There is no evidence that there was irregularities in the 2020 elections, but there is no evidence either that there was no irregularities in them. Yet, the government indicts various Americans on charges of false statements and conspiracy to try to overturn the results.
LoremThere is no evidence that there was irregularities in the 2020 elections, but there is no evidence either that there was no irregularities in them. Yet, the government indicts various Americans on charges of false statements and conspiracy to try to overturn the results. In this podcast, I discuss Trump’s indictment and its implications on the people’s First Amendment rights to petition the government to restore faith and integrity in the American democratic process.
Trump could not produce any evidence that the election could have been fraudulent. Therefore, he asked state legislatures to investigate. The latter did nothing about it, so he petitioned the government for a redress of grievances. His actions align with the First Amendment, authorizing any American to address state or federal governments to get a redress of what they believe may be illegal, immoral, or violated traditional norms. Neither of these instances investigated that, and Trump continued his claim to force the government to act. Instead, the government tramples his fundamental right under the First Amendment by indicting him on four charges. Paralllely, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers marched toward Capitol Hill to ask for redress, and we all know by now how the march went down.
Because he was questioning the integrity of the American electoral system since several states allowed many residents to vote without proper identification, the U.S judicial system accused him of conspiring to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.
“Conspiring” means Trump concerted with other people to overturn the election. There is no evidence that Trump put that riot together or led the protest to attempt to obstruct the Jan. 6 electoral vote count. It is hearsay or circumstantial at best. Jack Smith, the special counsel, purported that Trump’s efforts to press state and federal officials to act was a conspiracy to deny people the right to vote; thus, the term “disenfranchise.”
Seeking redress or asking officials to investigate to make Americans regain confidence in the electoral system is in no way synonymous with preventing people from voting or discarding the people’s vote. Mind you that most Americans question, still question, and socially cast their doubt about the 2020 result. Therefore, it was public knowledge that Trump, as president, was using his authority to direct his subordinates to assume their duties.
Trump pleaded not guilty. However, shall the court, up to the Supreme Court for that matter, find him liable, that would set a bad political precedent where any American, evoking their First Amendment rights of bringing their grievances against the government to the government, would be accused of conspiring and defrauding the government.
In the case against Trump, where the government is the accuser, judge, and jury, reading through the indictment, there is an insufficiency of evidence to connect the prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump’s actions to seek redress and clarification to bring back order and faith in the system falls into the category of conspiracy.
To rest my case, when it comes to the liability of a president, former or current, such competence lies in the hands of the Supreme Court.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Apostrophe Podcast
Trump could not produce any evidence that the election could have been fraudulent. Therefore, he asked state legislatures to investigate. The latter did nothing about it, so he petitioned the government for a redress of grievances. His actions align with the First Amendment, authorizing any American to address state or federal governments to get a redress of what they believe may be illegal, immoral, or violated traditional norms. Neither of these instances investigated that, and Trump continued his claim to force the government to act. Instead, the government tramples his fundamental right under the First Amendment by indicting him on four charges. Paralllely, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers marched toward Capitol Hill to ask for redress, and we all know by now how the march went down.
Because he was questioning the integrity of the American electoral system since several states allowed many residents to vote without proper identification, the U.S judicial system accused him of conspiring to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.
“Conspiring” means Trump concerted with other people to overturn the election. There is no evidence that Trump put that riot together or led the protest to attempt to obstruct the Jan. 6 electoral vote count. It is hearsay or circumstantial at best. Jack Smith, the special counsel, purported that Trump’s efforts to press state and federal officials to act was a conspiracy to deny people the right to vote; thus, the term “disenfranchise.”
Seeking redress or asking officials to investigate to make Americans regain confidence in the electoral system is in no way synonymous with preventing people from voting or discarding the people’s vote. Mind you that most Americans question, still question, and socially cast their doubt about the 2020 result. Therefore, it was public knowledge that Trump, as president, was using his authority to direct his subordinates to assume their duties.
Trump pleaded not guilty. However, shall the court, up to the Supreme Court for that matter, find him liable, that would set a bad political precedent where any American, evoking their First Amendment rights of bringing their grievances against the government to the government, would be accused of conspiring and defrauding the government.
In the case against Trump, where the government is the accuser, judge, and jury, reading through the indictment, there is an insufficiency of evidence to connect the prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump’s actions to seek redress and clarification to bring back order and faith in the system falls into the category of conspiracy.
To rest my case, when it comes to the liability of a president, former or current, such competence lies in the hands of the Supreme Court.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Apostrophe Podcast