Are you claiming that Trump is currently engaged in insurrection right now?
No. What he's doing now is attempting to intimidate witnesses and jurors, and to incite an angry mob to form outside the courthouse and do what angry mobs do.
What exactly is the speech you are referring to and when and where did this speech take place?
I wrote, Trump "called for violence outside of the courthouse and has called for violence if he loses to Biden again."
I read and hear a lot and don't recall exactly where I learned those things, but you can investigate my claims if you're so motivated. I Googled "trump calls for violence." These describe Trump's propensity for thuggery in general:
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/02/trump-call-violence-presidency
Trump under fire again for violent language and dehumanizing anti-immigrant rhetoric
Trump ramps up violent rhetoric
Trump's Ugly Calls For Violence Laid Out In Chilling New Supercut Video
Then I modified the search to "trump calls for violence if he loses election"
‘It’ll be bedlam’: how Trump is creating conditions for a post-election eruption
Trump says there will be a 'bloodbath' if he loses the election
Then I searched this: "trump calls for mobs outside courthouse"
Why MAGA ignores Trump's pleas to "RALLY" at court
The Circus Trump Wanted Outside His Trial Hasn’t Arrived
If you're interested, look at those links or do some searches of your own. But the fact that you know none of this yet tells me that you don't want to know it. You have access to the same news that I do.
when you say "juries won't buy that or be fooled", it is really because these juries are formed from predominantly Trump-hating poltically Democrat populations caring more about getting Trump than being impartial jurors.
I guess that you weren't following the voir dire. What you call Trump-haters were disqualified from participating on the jury following background checks on social media by defense attorneys. I would be disqualified based on my Facebook and RF posting.
Did you see this? An attorney for the defense questioning one potential juror said, “It says here that you tweeted, ahem, and I quote ‘**** that treasonous orange sh**gibbon and the dead ferret on his head’ - is that accurate?" This person didn't make the jury.
it is not a revolt or a rebellion.
Yes, it was, and not just any revolt or rebellion, but rather, one against a government, which makes it rise to the definition of insurrection.
what coup atttempt? Electors?!?
It was multifaceted. Besides the fake electors and the J6 insurrection. There is also phone calls to Secretaries of State. Georgia's got him in its crosshairs, but it looks like Arizona will be next, and possibly Nevada. Also, the disinformation about Dominion voting machines, which is civil, but has been adjudicated against. Also, the terrorizing of election workers, which Rudy lot a huge judgment over. There was also a breach of a voting machine.
And that's just the thing they did. There are also the plans they opted against including eleventh hour firings of acting Attorneys General and a discussion about seizing voting machines.
Technically, all of this together constitutes a failed self-coup. An attempted coup is when an outgroup tries to seize the government illegally. When the head of state does the same thing to hold power, it's called self-coup.
I was referring to the over-zealous prosecution of Jan 6th protesters.
You wrote, "Such questions can easily be asked of those that engage in politically motivated prosecution with the intent to quell free speech"
I answered, "With Trump, grand juries everywhere approved of the indictments. It's not Trump's politics that are at issue. It's his crimes against the people that are being adjudicated."
OK. They were also indicted by grand juries. Even if the prosecutors were politically motivated, grand juries aren't, which is why they are a key element in the road to indictment. They are a safeguard to try to prevent that kind of thing.
we can talk about Trump's free speech being infringed also.
Trump's free speech is not being infringed upon. Yes, he has been gagged, but the speech prevented is not protected.
The people have a right to hear Trump's opinion during an election.
Not all of them. Campaigning doesn't include the right to demean and pejorate the judge, his daughter, jurors, or witnesses. This is the kind of speech the gag order suppresses, not his legitimate campaigning about his border policy or his plans to rein in inflation, which are still protected.
time spent in court is time Trump could've spent campaigning.
Yes, but unfortunately for him, his criminal past has caught up with him, and now he has an obligation to be in courtrooms. His claim of election interference is as impotent as his claim that his First Amendment rights are being violated.
Definitions matter. Something isn't an insurrection just because you say it is.
You're still evading my point. If not insurrection, whatever your name for an organized, violent uprising against a government, it's still illegal, so why are you an apologist for that?
Explain why you're okay with smearing the people who protested peacefully by labeling them insurrectionists.
I don't call any peaceful people present insurrectionists.
You know that Trump was cleared on the question of rape by the jury's verdict. Are you insisting on reworking the definition of rape just so you can accuse Trump of "rape" instead of accusing him of "sexual abuse"? Why?
And here you are doing it again. You want to sanitize what Trump did by excluding the word rape. Fine. Use your own word for forcibly inserting fingers into a woman. How about sexual predation with assault and battery? And then explain why that's OK with you and why you're an apologist for that as well.
What do you stand for? Do you think that crime should not be prosecuted if the alleged criminal is Trump? Maybe, especially if you get your information from conservative indoctrination media. Jesse Watters was recently outraged that the prospective juror who was chosen and then quit out of fear when the media had released enough information about her that people who knew her recognized that she had been chosen for the jury and began contacting her - he was outraged that she had said that nobody is above the law. From
Jesse Watters Goes Juror by Juror to Sow Doubt in Trump Case
The second juror, Watters described, is “a nurse from the Upper East Side with a Masters degree.”
“She’s not married, has no kids and lives with her fiancé who works in finance,” Watters said, chuckling for some reason. “She gets her news from The New York Times, Google and CNN.”
Two items in this juror’s questionnaire “really stuck out,” according to Watters: “‘I don’t really have an opinion of Trump,’ and ‘No one is above the law.’ I’m not so sure about juror No. 2,” Watters reacted, stopping short of explaining why. Watters later said vaguely that he found her to be “concerning.”
You can see how Watters outed this juror to people that knew her and her fiancé.
Also, you can see that Watters is essentially saying that he doesn't trust this woman for, among other things, saying that nobody is against the law. He was apparently offended or alarmed by that notion.
This is juror intimidation, and in the case of juror No. 2, it worked. She's been replaced. And she was typical of the jurors selected in having little to no opinion about Trump. There are plenty of decent, educated people in NYC like her who are simply apolitical. The people like you and me didn't make the jury.
