Has anyone at Fox News actually read the indictments?

[BioHawk]

They keep saying Trump was indicted for the things he said, when he was actually indicted for the things he did. Nobody seems to understand that, or at the very least they certainly don't want their viewers to understand that. Oh well, it will all come out in the trial that Fox won't cover so they can just tell their viewers whatever they want.

 

[lucas80]

I assume a few have, but only to look for talking points. Laura Ingraham is supposedly smart, but she must not have read the parts that came from testimony by Mike Pence. She must have skimmed past the false electors.
Faux News isn't doing their viewers any favors. It reminds me of the run up to 1/6. Ignoring the truth, pushing falsehoods, and agitating those with violent tendencies. Great for ratings, but bad for America.
For all of those complaining about a trial in DC which is heavily blue, Jack Smith should try and exclude any viewers of Fox from the jury.

 

[ConvenientParking]

Something like 99% of 2020 Trump voters are convinced he's been indicted for protected speech and if he's convicted the Supreme Court will toss it out

 

[TheCainer]

They have to do whatever it takes to keep their ratings up. Newsmax is closing the gap.

 

[Scruddy]

Alan dershowitz did. He said scotus would throw it in the trash it's so bad lol

 

[MitchLL]

Fox is still teetering on jumping back on the Trump train or hanging with RonnyBoy for awhile longer.

I don't think Rupert wants to back Turd, but if he's the nominee, they have no choice.

So Fox ignores the truth for now and continues on the Hunter tour.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Can any of them read? And the ones that can, do they have the capability to maintain focus long enough to get very far in their reading.

 

[NutZac]

They keep saying Trump was indicted for the things he said, when he was actually indicted for the things he did. Nobody seems to understand that, or at the very least they certainly don't want their viewers to understand that. Oh well, it will all come out in the trial that Fox won't cover so they can just tell their viewers whatever they want.

That’s what you have done with day? Haahahaha. Sad. Nice post!

 

[BioHawk]

That’s what you have done with day? Haahahaha. Sad. Nice post!

It's complicated. I'm not watching this because I have a choice.

 

[BioHawk]

Alan dershowitz did. He said scotus would throw it in the trash it's so bad lol

It's a real shame that you don't face any consequences for stuff like this. Oh well, you will be wrong again.

 

[lucas80]

That’s what you have done with day? Haahahaha. Sad. Nice post!

You're woke, Bro!

 

[Scruddy]

It's a real shame that you don't face any consequences for stuff like this. Oh well, you will be wrong again.

For stuff like what? Quoting a famed attorney and Harvard professor? Or just "wrongthink" in general? I know this quote isn't in line with the cult's mentality..

 

[BioHawk]

For stuff like what? Quoting a famed attorney and Harvard professor? Or just "wrongthink" in general? I know this quote isn't in line with the cult's mentality..

Well, that's one guy. There are dozens of other experts who feel the exact opposite of him. But again, the nice thing is we will get to find out who is right and who is wrong. My money is not on "The Supreme Court trashing the case".

 

[Scruddy]

Well, that's one guy. There are dozens of other experts who feel the exact opposite of him. But again, the nice thing is we will get to find out who is right and who is wrong. My money is not on "The Supreme Court trashing the case".

Cool cool.. and which one of those people who disagrees is a professor of law at Harvard?

 

[HawkNester]

Cool cool.. and which one of those people who disagrees is a professor of law at Harvard?

You should probably do some deeper research on Dershowitz.

 

[Tom Paris]

They keep saying Trump was indicted for the things he said, when he was actually indicted for the things he did. Nobody seems to understand that, or at the very least they certainly don't want their viewers to understand that. Oh well, it will all come out in the trial that Fox won't cover so they can just tell their viewers whatever they want.

You can tell their viewers because they’re using this talking point. He’s going to prison for what he did. They just refuse to believe it.

 

[HawkNester]

You can tell their viewers because they’re using this talking point. He’s going to prison for what he did and they know it.

FIFY

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Faux news does not give a shit about the facts

 

[Joes Place]

 

[GOHOX69]

Alan dershowitz did. He said scotus would throw it in the trash it's so bad lol

Shouldn't he busy with preteen girls?

 

[Joes Place]

Shouldn't he busy with preteen girls?

Why do you think he's issuing these "opinions"

The folks w/ the pre-teen girls videos of him are handing him his scripts.

 

[SSG T]

They keep saying Trump was indicted for the things he said, when he was actually indicted for the things he did. Nobody seems to understand that, or at the very least they certainly don't want their viewers to understand that. Oh well, it will all come out in the trial that Fox won't cover so they can just tell their viewers whatever they want.

I'm guessing someone has.

However, do you really think they want their viewers to know what the indictments really say.

 

[SSG T]

Alan dershowitz did. He said scotus would throw it in the trash it's so bad lol

Well, Alan Dershowitz is trash, so there's that.

 

[Joes Place]

 

[Scruddy]

Well, Alan Dershowitz is trash, so there's that.

Are you a law professor at Harvard?

 

[Titanhawk2]

They keep saying Trump was indicted for the things he said, when he was actually indicted for the things he did. Nobody seems to understand that, or at the very least they certainly don't want their viewers to understand that. Oh well, it will all come out in the trial that Fox won't cover so they can just tell their viewers whatever they want.

He didn't DO anything. Name one thing he did that was not vocal attempts at getting someone else to stop things? Why do you think they use the "Conspiracy" aspect? Because they cannot point to anything anybody did.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Even if he is indicted entirely for things he said, why does anyone think that those shouldn't be crimes.

"I'll give you $100,000 to kill someone" is still something you said . . . AND also pretty clearly a crime.

 

[Joes Place]

He didn't DO anything.

LMAO

Read the frigging indictment, Cletus.

 

[GOHOX69]

Are you a law professor at Harvard?

Neither is the dersh any more.

 

[Scruddy]

Neither is the dersh any more.

Alan M. Dershowitz - Harvard Law School

Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is Brooklyn native who has been called “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer” and one of its “most distinguished defenders of individual rights,” “the best-known criminal lawyer in the world,” “the top lawyer of last resort,” “America’s most public...

hls.harvard.edu

You should let Harvard know

 

[ConvenientParking]

Alan M. Dershowitz - Harvard Law School

Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is Brooklyn native who has been called “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer” and one of its “most distinguished defenders of individual rights,” “the best-known criminal lawyer in the world,” “the top lawyer of last resort,” “America’s most public...

hls.harvard.edu

You should let Harvard know

Professor Emeritus? Do you know what that is?

 

[Scruddy]

Professor Emeritus? Do you know what that is?

"Professor"

 

[RileyHawk]

For stuff like what? Quoting a famed attorney and Harvard professor? Or just "wrongthink" in general? I know this quote isn't in line with the cult's mentality..

For quoting a Trump shill.

That and for being an abject moron.

 

[Joes Place]

Professor Emeritus? Do you know what that is?

No....he does not...

(Alt Answer: "Who is Professor Emeritus, and why does he show up at so many universities?")

 

[RileyHawk]

Cool cool.. and which one of those people who disagrees is a professor of law at Harvard?

Laurence Tribe, for one.

 

[tumorboy]

Even if he is indicted entirely for things he said, why does anyone think that those shouldn't be crimes.

"I'll give you $100,000 to kill someone" is still something you said . . . AND also pretty clearly a crime.

Charles Manson didn't do anything.

 

[MitchLL]

Dershowitz is about two steps behind Rudy on the "credibility" scale.

He helped get OJ off, so he's scum on most folk's radar.

 

[sober_teacher]

"Professor"

In academia
In the United States and other countries, a tenured full professor who retires from an educational institution in good standing may be given the title "professor emeritus". The title "professor emerita" is sometimes used for women.

There. You learned something today.

 

[Joes Place]

He didn't DO anything. Name one thing he did that was not vocal attempts at getting someone else to stop things? Why do you think they use the "Conspiracy" aspect? Because they cannot point to anything anybody did.

Thread by @JuddLegum on Thread Reader App

@JuddLegum: 1. @washingtonpost, @axios, @cnn, and @nytimes are all "reporting" that, to convict Trump, Jack Smith has to prove Trump knew he was lying about the 2020 election Trump's lawyer is saying the same thing....…

threadreaderapp.com

2. A successful prosecution does not hinge on what Trump BELIEVED about the 2020 election. If Trump is convicted, it will be based on his ACTIONS.


3. Trump had a right to lie about the 2020 election whether or not he believed his own lies. The problem is Trump, working in concert with his co-conspirators, "pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results."

4. The indictment details how Trump conspired to create fake sets of electors in seven states. Then it sent these slates of electors to the Senate and the U.S. archivist in an attempt to cling to power.

If proven, that's illegal. Regardless of what Trump believed.

5. You can legitimately believe you won the election and there are legitimate ways to press that claim forward, like filing a lawsuit.

Creating a fake set of electors and then pressuring your VP to declare them valid electors is not one of your legal options.

6. I talked to @marceelias who explained it this way: "I walk into a bank, and I think they are wrongfully holding my money. I think my balance is $5,000, and they think my balance is zero... That doesn't excuse me from robbing the bank. I can't pull out a gun and take the money"


7. Smith spends time on evidence establishing Trump knew he was lying to show Trump's motivation. He is not required to prove motive under the law but juries generally are looking for a motive. In this case Smith is showing Trump was corruptly trying to remain in power.
@marceelias

8. But the media coverage is confusing a trial tactic with a legal requirement. Proving Trump knew he was lying will be helpful to Smith, but it's not central to his legal case. The coverage suggesting otherwise is wrong.

 

[Joes Place]

They keep saying Trump was indicted for the things he said, when he was actually indicted for the things he did. Nobody seems to understand that, or at the very least they certainly don't want their viewers to understand that. Oh well, it will all come out in the trial that Fox won't cover so they can just tell their viewers whatever they want.

Yep