No. of Recommendations: 2
BHM: The thing is, it is not a crime to dispute the results of an election no matter who is doing the disputing. If it were a crime then Staci Abrahams and Hillary Clinton would be in prison.
SANO: A person would have to be comatose or brain dead to not see the difference between 'disputing' and what Trump has been doing.
ME: We need Albaby here. His ability to summarize the distinction eloquently is admirable.
A repeated pattern that shows directed coordinated effort that effects a crime(s), coupled with witness testimony that shows intent can get past the PT Barnum big sheew of "belief" to mask intent and continue the grift. Here, witness statements show intent begins prior to election day upon realization the polls show Trump won't win, and witnesses show the competing different schemes - invoke the insurrection act with an attempt to use the DOJ to put color of authority behind election lies to coerce states, with Eastman's slates of alternate electors winning, blocked by Pence, and insurrectionist militant elements being directed in on Jan 6.
This can be understood by a person with less than average intelligence who puts the good of the Republic ahead of partisan politics and who doesn't have Trump as their identity.
