Comments by "RhondaK" (@Rhonda2580) on "Truth About Tim Walz Abortion Law, and Jack Smith's "Election Interference," with Knowles and Davis" video.

How does Jack Smith have the right to file a “brief” that cites to alleged evidence, but doesn’t include actual witness declarations under penalty of perjury? Or reference to action prior testimony under penalty of perjury? I am a retired attorney, and haven’t practiced any criminal law, but in the civil world we always had to provide proper evidence with foundation and, when it included witness statements, it had to include properly authenticated testimony. NOT just an attorney filing a brief where THE ATTORNEY represents evidence that he isn’t qualified to testify to. That’s hearsay subject to no exception.
19
“Pro Choice” actually means “Pro Abortion”, since no one is trying to stop them from having a baby. Someone that is “Pro Choice” is actually just someone that is in favor of abortion.
19
The problem is that the Judge allowed him to file it. So, that’s like a blessing.
6
I think she has said it before - basically, Trump could have actively done more to control the protestors. I think he was pissed off about the loss, and couldn’t accept it, and probably really did think that the Dems stole it from him. So, he wasn’t inclined to make things easy for the Dems on getting the election to be completed.
1
@beefsupreme4671 My take is that Trump was pissed about the result, and probably rightly believed that the Dems had manipulated the outcome with things like the late changes in the voting rules and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Because he was pissed, he wasn’t inclined to make things easy for the Dems on the certification of the vote, and was happy to have people protesting on his behalf. Trump could have done a lot more, a lot sooner, to keep his followers calm and under control, if he actually wanted to. But, that still doesn’t make him legally liable for what his followers did.
1
@beefsupreme4671 But, he did have tremendous power to influence his followers. It is reasonable that he should have seen that they had good potential to over react, and he could and should have tamped them down. He could have said at his speech - “look I know you are pissed, and so am I, but we are going to let the courts sort this out. Go home and send me your prayers.”
1
@beefsupreme4671 You are clearly not open to discussion on this. I said it doesn’t mean that Trump is legally liable, but he could have done more to influence them at the rally. That is just logical.
1
@omarra6781 Let’s hear your argument.
1
@omarra6781 My argument was in my initial comment.
1
@omarra6781 It is not “pro choice” - no one is trying to stop anyone from choosing life. The “pro choice” crowd wants the right to choose abortion. They just think that saying “pro choice” is more palatable to the public.
1
@omarra6781 Great argument you have there. :)
1
@omarra6781 You don’t know anything about me, but nice job jumping to conclusions. My comment didn’t address whether abortion was bad or good, or under what circumstances, so that wasn’t what we were discussing. My issue was with the “pro choice” label and the fact that it is manipulative and deceptive to say “pro choice”, and that was what my comment addressed. And you didn’t respond to that claim at all.
1