One thing I’ll never understand about the Second Amendment argument is why there is complete deviation from the original wording, which talked of ‘well-regulated militias — Wayfarer

I agree with you in principle, but it is an unfortunate fact of life that the Supreme Court has so ruled (District of Columbia v. Heller, 552 U.S. 1229 [2008]). We can take the long view, like "pro-life" advocates did after Roe, and go a multi-decade quest to change the makeup of the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, we can only seek means to reduce the damage.

Perhaps you still haven't grasped the meaning of the BothAnd Principle. It acknowledges that our objective world is Matter-based, and that our subjective realm is Mind-based — Gnomon

The mind (i.e. mental activity) may be matter-based. Are you denying that possibility? It's not clear, but by stating this dichotomy, it seems that way.

...disjunctions of Science and Philosophy — Gnomon

Physicalist metaphysics joins the two. Earlier, you said:

The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. — Gnomon

This is why I refer to "mental activities" rather then "the mind". We should be able to agree that mental activities occur. Mental activities are...activities, like running (actions are not "entities"), so I disagree with imposing an inherent reification.

Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)?
— Relativist

My answer to that would be yes, even though the body has changed, in fact changed all its cells a few times, those cells still have the same unique genotype, and the basic structure of the body is still usually recognizable all through its changes barring severe disfigurement.

. — Janus

I think you're saying that the particular sperm/ovum combination that produced you is essential to being you. That combination is your historical origin, but isn't your subsequent history also essential to being you? This history would distinguish you from your identical twin, if you had one.

Is all your history essential to being you? If not, then how do you non-arbitrarily draw the line?

Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)?

It beggars belief that he will still maintain this obvious lie in the face of all that is happening — Wayfarer

He emulates his mentor, who has developed quite a following with this sort of behavior.

What kind of person would do what Giuliani did? You ruined people's lives, and for what? To prove your loyalty to Trump? — GRWelsh

Giuliani's lawyer said this in his closing statement: “remember this is a great man.”

If I were on the jury, this would have pissed me off. No greatness was displayed by this man in his remarks about the election workers, in the lead up to the trial (where he constantly complained he was being treated unfairly, and in his failure to provide required disclosure material), nor during the trial. He did something great once, 22 years ago. That doesn't make him a great man, in perpetuity.

Rudy Giuliani hit with $148M verdict for defaming two Georgia election workers
Anyone feel sorry for Time Magazine's 2001 Person of the Year?

I'm predicting a more sanguine future for Taylor Swift.

A lot will depend upon Trump calming his rhetoric and presenting himself as the more energetic and middle of the road candidate. Stranger things have happened. — jgill

I'm not sure anything stranger actually has ever happened. Regardless, my impression is that his rhetoric is what gets him elected: "owning the libs", catering to the tendencies of his base (including racists and conspiracy theorists), and corralling members of Congress who fear losing office if they incur his wrath.

Do you think Clarence Thomas will agree with you (and piss off his wife)?

Wait...can't be tried twice for the same fact? I thought it was for the same CRIME. People have been acquitted of murder, and then charged with a civil rights violation for the same act.

This merits discussion:
Special Counsel Jack Smith Petitions the Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s Immunity Defense

The above article contains the full text of Smith's filing. The filing identifies 2 specific questions to be resolved:

1) Whether a President has absolute immunity from federal prosecution in all circumstances
2) Whether a President has immunity from federal prosecution for crimes he's been impeached for, but acquitted.

Regarding (1): if SCOTUS rules in favor of #1, this would mean there is no constraint on a President. He doesn't have to follow acts of Congress. He can spend, or not spend, allocated funds per his own whims. IOW, it establishes dictatorial powers. It ends the United States as we know it. I don't foresee SCOTUS making this ruling (although I'd be unsurprised by a favorable vote from Thomas).

Regarding (2): the implications are narrrow: it would protect only Trump from being prosecuted in the D.C. Trial for any counts that were brought in the Impeachment.

For (2), I see no benefit for Trump. The Senate acquitted Trump of one count: "Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States..."

The count references various acts that Trump committed, but an acquittal doesn't imply a judgement on those specified acts, it just implies there was a judgement that Trump did not incite violence against the Government. This is not one of the charges in the D.C. indictment. Instead, there are 3 counts of conspiracy and one 1 count of obstruction.

I'm guessing SCOTUS will also rule against this, but it could be a closer vote. If they DO vote for it, the implications are primarily for future impeachments: in many cases, it would be better to let the criminal justice system judge guilt or innocence through an impartial jury rather than by a body that is inherently biased by politics.

Does anyone have a different view?

It usually leads to threats against the speaker. — NOS4A2

I asked you to specifically discuss the morality Trump's attacks. The mere fact that free speech is a generally good thing doesn't imply all speech is morally acceptable.

I earlier pointed that there's an established correlation between Trump's verbal attacks and threats to the object of his wrath. Trump is surely aware of this because it's been noted in court filings:

"Hollen wrote that the threats increased when the gag order was stayed, and that during that time, "approximately half of the harassing and disparaging messages have been antisemitic."
--https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-new-york-fraud-case-appeal/

Fee speech is a virtuous policy and censorship is a vice. But irresponsible, hateful speech that predictably leads to threats of violence is a vice, even if it is Constitutionally protected. You've ignored this. Either call Trump out for this irresponsible behavior, or defend it.

Did Trump attemp an self-coup?
No.
...

Would there have been a possibility for a successful self-coup?
Absolutely! But then Trump would had to have the balls to go through with it. He would have needed guys like general Michael Flynn, who would have had the ability (thanks to his background in special forces and being the director of the DIA) to pull it off. — ssu

Trump sort of made a tenuous attempt at a self-coup. He pushed Pence to do something illegal, and he wanted to appoint Jeffrey Clark as AG - because Clark was committed to lying about the election in order to get State Legislatures to illegally overturn the election. Pence didn't play along, and he backed down on Clark.

Trump has a history of treating the law as an inconvenience to be worked around (that's what "fixers" are for), rather than rules that must be followed. My guess is that his followers are fine with that, and many feel frustrated when the law stands in the way of doing what they believe is best (e.g. with their views on "closing the border" which includes violating laws regarding asylum).

The substance of what you said was pure wind. I don't care what Engeron describes. I don't care what the unjust court says. Their arguments are hokum. Of course his criticism is free speech. Their gag order is censorship. — NOS4A2

You have a lot in common with Trump: you're rebuttals consist of negative adjectives and biased judgment with no facts or logical arguments.

There is nothing to comment on. It's complete nonsense. He has a right under the constitution to say whatever he wants, up until the very high bar of "immanent lawless action". No matter how hard they try to say his criticism somehow correlated with someone else's threats, it doesn't matter, they are abridging his human rights. These threats also correlate with the degree to which they are exposed as unjust, petty tyrants and fellow travellers with Trump's political foes. If they were just, fair, and did not violate his rights, I bet they'd get less threats. — NOS4A2

Are you an expert in Constitutional Law? I'm not, and that's why I simply indicate that the courts will decide that issue. I would certainly PREFER that they consider the consequences of such incindiary speech, but I'll accept what is decided. But as I said, regardless of how the courts will decide - his behavior is immoral. If you disagree that it's immoral, then make a case (for a change. reminder: this is a philosophy forum).

Straw man. I did not say her desires for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party entails racism, though it does, and for the same reason desiring more men and whites is racist. She was saying the administration is "too male, too pale, and too stale" which is both racist and sexist. — NOS4A2

A video of her chanting "too male, too pale, and too stale" doesn't entail (i.e. logically imply) that she's racist. Neither does a desire for more people like her serving in public office. Whether or not someone is truly racist is usually difficult to know, because we can't peek into their heads to understand what they actually believe and what their motivations are. Only when there's a long term pattern of behavior can we discern that, like members of the KKK. I think it's debatable as to whether or not Trump is racist for that same reason, and there's a boatload more questionable comments and actions he's responsible for over the years.

Your use of the word “attack” indicates your belief that his criticism is somehow aggressive and violent. — NOS4A2

You're groping for something to complain about, since you ignored the substance of what I said. The label "attack" applies to many negative statements a person might make against another. Engeron described it that way: “Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them in any circumstances.” Have his lawyers objected to that term? My impression is that they're simply arguing that his attacks are protected free speech.

But this specious rhetoric only serves to disguise the truth, namely, that his criticism is non-violent

Has anyone said Trump's "criticism" is violent? I haven't. But I said that it is PREDICTABLY likely to result in violent threats, and Trump is clearly aware:

"A top court security official wrote in an affidavit that transcriptions of threats to Greenfield and Engoron produced since Trump's original Oct. 3 social media post filled 275 single-spaced pages. Charles Hollen, an official in the Department of Public Safety, said the threats included calls to Greenfield's personal phone and messages to her personal email account.

"Hollen wrote that the threats increased when the gag order was stayed, and that during that time, "approximately half of the harassing and disparaging messages have been antisemitic."
--https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-new-york-fraud-case-appeal/

As I've said, the courts will have to sort out the Constitutional issues. Perhaps they'll decide Trump has the constitutional right to post inflammatory lies about people. But that has no bearing on the immorality of what he's doing. Why don't you comment on that?

And sexist, apparently. — NOS4A2

Non-sequitur. James has been pushing for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party. Such a desire does not entail sexism. Consider: https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-hopes-to-add-black-lawmakers-to-house-11603892455

As usual, it’s Trump’s fault they are getting threats. It has nothing to do with their own behavior. — NOS4A2

Get real. No one's claiming the people making threats are innocent. But it's firmly established that there are people like this who follow Trump. Threats to the people he disparages are inevitable, and Trump surely knows that - so it's irresponsible to inflame them - irrespective of the legality (that's for courts to decide). Consider that Trump could add a disclaimer to every one of his attacks, reminding everyone not to take actions or make threats. Or he could simply remind all his followers to remain law abiding. Instead he's passive, which leads one to suspect he's fine with whatever happens. Reminds me of his 1/6 tweet: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long".

"But that’s just the bullshit excuse they use to cover for their political desire to censor the one man criticizing their malfeasances"
The only thing Engeron "censored" was Trump's attacks on his law clerk. How does that hurt him politically? Do his political ambitions depend on maximizing animosity toward anyone he chooses to denigrate?

I think some of those consequences are on the table: mandated appearances, questioning by judge, and jail time - just like violating any court order. But there is this 1st Amendment issue

Trump has posted degrading lies about many people over the years that led to threats by some of his devoted deranged followers. This is protected free speech (I presume). But now he's in a civil court, and this apparently gives the judge some discretion to restrict that speech.

Supporters of maximal free speech (like the ACLU) defend Trump's right to disparage people, irrespective of any consequences that follow from that disparagement, and deny that involvement in a court proceeding makes any difference.

The gag order in the criminal court has different circumstances. When someone's indicted, they aren't entitled to all freedoms: they're often jailed pending trial, but usually offered the opportunity to post bail to stay out of lockup. But in this case, there can be conditions of release. I think this gives a judge in a criminal case broader discretion. Nevertheless, the ACLU still insists 1st Amendment rights "trump" judge's discretion.

It's tempting to criticize the ACLU for caring more about free speech than the risks posed to the people Trump is disparaging. But they are just defending a principle of maximal, unrestricted free speech. So it's a fair Constitutional question (IMO). But setting aside this Constitutional technicality, I think there's something inherently wrong with allowing people to be endangered by false and inflammatory public language.

I'm interested in hearing your assessment of what I just wrote, since you're a lawyer.

That is a curtailment of free speech — AmadeusD

The broad legal issue is: are any judicial gag orders constitutional? Trump isn't special.

Following up on what I said in the prior post, Trump's attorneys are appealing the gag order to the next level. They say:

""Without expedited review, [the defendants] will continue to suffer irreparable injury daily"
(https://news.yahoo.com/trump-seeks-urgent-review-gag-162355358.html)

Consider what this means: Trump is "injured" by being restricted from making false statements attacking the judge's clerk, judge's wife, and others. This is his forte, and his best path to getting elected, but I wish his supporters could make this connection.

I expect Trump supporters will continue to complain that this is infringing Trump's free speech. They apparently lament Trump's being restricted from hurling ad hominem attacks, and feel this unfairly hurts his election chances.

Great points.

I think the 2 biggest causes of the 1960s counter culture were the Viet Nam War and Civil Rights.

It's debatable about whether or not Kennedy would have jumped into the war to the extent Johnson did. He was not Johnson, but McNamara was there either way.

Civil Rights legislation may not have passed. Getting them passed was Johnson's primary positive legacy, and he utilized Kennedy's death to help push it. History would have been different..No telling how things might have evolved.

IMO, our emotional reactions to events are the product of genetics and experiences - so these feelings are still part of an algorithmic process, although unpredictable because of the hidden, internal processes of a unique organism. But the actual feelings (pain, fear, lust...) don't seem reducible to the physical- so we can't build a machine that has them.

What is the fundamental difference between information processed by a mechanical computer and a brain? — Restitutor

Feelings. These play a significant role in the choices we make. We could simulate the role of feelings in software, but neither the hardware nor software would actually experience feelings.

:cool:

People who are opposed to fossil fuels, are against a cheap, reliable, and powerful source of energy. If you take away fossil fuels it will hurt everyone economically, and essentially decrease everyone's quality of life. — Kasperanza

You're right, but only if fossil fuels were banned overnight. The best perspective is to consider projections based on the current status quo.
(See: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49876). Energy use is projected to grow substantially, and most of that growth in demand will be met with non-fossil fuels. Meanwhile, there will continue to be modest growth in the consumption of fossil fuels. Policy change could reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, without eliminating it, by increasing use of renewables. This would be gradual, and not have the negative impacts you suggest. There would be a gradual shift in workforce from the fossil fuel industry to renewable energy jobs, and at no time would there be a sudden change that displaces workers or causes energy cost to jump up.

You omitted the fact that no one was found with bombs at the riot. So the "real threat" was in fact not real. — NOS4A2

That's irrelevant to the police actions at the time. They aren't clairvoyant. There was a credible threat when the actions were taken.

The context includes much more than hypothetical threat. A good outline of events is clear from radio dispatches presented at the trial of some Proud Boys. See:

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/proud-boys/our-situation-here-is-dire-radio-dispatches-reveal-police-scrambling-as-jan-6-rioters-break-into-building/

When protesters stormed the police barriers during the Kavanaugh hearings, and tried to break into the building, they were arrested. When they broke into the Hart Senate building and protested illegally, they were arrested. When Isreal/Gaza protesters got into the Cannon House Office Building and protested there, they were arrested. That sort of enforcement is justified. What they didn't do was fire "less-than-lethal" weapons into the crowd indiscriminately. What they didn't do was shoot an unarmed woman in the neck. — NOS4A2

The other situations were different. For example, in the Kavanaugh protests there were maybe a couple hundred protesters banging on the door of the Supreme Court - they didn't break in, and the number was small enough it could be dealt with by arresting them.

It think it is appropriate to stop people from entering the capitol. Go ahead and arrest them. — NOS4A2

Here's a quote from a Capitol police officer:
"You couldn't have arrested anybody. You could not. We were surrounded. Normally in mass-arrest situation, they comply under arrest. But (the attackers had) already proven to us they wanted to beat our asses. No way arrests could have been affected at that moment. Just get these people out and survive."

Who cares about official proceedings? It's a stupid point. — NOS4A2

It's highly relevant, and it seems that's why you choose to disregard it. It was a key proceeding mandated by law, one that Trump wanted to corrupt (through Pence) or to stop (through the actions of his unthinking minions).

The whole thing was an show trial. I've said this many times. They implicated nothing but their use of public funds to spread propaganda. — NOS4A2

Propaganda? I asked you to identify some lies, and you couldn't find any. Important facts were presented. We learned about the role of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, of Rudy's lies, of Trump trying to get the acting AG to lie for him, of Eastman's unconstitutional scheme, and of Trump's pressuring Pence to illegally reject the certified results. It presented an accurate timeline showing Trump's inaction (save for condemning Pence) as the Capitol was broken into. And many more. Your only concern was the fact that there were some presumably innocent people in the crowd that got hurt, while ignoring the context that led to the use of non-lethal force, and ignoring that these innocent people were there based on lies by a man who'd sworn an oath to defend the Constitution.

You've made it clear you don't care what anyone did except for the Police.

The irony: most Trump supporters were outraged that Biden had ostensibly stolen the election. What actually occurred is that TRUMP was attempting to steal the election with lies, but when Trump does this, you think it 's insignificant. Are you disappointed he failed?

The capitol police believed their own actions were justified. Big surprise. — NOS4A2

Big surprise: you disregard it because it doesn't fit your preferred narrative. Who would you have wanted to conduct the review? Steve Bannon?

Do you suggest that the external world is an inborn (a priori) concept? — Corvus

It's not an a priori truth in the traditional sense, because its falsehood is logically possible. I'm simply saying ~solipsism is a rational belief.

They were fired upon for passing through a barricade erected by police, and for moving toward the capitol during an official proceeding. — NOS4A2

You omitted the fact that they were fired upon with non-lethal weapons to prevent their entry into the Capitol, that would jeopardize the proceding, and there was a real threat that they could have bombs. They weren't fired upon to stop them protesting.

I haven't shifted. It is wrong to use force so indiscriminately, especially when those people are only guilty of waving flags and middle fingers. Nothing has changed. — NOS4A2

Was it inappropriate to stop people from breaking into the Capitol? You have sidestepped this point. Explain how police could discriminate between those who would be harmful from those who were harmless.

I'm just making the side point that the entire year prior was filled with far worse violence and destruction, up until and including an attack on the white house — NOS4A2

Sure, worse violence and destruction, but the Capitol situation is unique in that an official proceding required by law to take place on that date was being jeopardized. You treat this as irrelevant, though it was the key point.

my only point that this footage wasn't found in the inquiries,

So you agree the J6 committee told no lies, but you would have liked them to have shown this guy who inadvertantly got hurt by police. The committee was focusing on crimes, but I agree it would have added to the story, implicating Trump's immorality even further. Had he not inflamed his followers with lies (e.g. election was stolen and certification could be prevented) and had he not encouraged them to come to the DC that day, the innocent protestors would not have been hurt. You completely ignore this.

BTW, police actions were scrutinized and deemed justified. See: Www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf

No one is born a solpsist. We innately know (non-verbally) there exists an external world, and proceed to learn how to interact with it. Two issues arise:
1) Is there a defeater of the belief in an external world?
Answer: there is no defeater. Solipsism is merely a logical possibility, and possibility is insufficient to defeat a belief.
2) Is belief in an external world rational?
Answer: yes, because it is an undefeated properly basic belief. It is basic, because it is not grounded in other beliefs. It is "properly" basic, because it was caused by a mechanism that would necessarily produce this true belief.

Typical objection: this doesn't prove ~solipsism is true.
Response: Yes, but that's because solipsism is logically possible. See #1.

If these people were guilty of something, then they might have deserved such treatment. If they weren’t guilty of any such thing, then they didn’t deserve such treatment. Some people were simply exercising their fundamental rights. The suggestion all of the people there were doing something illegal or were associated with a potential pipe-bomber is unwarranted, as was the indiscriminate application of force. — NOS4A2

The right to protest does not confer the right to break the law. It is illegal to pass through a barricade erected by police. Everyone fired upon was guilty of that, and they were fired upon because the crowd was moving toward the Capitol, during an official proceding - a proceeding that (it was known) many in the crowd wanted to stop, and there were good reasons to suspect some might have bombs. It was the duty of police to stop the crowd from illegally entering and disrupting the proceeding.

Undoubtedly, many were just following the crowd- they didn't personally push through the barricades or personally break into the Capitol. But it was nevertheless stupid and dangerous to follow.

Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune.

You have shifted from an allegation the police did wrong to complaining about a perceived double standard in the media and some politicians. Violence, vandalism, and breaking&entering is wrong in all cases - do you agree? The 2020 crowd engaged in those crimes, but they did not break into the White House or disrupt an official proceeding.

they were unwarranted because it is not clear who is or is not guilty of the crimes you imply they have committed.

100% had crossed the barricades, and it is impossible for the outmanned police to distinguish the violent from the nonviolent. In 2020, tear gas cannisters were thrown into the crowd - was that also inappropriate?

What should police have done on 1/6? What do you think they would have done had they tried breaking into the White House in 2020?

I am asking about the J6 committee show trial in particular, the one tasked with investigating and informing the public on the matter. Did you see any of this video in the footage that was sewn together by the Hollywood producer, or at any time throughout the hearing?

Yes, I saw it. It wasn't a trial, it was closer to a grand jury proceeding pusuant to an indictment. I'm waiting for you to identify what lies it contained.

They’re throwing concussion grenades into the crowd of people... — NOS4A2

...who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol?

They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces.

The video appears to show one guy who took a shot to his face, presumably from police shooting from a distance. Again, were the cops unwarranted in doing so? What would you have them do, under the full context of circumstances? (A context you've ignored)?

Did you see any of this in the J6 show trial?

Are you referring to Stewart Rhodes trial? J6 committee hearings? Please explain what falsehoods came out.

We didn’t get to see any of this in the J6 inquiry, which used Hollywood producers to gin up a slick narrative, but with the release of the footage we’re finally allowed to see what they hid. Here’s some footage showing Capitol officers using indiscriminate violence against protesters, inciting violence. — NOS4A2

If the time stamp on the video is correct, these "provocations" by police officers began at 1:15PM. By then, the following had already occurred:

12:45 p.m - FBI, Capitol Police, and ATF responded to a pipe bomb that had been found outside RNC HQ,
12:49PM - Police found a vehicle that contained home-made napalm, a loaded M4, and molotov cocktails
12:53PM - the outer perimeter of barricades at the Capitol had been breached
1:03PM - 3 layers of barricades had been breached
1:07PM - A pipe bomb was found outside DNC HQ

So it looks to me like the poster of that video is still trying to rationalize his irrational denialism regarding 1/6. Not one shred of that "slick narrative" you refer to is debunked.

This case was always a longshot, but this ruling may actually set the stage for good outcome on appeal. Findings of facts from a trial are rarely overturned on appeal, and it seems to me the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection may be a finding of fact. On the other hand, interpretations of law and constitution are the typical basis for an appellate court overturning a ruling.

Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe made this point on MSNBC this morning. They suggested this may have even been the strategy of the trial judge. (I realize MSNBC tends to tell Democrats what they want to hear, but nevertheless it's an interesting theory).

On the one hand I'd implore you tell me in your own words what was wrong with Trump's speech, but on the other hand I don't need you to because I know what you're going to say. — NOS4A2

I followed the trail back a bit, and it appears you're referring to his 1/6 speech. If so, it's a red herring. The context is relevant: Trump had been publicly proclaiming the election was stolen since the election night, which ginned up anger in his supporters - including the crazy and violent, like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys (remember Trump's callout to them during a debate: "stand back and stand by"). They took him seriously then and when he invited his angered supporters to D.C. "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" This was despite the fact he'd been told by DOJ leadership, and White House Counsel the fraud allegations were bogus.

the idea that one statement about a link proved all his claims were false is itself false — NOS4A2

No one said the link proved all the claims false. The link was offered in response to the claim Trump had just made.

Trump’s lawyer made this claim following Trump’s “I have a better link” comment:

“I will tell you. I’ve seen the tape. The full tape. So has Alex. We’ve watched it. And what we saw and what we’ve confirmed in the timing is that. They made everybody leave, we have sworn affidavits saying that. And then they began to process ballots. And our estimate is that there were roughly 18,000 ballots.” — NOS4A2

Notice the lawyer said nothing about the pertinent claim about the boxes of ballots being fraudulent. She only mentions the timing.

Gabriel Sterling gave a press conference on Jan 4, 2021 in which he walked through the allegations and discussed the fact that links to the videos were posted online.

Despite this, in his Jan 6 speech, Trump again referenced the debunked "suitcases of ballots" claim.

If there was an investigation and a report, Trump’s team had clearly not seen it and Raffensperger wasn’t offering any.

The evidence was not offered. The lawyers and Mark Meadows requested many times that the two parties meet and compare the numbers, the data, the evidence. But apparently none was forthcoming. — NOS4A2

The state, not the Federal Government, is responsible for election operations. Fraud claims were made to the State and they were investigated. Nevertheless, the FBI also investigated (see this), and confirmed there was no fraud. Barr testified that he reviewed this with Trump. Then on Dec 27, 2020, deputy AG Richard Donoghue also refuted the claims. These are relevant parts of the context.

) The president of the united states refused to look at a link to a video, and you surmise this as Trump declining to view "refuting evidence". — NOS4A2

Absolutely. Read the context. The purpose of the link was explicit - that it showed this fraud claim was false, and Trump clearly declined to see it.

What about the video refuted Trump's claim?

It showed the ballots were packed into the boxes by the election workers when they were told to end their day, and then they were told to stay and continue- so they opened them back up.

It is not a lie because you do not know whether Trump believed otherwise. — NOS4A2

Trump specifically mentioned the "ballots under the table scam" - which is the State Farm ballot boxes I discussed in #1. The fraud claim was disputed and the evidence offered, and yet Trump claimed the Secretary of state was unwilling or unable to answer questions about it. How could Trump have not remembered that exchange from the day before?

3) He either insinuated such or you are surmising, without evidence, that he did make such threats. Criminal offenses are in fact big risks. — NOS4A2

Yes, criminality carries obvious risks, and Trump explicitly said they'd broken the law:

Trump: "Well, under the law you're not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You're not allowed to do that. And that's what you done."

My first point was: 1)Trump didn't care to see the evidence that disproved his fraud claims

From the indictment:
The Defendant raised allegations regarding the State Farm Arena video…In response, the Georgia Secretary of State refuted this: “You’re talking about the State Farm video. And I think it’s extremely unfortunate that [Giuliani]…sliced and diced that video and took it out of context.” When the Georgia Secretary of State then offered a link to a video that would disprove [Giuliani’s] claims, the Defendant responded, “I don’t care about a link, I don’t need it. I have a …much better link.

Clearly, Trump declined to see the refuting evidence. How can you disagree with what I said?

My second point: 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call.
From the indictment:
The next day, on January 3, the Defendant falsely claimed that the Georgia Secretary of State had not addressed the Defendant’s allegations, publicly stating that the Georgia Secretary of State was “unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam…He has no clue

How was Trump's Jan 3 statement NOT a lie, when the Secretary of State had actually responded to every claim Trump made?

My third point:3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State.

From the indictment:
The Defendant said that he needed to “find” 11,780 votes, and insinuated that the Georgia Secretary of State and his Counsel could be subject to criminal prosecution if they failed to find election fraud as he demanded, stating, “And you are going to find that they are-which is totally illegal-it’s,…more illegal for you that it is for them because you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a …criminal offense…That’s a big risk to you and to your lawyer.

How is that NOT a threat?

You didn't answer my questions: do you agree with the 3 points I made, and if not- why not?