29, 2023 at 4:58 PM
Saved - December 29, 2023 at 8:53 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The posts discuss different aspects related to the accusations against Donald Trump regarding the 2020 election. Post 1 presents evidence to support the claim that Trump is wrongly accused. Post 2 questions whether Democrats want to limit the ability to challenge election results. Post 3 denies the claim that Trump sent extremists to disrupt election challenges, calling it a conspiracy theory.

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

Here is the proof that Donald Trump is wrongly accused of seeking to overturn the 2020 election. After exercising his constitutional right to challenge the election, this is what he said within hours of the election being certified. Case closed! https://t.co/pBcWiAZaDp

@realDonaldTrump - Donald J. Trump

https://t.co/csX07ZVWGe

Video Transcript AI Summary
I address the attack on the US Capitol, condemning the violence and lawlessness. The National Guard and federal law enforcement were deployed to secure the building. Those who engaged in violence do not represent our country and will face consequences. Despite contesting the election results, Congress has certified them, and a new administration will be inaugurated. Now, we must focus on a smooth transition of power and healing. The pandemic has been challenging, but we must work together to defeat it and rebuild our economy. We need to emphasize patriotism, faith, charity, community, and family to strengthen our national bonds. Serving as president has been an honor, and our journey is just beginning. Thank you, and God bless America.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States capital. Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness, and mayhem. I immediately deployed the national guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders. America is and must always be a nation of law and order. The demonstrators who infiltrated the capital have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay. We have just been through an intense election and the motions are high, but now tempers must be cooled and calm restored. We must get on with the business of America. My campaign vigorously pursued every legal avenue to contest the election results. My only goal was to ensure the integrity of the vote. In so doing, I was fighting to defend American democracy. I continue to strongly believe that we must reform our election laws to verify the identity and eligibility of all voters and to ensure faith and confidence in all future elections. Now, congress has certified the results. A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th. My focus now turns to assuring a smooth, orderly, and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation. 2020 has been a challenging time for our people. A menacing pandemic has upended the lives of our citizens, isolated millions in their homes, damaged our economy, and claimed countless lives. Defeating this pandemic and rebuilding the greatest economy on earth will require all of us working together. It will require a renewed emphasis on on the civic values of patriotism, faith, charity, community, and family. We must revitalize the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that bind us together as 1 national family. To the citizens of our country, serving as your president It has been the honor of my lifetime, and to all of my wonderful supporters, I know you are disappointed, but I also want you to know that our incredible journey is only just beginning. Thank you. God bless you, and god bless America.

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

Do Democrats want to live in a country where you can't challenge election results in the courts and Congress? Enough of this insanity. Stop the political prosecutions against Donald Trump or the 2024 election is already rigged. Period.

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

Reality check: Donald Trump did NOT send unarmed redneck extremists into the capitol to disrupt the 2020 ELECTION CHALLENGES. There is ZERO evidence of this insane, implausible, and futile plot. It is pure conspiracy theory!

ryanjreilly
Posted - April 8, 2024 at 5:23 PM
Saved - April 9, 2024 at 12:03 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Rebecca Lavrenz entered the Capitol through the east rotunda door on January 6. The person who filmed the video entered roughly 2.5 minutes before Lavrenz. Contrary to claims, the government has not made a sentencing recommendation for Lavrenz yet. Anthony Vo, who entered through a different door, is facing a recommended sentence of 11 months and $500 in restitution. DOJ disputes Vo's claim that there was no violence at the Capitol.

@ryanjreilly - Ryan J. Reilly

If you were wondering how "J6 Praying Grandma" Rebecca Lavrenz entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, here's the east rotunda door she came through. The person filming this video entered the Capitol roughly 2.5 minutes before Lavrenz, who was convicted of misdemeanor offenses. Court evidence from U.S. v. Rhodes et al.:

@ryanjreilly - Ryan J. Reilly

The person who filmed this video showing the same scene also came through the doors roughly 2.5 mins before Lavrenz:

@ryanjreilly - Ryan J. Reilly

You’ll be shocked to learn this isn’t true, and that, in fact, the government has yet to make a sentencing recommendation in Rebecca Lavrenz’s case, given that she was just convicted of misdemeanor offenses and sentencing is still months down the line.

@ryanjreilly - Ryan J. Reilly

“yeah they stood down and retreated after we clearly outnumbered them.” For Anthony Vo (who entered through a door arguably chiller than the one Lavernz entered), DOJ sought 11 months and $500 in restitution. Spoiler: DOJ likely isn't getting 11 months. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.234223/gov.uscourts.dcd.234223.142.0.pdf

#142 in United States v. VO (D.D.C., 1:21-cr-00509) – CourtListener.com SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by USA as to ANTONY VO (Boylan, Eric) (Entered: 04/05/2024) courtlistener.com

@ryanjreilly - Ryan J. Reilly

DOJ says @antonyvo4prez is "outright lying" when he falsely claims there "was no violence" at the Capitol. https://t.co/GSlCbFtAM0

Snowden
Posted - April 25, 2024 at 10:14 PM
Saved - April 25, 2024 at 11:29 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A journalist noticed and then deleted a tweet about the government's argument that no President has ever been prosecuted because no President has ever committed a crime. The suppressed source tweet is available.

@Snowden - Edward Snowden

The journalist who first noticed it deleted her tweet without explanation, but the transcript shows the government really did argue today that the reason no President has ever been prosecuted is that 𝐧𝐨 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞. Wild. https://t.co/uYxW0G8B8A

@Snowden - Edward Snowden

Here's the suppressed source tweet: https://t.co/tss2RaQBhE

The_Nomad_News
Posted - May 16, 2024 at 7:36 PM
Saved - May 26, 2024 at 12:12 PM

@The_Nomad_News - News Nomad 🗞

🚨MUST WATCH: Vivek explains in layman’s terms how prosecutor Alvin Bragg has cobbled together a felony charge against Trump. It doesn’t add up. @VivekGRamaswamy https://t.co/3AWDxAkpMi

Video Transcript AI Summary
Former President Donald Trump is facing charges in a New York courtroom, but it remains unclear what exact crime he is being accused of. The prosecution claims that Trump falsified business records by recording legal expenses as legal expenses, which they argue is a felony. However, this theory fails on multiple levels. Even if it were a crime, it would only be a misdemeanor and falls outside the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the prosecution's argument that these payments should have been recorded as campaign contributions is flawed, as using campaign funds for personal expenses is also illegal. The entire case appears to be a politicized prosecution based on false premises.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is what exactly is the crime that Donald Trump is being charged with here? It's a legitimate question to ask. What exactly is the crime that has a former president of the United States sitting in a courtroom from 9 AM to 6 PM or 9 AM to 5 PM every day or 4 PM, what exactly is the crime at issue? Nobody seems to have a good answer to that question. They've said a lot of things that he did, a lot of paperwork here and there, hush money payments. People understand the atmosphere, the vibe of something that happened that seems sinister and wrong. But, again, a clear statement of what exactly is the crime. There's a lack of a good answer to that question. And after the period of the trial that I attended where Michael Cohen testified, that answer is now less clear than it ever was. So what you saw for hours, I was in the courtroom while they did this, was Michael Cohen going through invoice after invoice that he submitted for Donald Trump in the name of legal services. And Michael Cohen on the stand, the guy who has perjured himself lied over and over and actually said so yesterday, the countless number of times that he had lied before, says that, you know what? That was his falsifying of a business record. That was his alleged violation of not actually submitting a legal receipt as something that was something other than a legal receipt submitted as a legal receipt. So I think Michael Cohen for several hours during the time that I was there established that he had submitted false receipts, but what exactly was the crime that Donald Trump committed? Nobody has yet answered that question. Now I'll tell you what their prosecution's theory of the case is. Prosecution's theory of the case is that Donald Trump participated in falsifying those business records based on how those were recorded. Those legal invoices that came in were recorded as legal expenses. And supposedly, that's an allegation involving falsification of a business record. Well, let's take a look at that for a second. If you're running a business and a lawyer sends you an invoice citing legal expenses, and for all you know, that is to settle an NDA or a nondisclosure agreement that that lawyer made on your behalf that involves foreclosing a legal liability. The alleged crime here of Donald Trump falsifying a legal record, a business record. Not Michael Cohen, who's writing up false invoices that he claims he thinks are false invoices, but Donald Trump and his business recording a legal invoice as a legal expense. That's the heart of what they're challenging here. Well, what else are you supposed to do when an attorney sends you a legal invoice for something relates to a legal matter involving an NDA and the enforcement of NDA and avoidance of liability under that NDA, recording that as a legal expense, that is what they would say is falsifying a business record. That fails on its own terms. But let's go a layer deeper into this. This is where going into the details of the law actually matter. That alleged crime, even if it was committed, which for the reason we discussed, if you get a legal expense, you're running a business, a lawyer, an outside lawyer sends you an invoice. It says it's for legal services. You know it relates to dealing with a legal matter, and you record it as a legal expense in your business ledger, to call that a crime itself should frighten every business owner, not just in New York, but any other jurisdiction in the United States where they're gonna adopt this kind of politics in prosecution. Even if you accept that ridiculous theory that that itself was a crime, look at the New York law. Under New York law, that supposed crime is only a misdemeanor. It's not a felony. Donald Trump is being charged with a felony. I'll get to that in a second. But that crime of falsifying that business record, failing to record that nonlegal expense, but recording it as a legal expense, That is only a crime up to the level of being a misdemeanor. You can't go to prison over it. Right? It's not a felony. It's the kind of thing that involves, you know, to say say you accidentally run through a yellow right, but actually learn turn red. Let's say you're speeding on the highway. These are things that are classified as misdemeanors, not as felonies. Furthermore, that misdemeanor has what's called a statute of limitations applied to it. What's a statute of limitations? It's a basic concept in the law that says, after a certain amount of time, we don't want people thinking about certain transgressions and have it way over their life. The prosecution or the government has a certain amount of time to charge a crime. That's what's called the statute of limitations. And the statute of limitations for this particular alleged crime or misdemeanor is 5 years. Trump's actions here that are alleged are far beyond that 5 years. So in order to be able to actually charge this crime and bring it within the statute of limitations, and to further be able to charge it as a felony, something that could send you to prison, not just something that would have you have a small fine for misdemeanor, they had to charge a different underlying crime. That's what the New York law requires. It says that unless this falsifying business record was in furtherance of a separate felony, you could only charge that as a misdemeanor. And by the way, you only have 5 years to do it. There's no way they could have brought this case. And even if they brought this case within that 5 years, they couldn't have charged it as a felony, but they're charging as a felony long after that 5 year window. So that 5 year window then expands if you're charging it as a felony. Here's a funny little wrinkle that other people haven't commented on. Even the felony charge has a statute of limitations that would have otherwise expired, but for certain exemptions that the prosecution has asked for because of COVID that should further extend that statute of limitations even for the felony. So that's a side wrinkle I'm not even gonna go into in-depth. But using every little potential exception or trick in the book, what they're saying is that this allegation of falsifying business records recording a legal expense as a legal expense in a business ledger, that that supposed crime is no longer just a misdemeanor, but is a felony, and it can be charged outside the statute of limitations because it is in furtherance of another crime, another felony. That's the heart of this case in New York. What is that felony, you might ask? Here's what it is. They're claiming that this is a violation of federal campaign finance laws. So this is interesting. Alvin Bragg, the DA in Manhattan, is a local DA. He operates and enforces supposedly state laws. Side note, look at New York City where I actually was yesterday in the courthouse, recording it right here this morning before leaving town. It's interesting how that you could go left and right in New York City to see crimes being committed on any given day. I used to live in New York a decade ago. It's not the same city as today, and yet the concern of local prosecutors in New York is not to actually stop the violent crime being committed across the city and across the state, but instead to go after fictitious crimes that are politicized in nature. It's funny how that works. But his pursuit of going after it says he could go after local crimes enforcing the state law. Why would Alvin Bragg bring a case involving federal law? He can't. But the contorted legal theory is he can bring that federal law in if it's tied to the falsification of a business record, which is in New York law. He couldn't charge the falsification of a business record under New York law unless he tied in that federal crime. So they're really walking on a tight rope here to say that he gets to charge the New York misdemeanor under New York state law as a felony outside the statute of limitations because he charges a separate underlying federal crime. But he couldn't have otherwise charged that federal crime were it not for the auspices of doing it under a state law that itself has expired. So that's a funny little dance right there. But now let's go into even further detail. His whole theory of the case is that not only did Donald Trump falsify business record, which is a misdemeanor, but that it becomes a felony that the New York prosecutor is able to charge under state law because it was in furtherance of a federal crime of a campaign finance violation. What is that campaign finance violation, you might ask? Here's the whole theory of the case. The entire case comes down to this one question. Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor here at the New York prosecution, claims that this was a constructive campaign contribution. What was the this? This was the payments made to my Michael Cohen, which they say were reimbursements for Stormy Daniels' hush money payment. An NDA that Stormy Daniels signed to say that she could not talk publicly about her alleged the affair that she alleged with Donald Trump. Donald Trump has denied the affair, but that she alleges it, but nonetheless, that they signed an NDA with her to make sure that she couldn't speak about it publicly. There's nothing illegal about an NDA. But what they're saying is the use of those payments to Michael Cohen, which they alleged were misrecorded by the Trump Organization, were actually campaign contributions that were paid for by personal money but should have been paid for by campaign funds or should have been recorded as a campaign contribution. That's the heart of this entire case of what makes this a supposed felony is that these alleged payments to Michael Cohen, which were alleged to be reimbursements for a Rory Stormy Daniels payment to enforce an NDA, that those should have been recorded as a campaign contribution rather than just the personal payment that they were actually made through. Let's examine that for a second. The idea the idea that a personal hush money payment should have been made and recorded as a campaign contribution, should have been made out of campaign funds, is actually a laughable idea. Let's have the same shoe on the other foot. They're gonna get the best litmus test for whether a prosecution is politicized. Here's what it is. If the defendant would have done the exact opposite, the exact opposite thing of what the prosecution wanted, The exact opposite thing of what the prosecution says. Prosecutor says this is a crime. What you did was a crime. Suppose the defendant did the exact opposite thing of what the prosecution is alleging. If the prosecution could have still brought that case and would have still brought that case, that proves that it's a politicized prosecution. Right? Because if you do a, they're gonna prosecute you. They say a is a crime. Well, let's say you do the exact opposite of a, the thing that they claim in this case that you should have otherwise done, And then they would still come after you for it. That means they were gonna get you either way. That's a politicized prosecution. This is a classic textbook case. This will be taught in law schools for the next century. It certainly should be as an example of what is a politicized prosecution, because let's examine this claim. The New York prosecution rests on the idea. The entire case rests on the idea that Donald Trump failed to record a personal hush money payment as a campaign contribution because part of the point of making that contribution was to influence the perception of voters. Being having Stormy Daniels stay quiet was supposedly to improve the perception of voters. Even if you accept those facts, which are being contested in court, even if you accept those facts, if Donald Trump had used campaign funds to make a personal hush money payment, they would no doubt be prosecuting him for that. And the irony is they'd have an even stronger case for doing it. There's good examples of this. You don't have to surmise. Take politicians who for years you have congressman. You have Sarah Palin caught up in something like this where she was alleged to have used campaign funds for personal expense. Let's say it's the clothing you buy. Suppose you wanna dress up in a nice suit and tie, but you feel like you wouldn't have bought that nice suit and tie of that quality, spending $5,000 or whatever it would be for a nice suit, you wouldn't spend that money as a politician who hasn't achieved 1,000,000 and is not yet a millionaire, but wants to go into public service. Say that, you know what? I'm gonna use campaign funds to do something that affects the perception of voters, that voters have of me. If I show up in a ratty gym t shirt and shorts, I don't think voters are gonna vote for me, even if that's what I normally wear. So I'm going to incur an expense that is designed with the goal of influencing the voters' perception of me. So let's say a Republican politician decides, you know what? I wasn't gonna spend that personal money on a suit for my personal life, but the only reason I'm gonna buy that $5,000 suit is because I want to influence voters' perceptions of me. That's a reasonable basis for many politicians to believe they're going to actually have voter perceptions affected by how they dress. Now multiple congressmen back in 2009 used this argument to use campaign money to buy personal attire. Sarah Palin got caught up in what became a similar scandal. But what the Federal Election Commission viewing federal law says is political candidates cannot use campaign funds to make a personal clothing payment, a personal sartorial choice, even if it is explicitly designed to influence the perception of voters. Interesting how that works. So the prosecution's entire theory of the case here is that Donald Trump is making a personal hush money payment. There's all kinds of personal reasons, very much a personal issue of whether or not somebody's making a false allegation of an affair they had with you or an allegation of any kind that they had an affair with you. But you're entering an NDA as a married person, as somebody who has all kinds of personal and business reputation to maintain, to sign an NDA with them. But to say that no. No. No. No. Because that could influence voters' perception of you that you had to use campaign funds to do it. Had he used the campaign funds to make that payment, they would be going after him for misusing campaign funds to advance a personal goal. The exact same thing they did to congressmen and other candidates who have used campaign funds to buy personal clothing. Let's go through any other example. Say it's to get a haircut. I wouldn't have gotten a haircut. Certainly not an expensive fancy one. You could pay $300 for a haircut. Well, you only might get that haircut as a politician if you really care about the way you present yourself on a debate stage in the media to voters, to influence voters perceptions of you. If you had a politician who was using campaign funds to make personal haircut payments, there is no doubt that federal prosecutors or the Federal Election Commission would be coming after you for that as opposed to saying that if you used those same campaign funds for getting a haircut, you wanted to look good for voters at a rally or at a debate, to then say that, oh, no. No. No. Because that was designed to influence voters' perceptions of you, somehow that was supposed to have been made using campaign funds. That means there's literally no way to run for office. Because on one hand, if you use campaign funds to make a personal payment, they're gonna come after you for that. And then if you make a personal payment, but it was designed with somehow influencing the perceptions of voters of you, that you were gonna get dinged because it should have been a campaign expense. They're gonna get you either way, but the question is, do they like you as the actual defendant? Do they like your politics? Do they like what you represent? That's what this case is actually about. Imagine if Donald Trump who rides around in planes that land in hangars. It says, Trump on the plane. Part of his brand is success, landing at rallies that have been held at hangars. Suppose his he bought that personal airplane and owned it because he says, my ownership of an airplane is gonna affect voters' perceptions of me. Had he used campaign funds to do that, that would be a scandal on the front page of the New York Times, likely federal action against him for that. Yet the entire prosecution's theory of the case is, oh, if you're using funds to influence voters perceptions of you, you are committing a crime unless you use campaign funds to do it. It is an impossible bind. It is a Hobson's choice. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's really what's going on here. So back to the heart of this case, the original question I asked, what exactly is the crime that Donald Trump committed? They say it was falsifying a business record in furtherance of influencing an election with an illegal campaign contribution. It fails on every metric of that test. First of all, recording a legal expense as a legal expense was the alleged falsification of a business record. That itself fails on its own terms. Even if that was a crime, it was only a misdemeanor that fell outside the statute of limitations. And the only way they were able to upcharge it as a felony was by tying it to a federal crime that local prosecutors otherwise could not have charged. But that federal crime involves using personal money to make a personal payment. And had he used campaign funds to do it as the prosecution alleges that he was obligated to, he actually would be in violation of laws based on precedents set by federal regulators and federal prosecutors in the past. That's where we are right now with this case. It was clearer to me than ever after watching Michael Cohen testify that the entire legal premise for the case rests on these falsehoods.
thevivafrei
Posted - January 14, 2025 at 1:41 PM
Saved - January 15, 2025 at 1:55 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The recently released Jack Smith report raises serious concerns. It reveals that prosecutors considered but ultimately chose not to charge Trump under the "insurrection act," suggesting that the impeachment effort was based on something they deemed unchargeable. Additionally, the report references a Colorado decision that was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, which undermines its credibility. I believe Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, and the Biden administration are engaging in serious misconduct.

@thevivafrei - Viva Frei

You want to know what a dirty “legal wrap-up smear” the freshly-released Jack Smith report is? The report admits they contemplated but DECLINED charging Trump with a violation of the “insurrection act”. Which means they tried to impeach Trump for something prosecutors decided he could not be charged with. Worse still, the report claims “Courts have found or described the attack on the capital as an insurrection”. Citing the Colorado decision (!!!) which was UNANIMOUSLY overturned by the Supreme Court. Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, and the entire Biden administration are criminals of the highest order.

JohnStrandUSA
Posted - February 1, 2025 at 4:20 AM
Saved - February 1, 2025 at 4:52 PM

@JohnStrandUSA - John Strand

FACT: The crime of insurrection in the U.S. is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2383 FACT: Nobody was charged with insurrection on J6. FACT: Smearing J6ers as insurrectionists is an obviously false defamatory act. Who’s ready for defamation lawsuits? 🙋🏻‍♂️

RealSLokhova
Posted - January 27, 2026 at 10:20 AM
Saved - January 28, 2026 at 1:31 AM

@RealSLokhova - Svetlana Lokhova

WILL WE FINALLY SEE ACCOUNTABILITY? 3 MIN SUMMARY Full 3 hour interview about the seditious conspiracy against President Trump in comments https://t.co/9cj2C1MkCQ

Video Transcript AI Summary
Svetlana Lekova, described as an encyclopedia on accountability, has spent about ten years studying the subject and working with the Durham investigation. She says she has read every document, every note in every annex, including documents that were declassified by President Trump, then reclassified by Joe Biden after he “stole the election,” and then declassified again by Trump when he came into office. She rejects the claim that President Trump gave her classified documents. Despite ongoing accusations, she notes that they have not stopped pursuing her and she has not stopped fighting. Lekova requests the audience to consider the Florida case she views as significant and to explain what it is about. She asserts that accountability is finally, hopefully, happening, but she remains cautious because of what she has seen in other high-profile cases, such as Jim Comey, where she believes the judiciary, juries, and prosecutors have been compromised. After ten years of involvement with the Durham investigation, she had been told there would be prosecutions. She recalls that prosecutors had Hillary Clinton under oath and John Brennan under oath, and that it was a criminal investigation. Then, according to her, it “disappeared,” and nothing happened. Lekova describes a sequence where authorities raided the president’s home, and he was “almost assassinated,” with attempts to jail him. She says the result appeared to be that not only would the “bad guys” not go to jail, but the “good guy” trying to bring them to account would end up jailed for the rest of his life, at least in their perception of the situation. She notes that President Trump, through what she calls “amazing” grace, managed to come back and that “you guys somehow managed to vote him in” in such large numbers that there was no alternative for the election. She asserts that the first thing he did upon returning was to promise accountability. Speaker 0 clarifies the context by noting that the Florida case is “so significant” and asks Lekova to describe what it is really about. Speaker 1 reiterates that accountability is being pursued, acknowledging historical concerns about the judicial system, including the perception of brainwashed juries and corrupt prosecutors, and explains that, after a long period of inertia in the justice process, President Trump’s reelection framed the possibility of accountability and that he, as president, has the responsibility to hold the bad guys accountable because he is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So many of us are wondering about accountability, but the one woman who's like an encyclopedia as a professor, you know, she didn't become a professor by being dumb, but Svetlana Lekova has spent the better part of ten years now studying this. She worked with the Durham investigation. She has read every single document, everything in the annex, every note in every annex. She has, documents that were declassified by president Trump, then reclassified by Joe Biden after he stole the election, and then declassified again by president Trump when he came into office. They tried to say that president Trump gave her classified documents. That was a lie. They haven't stopped going after her, and she hasn't stopped fighting. So Svetlana, can you take us through this case in Florida that you think is so significant and just explain what it's really about? Speaker 1: First of all, you're right that we're finally finally seeing, hopefully, accountability. We obviously don't know because you know, we've unfortunately seen in the cases where for example, they indicted Jim Comey, that unfortunately the judicial system is in a very bad place. We have access to judges, have this completely brainwashed juries, and we have corrupt prosecutors and everything in between. So usually I would say having dealt with this whole thing for about ten years and having hoped for accountability for ten years, I initially, to be honest, gave up on hoping that there will be any accountability because when I worked closely with the DIRUM investigation, I was told and I had the prosecutor assigned to this Russia gay case who was speaking to me. I knew there was going to be prosecutions. They've gone as far as putting Hillary Clinton under oath and John Brannon under oath. It was a criminal investigation. And then boom, it just disappeared. Nothing happened. So I frankly did not expect anything to happen. Then of course, they almost, you know, they raided the president's home. Then obviously, he was almost assassinated. Then they were trying to jail him. So the end result was that, you know, not only they were never going to be accountability, it looked like, you know, we had the mugshot, you know, being paraded around of the president of The United States. So it looks like not only the bad guys will never go to jail, but in fact, the good guy who was trying to bring them to account is instead going to go to jail for the rest of his life. So that was that. And then only through some amazing, I suppose grace, I don't know how else to call it, president Trump somehow managed to come back and you guys somehow managed to vote him in. And I suppose you're right in such droves to vote him in that they couldn't do anything about this particular election and he came back. And the first thing he did is he promised, you know, among other things, he promised accountability. Speaker 0: That's Speaker 1: correct. He promised it for two reasons. One is obviously because, you know, those who committed crimes need to be held accountable. He is a chief law enforcement of The United States. Sorry, chief law enforcement officer of The United States. So, as a president, he actually has the responsibility to hold the bad guys accountable. It's his job.
View Full Interactive Feed