Jericho

My wife has a tesla, so I was scratching my head at the linked article for a moment. Charging at home is more expensive than the superchargers. Even with that, it's about $15 per 100 miles (home charging), whereas my mustang is about $27 per 100 miles. But that is California, and I don't know the rates elsewhere. I do know that every time Texas has one of their grid meltdowns my cousin can't charge his car for a few weeks until electricity prices go down from the absurd rates. So I suppose in a state like Texas, who has a crumbling infrastructure and not exactly reliable energy grid (Except El Paso), it would be quite a bit more expensive charging at home.

For the context of this situation, incitement. At least that is what the prosecutors have charged him with.

They were on government business and required to use Trump properties. Auditors claim that he was using inflated rates, of course, Trump and his family claim otherwise, but the fact that he was using his properties for directed government business is a breach of the emoluments clause. Lucky for him, SCOTUS is stacked in his favor. They overturned a lower court ruling but refused to take the case up themselves. You know, discovery could get ugly in a case like that. Emoluments Charges for state dinner at Trump property Family given money from foreign powers Secret Service charged at least $1.4m, at inflated rates for accomodations at Trump properties for official duties protecting the president.

It's not a twist, it's a legal standard.

The only breaches of law that I think really should be looked at is his family's continued breach of the emoluments clause. Not only did he continue to actively run his business' during his administration, but his family used their positions to secure and expand their business' in China and the Middle East. Then there is the fact that Trump forced federal government to use his privately owned properties to house traveling diplomats and government agents. This required the government to finance upgrades to his properties to meet diplomatic travel standards.

Where have they said anything to the effect that they are calling on supporters to rise up? You're arguing based on emotion, not facts. There is a definitive difference between political speech, puffery, and incitement.

You're missing the finer points of it. Merely suggesting irregularities in the voting, or even saying it's rigged is covered under the first amendment. However, when you have an armed mob at a rally, blocks from the capitol building, and you say "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore" , that can very easily be construed as a call to arms. Like I said, we'll have to see what a judge and jury believe.

How does this assault his freedom of speech? Contrary to popular republican opinion, not all speech is covered under the first amendment. In this case, incitement is specifically not covered, as well as false statements are not protected either. To some degree, I do agree with you that many of the charges are inflated, but the mishandling of documents, and the incitement one charges pretty obviously have merit. I guess we'll find out what a jury believes.

It's funny how republicans (note, not conservatives, I still have hope for Libertrians and anarcho-capitalists) 30 years ago waxed poetic about statesmen like Demosthenes, and have since moved on to a moral relativist like Solon.

Isn't that what law enforcement does? Police investigate crimes, and attorneys prosecute the suspects for their crimes.