Twitter Arguments

This is the argument being made by Trump apologists. “The 1st Amendment protects all speech” so Trump can’t be prosecuted. So all the people who solicited someone to commit murder, or arraigned a drug deal on a tapped phone, or organized a bank robbery, can’t be prosecuted? pic.twitter.com/ciRicDXJXw

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) August 2, 2023

My former partner, Trump’s lawyer John Lauro, was just on @cnn revealing the defense case based on the 1st Amendment & advice of counsel

Nonsense! Both arguments fly in the face of the law as I explained 👉 https://t.co/OiP20cQAJT

At 10PM ET @cnn I’ll analyze w @thelauracoates pic.twitter.com/LUuODUTHfm

— Norm Eisen (norm.eisen on Threads) (@NormEisen) August 2, 2023

One fit for twits, that is.

Collins: The 1st amendment doesn't allow the president to go and claim there was fraud when he
was told there was no fraud and then try to subvert the election by overturning legitimate electors.

Lauro: Absolutely, the first amendment protects all speech pic.twitter.com/XOmlngEuSJ

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 2, 2023

The odds of any of these defenses reaching the courthouse? Zero.

Lauro: President Trump will have subpoena power in connection with this case so we will have the opportunity to subpoena documents/witnesses to get to the truth as to what happened in 2020… pic.twitter.com/OCB5fX9fNk

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 2, 2023

60 prior failed cases say: ”NO!”

John Eastman, who made the final ask,
literally proposed it to Pence as a violation of the law. His words. https://t.co/ECFpBHfNrR pic.twitter.com/fdd1hrkb5J

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) August 2, 2023

Two wrongs make it alright.

Hannity; This is an incredibly weak, baseless, convoluted indictment, it is bizarrely centered around what is clearly protected speech, zero criminal statutes, because there are none that were applicable that are actually written into law. pic.twitter.com/zhWKVUlzuw

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 2, 2023

Sean Hannity, legul kownsil.

Jesse Watters: "Maybe send in some Trump electors, and if it shakes out differently, they're on standby. How is that a crime?" pic.twitter.com/8o4CHayYZR

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 2, 2023

Jesse Watters, legal beagle.

Alina Habba says it will be hard to prove the case against Trump because he still believes the election was “stolen” and says Jack Smith needs to do his research pic.twitter.com/4ddpbnSJaE

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 2, 2023

The bank robber who believes the bank’s money was his.

Our jails are filled with people who claimed ignorance of the law. https://t.co/8K6XsSazaa

— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) August 2, 2023

Exactly.

Striking passage from the indictment here: Trump reinserted language attacking Pence into his speech to the 1/6 mob right after Pence rebuffed his pressure to halt the electoral count. Suggests Trump expressly understood the mob as his weapon of pressure against Pence. pic.twitter.com/2VlKVRzSQW

— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) August 1, 2023

The more he struggles, the tighter the net.

Trump's main problem with a good faith reliance on advice of counsel defense is that he can't and won't testify. Therefore, he has no way to present such a defense. https://t.co/wD80vSXHCh

— Elizabeth de la Vega (@Delavegalaw) August 2, 2023

Aside from the fact most of those lawyers are co-conspirators, the evidence can’t be presented (again!) without Trump’s testimony.

Special Counsel Jack Smith says it all in Paragraph 1 of the Jan 6 indictment against former President Donald: Trump lost the 2020 presidential election. pic.twitter.com/EJkYUogac1

— Shanlon Wu (@shanlonwu) August 1, 2023

An example of how evidence works. That highlighted sentence will have to be proven (with evidence), in court. Doing so undermines a Trump defense that he believed he won.). The other problem for Trump is that he would have to testify to that belief, or it isn’t evidence.

Media: @gtconway3d to @wolfblitzer: "All the evidence comes from #Republicans. If you go through this indictment and you annotate the paragraphs to figure out who are the witnesses the #SpecialCounsel would use to prove particular points, they're all Republicans. Those are the… pic.twitter.com/zI8ecZH6e7

— Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) August 2, 2023

RINO’s, obviously.

You’re never gonna believe how old the document we judge all our laws against is bro pic.twitter.com/YOePtl0B0Q

— Matt Novak (@paleofuture) August 1, 2023

Statute of limitations for laws more than 100 years old!

Most of the defenses I’m hearing on Fox tonight are variations of this tweet but with elections https://t.co/fyB2vpoZ8Y

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 2, 2023