The 12 tweets that could help convict Trump in Georgia election-tamper case

In 2017, a woman sued conservative actor, James Woods, for misidentifying her as a Nazi in an allegedly libelous tweet. The tweet included a photo not of her but of a different woman giving a Nazi salute while wearing a Donald Trump t-shirt at a campaign event.
The court ruled in favor of Woods under the “innocent construction rule.” She appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the ruling.
The “innocent construction rule” requires courts to consider a written or oral statement in context, giving the words, and their implications, their natural and obvious meaning.

If a statement may reasonably be interpreted innocently, it cannot be actionable per se. [Republic Tobacco Co. v. N. Atl. Trading Co., 381 F.3d 717, 726-727 (7th Cir. Ill. 2004)]

Thanks Liz.

More to the point, as you touch upon, and as old Joe Friday used to say, anything you say can and WILL be used against you by the prosecution.

That applies only after you are being questioned about an actual predicate based crime, not one constructed after the fact by wishful thinking by an ambitious prosecutor reaching outside of her jurisdiction!

Here, with this broad interpretation of the RICO statute, just a friend inviting the primary to a nice dinner could be construed as a furtherance of the underlying scheme as providing sustenance and energy to further the commission of the crime, and the CHEF who prepared the dinner, the waiter who served it, and the busser who cleared the table, and even the dishwasher, could ALL be indicted as members of the conspiracy for their part in furthering the underlying crime, the way Fani has indicted some of the 19 co-conspirators in this so-called conspiracy for merely doing what they were hired to do..

You're being way too literal with the meaning of the Miranda warnings and my reference to them. I was simply pointing out that a sufficiently motivated prosecutor or LE officer can, and will, spin even an innocent statement if it suits their purpose.

I am no longer registered to vote and if voting integrity is ever restored, I’ll register again. I’m not holding my breath.

Voting Democrat, huh? A did-not-vote, is essentially a vote for the LEFTIST. That’s exactly what they WANT you to do, become a sheep. Be a wolf. Always vote, laplata. You may not find someone or something you want to vote FOR, but there is always someone or something to vote AGAINST!

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” ― Dante Alighieri

Waiting for someone ELSE to restore voting integrity is not going to solve the problem. ALWAYS VOTE, crawl over broken glass to do it if you have to and show them you are serious about your franchise. Serious men and women DIED for you to have that franchise and you trivialize it! You disgust me.

True, I was… but I was pointing out this prosecutor is essentially taking things out of context from tweets and political speeches before, ignoring that context and construing it in the worst possible light, twisted beyond recognition referring to events that happen after the fact, to make it seem the utterer knew somehow the later facts were false.

If you had trouble parsing my last sentence, then consider how difficult the Grand Jury had in parsing Fani’s construction of the RICO case. They had to take her word that what she described as a conspiracy was, in fact, a conspiracy.

One of the indictees was indicted for merely getting, as part of her job, the publicly available email address and phone number of the Pennsylvania Board of Election official to get publicly available information on the election results for Trump! That’s furtherance of the conspiracy under Fani’s theory? Apparently. The person who was indicted did that under the direction of Mark Meadows so he could call for that data. These are all normal things to do during post-election challenges.

There is a theory that going directly to the Pennsylvania election official for those data may be what Fani is claiming part of the coercive conspiracy theory, as there’s a hint of questioning going on based on some of the Pennsylvania election data being posted on the State’s election website… but that is not interactive, nor comprehensive data that candidates prefer to know when analyzing for fraud or challenges. For that, deeper data is required, and actually talking to officials is necessary. Not just reading static data on a website. Yet Fani may be assuming that Meadows or Trump was intending to try to coerce the official in some way to change something … or otherwise… do something not in evidence.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.