Really cynical stuff. The Eastman memo was the blueprint on how to actually stop Biden's certification. That was the paperwork, the legal attack. January 6th was the kinetic attack.
Just because both actions were not detailed in the same piece of paper does not mean they weren't both part of a clearly coordinated action (of which the special counsel agreed).
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/20/eastman.memo.pdf
> You mean the cases that were thrown out by the courts?
Wrong again. His findings were not thrown out. He ended the case himself because he knew Trump would shut him down anyway once back in office.
Look, I get it. This is a narrative that is very important to you. You can't believe that your side are the violent ones or your president is the lawless one. So much of this is a waste of time.
Just know that this is your narrative and it has no connection to reality.
> Wrong again. His findings were not thrown out. He ended the case himself https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/15/judg...
And at the end of the day, again, Smith didn't prove anything. As Trump is innocent until proven guilty, he is innocent.
You snark does not change the facts.
> You can't believe that your side are the violent ones
You have got to be kidding me. "Your side" literally shot at Trump and just murdered an influencer. Another shot at a DHS facility and killed some innocent bystanders. All due to rhetoric like yours.
I have to assume you're just trolling in bad faith at this point.
The special counsel publicly said he had enough evidence to convince a jury that a premeditated, coordinated attempt to coup the U.S. government had occurred.
> partisan-appointed lawyer
There isn't an inch of proof that Biden interfered with either the DOJ or the special counsel. You assume that because Trump is doing this, Biden must have as well. This is the mentality of Trump himself, he thinks about how to commit crimes and get away with it so he assumes that's how everyone else behaves too. You can't actually imagine a world where people have principles and don't always act with self-interest.
It goes back to the first word and the first response I made to you, cynical. Not a word you're saying is accurate, but you don't care. Because you're just assuming the other side would lie the same way you do, if pressed.
> There is no evidence trump intended a violent insurrection
that's the thing about being responsible for violent events at a certain point your intention does not remove your culpability. Whether or not Trump meant to use his supporters to attack the Capitol is irrelevant. It happened. Also, when the riot turned violent, Trump had several hours to stop it. He chose to watch it all on television at the White House instead.
Guilty as sin.
> "Your side" literally shot at Trump
The shooter in question was a registered Republican.
> And at the end of the day..
So I prove you wrong, you move on like it never happened, rinse, repeat. This is a boring game. I don't feel like playing.
Great. And as we have already established, that case went nowhere. Anybody can accuse someone of anything.
Otherwise, going by your standards, if you want to accept everything prima facie, then Jack Smith is already guilty as sin of being a partisan hack on behalf of the bidens:
https://xcancel.com/SenTomCotton/status/1950616831397642291
Who needs proof when an accusation will do? Until it's proven in court, it's meaningless, and then there are appeals anyway.
> The shooter in question was a registered Republican.
It's called crossvoting, where the Democrat registers as a republican in order to vote in their primaries. https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-crossover-voting-gop-prim...
He donated to ActBlue, but you already knew that. Trying to frame is as anything other than a deranged leftist shooting the republican presidential candidate is - well, whats that word again? Cynical? Not a word you're saying is accurate, but you don't care. And never did you explain the other 3+ shooters.
> So I prove you wrong, you move on like it never happened, rinse, repeat. This is a boring game. I don't feel like playing.
You've proved nothing, and acting like you have, and as you have nothing now you want to balk.
You've already admitted twice you did not read any of the evidence. You literally have no idea what the case is. You outsource your thinking and argumentation to a sitting Republican senator, as if their opinion on the matter counts for anything.
You created an account four days ago in order to post a series of justifications as to why the politically motivated violence of January 6th wasn't that bad, or was really just in response to other violence and therefore cannot be condemned, etc. etc.
If this is your hobby, I suggest you find a new one.
You do realize John Eastman himself literally says he would lose 9-0 [1] when heard in the supreme court, admitting he is illegally violating the ECA with no sound legal argument. And he was literally disbarred for this behavior. [2] How do you reconcile with this cognitive dissonance?
> In other words, they had 4 years and found nothing.
So you just admit you have never heard the Jack Smith report. Just say that next time, why lie?
[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/eastman-admitted-bid-to-... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/17/california-court-jo...
Show me where exactly in the Eastman memo, the so called "coup plot", it calls for a group of protesters to go into the Capitol?
Spoiler: It doesn't. So it's actually you who hasn't read the memos. If anything, it shows Trump sought to remain president by legal means, a gray area at worst, but nothing to do with the "violent insurrection" claimed.
> Jack Smith findings
You mean the cases that were thrown out by the courts? And another that he closed himself? In other words, they had 4 years and found nothing. You are innocent until proven guilty, and ultimately he proved nothing.
Just say you have no clue what you're talking about next time.