re: Trump questions why Jan. 6 witness Hutchinson isn't prosecuted for lying under oath

Is your hair green or pink?

quote:

---

encouraging armed protesters to delay certification

---

“ protest legally and peacefully.” Those were his words that day. Got Heeeeem!

quote:

---

There are plenty of images that show people had guns.

---

Post one

quote:

---

Knew there was no legal basis for challenging the election count (Jan. 3 Clark meeting) Knew protesters were armed, but weren't going to hurt him (Trump). Discouraged use of metal detectors and continued to encouraged said armed protesters to go to Congress. Failed to discourage protesters while viewing destruction and possible delay of certification of votes.

---

I honestly didn’t think there were idiots out there parroting this nonsense much less actually believing it. Much less actually thinking it formed the basis for any type of prosecution.

Mea culpa. I remain naïve.

quote:

---

Knew there was no legal basis for challenging the election count (Jan. 3 Clark meeting) Knew protesters were armed, but weren't going to hurt him (Trump). Discouraged use of metal detectors and continued to encouraged said armed protesters to go to Congress. Failed to discourage protesters while viewing destruction and possible delay of certification of votes.

---

Now do Democratic congresspersons and BLM riots.

quote:

---

And you can prove trump was in communication with those that have been convicted? Of course not. It’s not me who doesn’t know how this works.

---

I think you seem to be misrepresenting how it works, so it may only just sound like you don't know how it works. Blame it on the brevity of posting

You don't need a direct communication. Trump's intent is clear from the Jan. 3 meetings regarding Clark as well as his request for Pence to disrupt the certification. Jury instruction under the Conspiracy to commit fraud statute read as follows:

(Sorry for cut and paste margins)

Conspiracy – Existence of an Agreement
The first element of the crime of conspiracy is the existence of an agreement.
The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that two or more persons
knowingly and intentionally arrived at a mutual understanding or agreement, either
spoken or unspoken, to work together to achieve the overall objective of the
conspiracy, [to commit the offense(s) of (state offenses)] [to defraud the United States].
The government does not have to prove the existence of a formal or written
agreement, or an express oral agreement spelling out the details of the
understanding. The government also does not have to prove that all the members of
the conspiracy directly met, or discussed between themselves their unlawful
objective(s), or agreed to all the details, or agreed to what the means were by which
the objective(s) would be accomplished. The government is not even required to
prove that all the people named in the indictment were, in fact, parties to the
agreement, or that all members of the alleged conspiracy were named, or that all
members of the conspiracy are even known. What the government must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt is that two or more persons in some way or manner
arrived at some type of agreement, mutual understanding, or meeting of the minds to
try to accomplish a common and unlawful objective.
You may consider both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence in
deciding whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that an
agreement or mutual understanding existed. You may find the existence of a
conspiracy based on reasonable inferences drawn from the actions and statements of the alleged members of the conspiracy, from the circumstances surrounding the
scheme, and from evidence of related facts and circumstances which prove that the
activities of the participants in a criminal venture could not have been carried out
except as the result of a preconceived agreement, scheme, or understanding.
[The indictment charges a conspiracy to commit several federal crimes. The
government does not have to prove that the alleged conspirators agreed to commit all of
these crimes. The government, however, must prove that they agreed to commit at least
one of the object crimes, and you must unanimously agree on which crime. You cannot
find (name) guilty of conspiracy unless you unanimously agree that the same federal
crime(s) was (were) the objective(s) of the conspiracy. It is not enough if some of you
agree that one of the charged crimes was the objective of the conspiracy and others agree
that a different crime was the objective of the conspiracy.]

LINK

quote:

---

Post one

---

I don't have an image, but again, first google hit.

LINK

The issue is that there is sworn testimony that Trump thought people were armed. We know there were other deadly weapons there. The issue is more towards what Trump thought the protesters were capable of doing and what a normal person would understand to be the results of such encouragement.