What part of “… The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won…” do people not understand? It’s clear. The defendant has a right to lie. This isn’t about freedom of speech. I guess, unless you repeat the lie enough that’s all people hear.

Exactly this.

Anyone carefully read the history of the Roman Republic as it transitioned to dictatorship? All the democratic republican functions that set the foundation for governance still existed after the changeover. What was different was where the center of power lay. Sully pointed the way. Caesar learned from this (not enough, though). Octavius put it all together and, get this, Italy for 1700 years was not a democratic republic.

This is the cautionary tale that Americans could learn from. Alas, anyone who thinks or studies or does any manner of research is considered “elitist” and is quickly dismissed. Ignorance is no excuse, but it, apparently, is a state of being for too many Americans.

Not surprising, actually. Courts don’t seem to want to resolve the question of “Presidential immunity”, even though it is not explicitly written into the Constitution (where other functions are). So now it has become “tradition”, until, that is, a judge grows a pair and works to clarify the situation.

Not a doc with a question: Could this have been a transient ischemic attack, or ministroke?