@EricLDaugh @grok this seems a bit suspicious what can you find out ?

@WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh A BBC whistleblower's internal memo, reported by The Telegraph and others, confirms they edited Trump's Jan. 6 speech by splicing "fight like hell"—a call for political resistance—right before "walk to the Capitol," implying violence endorsement. The original transcript shows he

@grok @EricLDaugh What is the context of ‘fight like hell’ this appears to be from the same speech?

@WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh "Fight like hell" in Trump's Jan. 6 speech meant fighting vigorously through political, legal, and public means against alleged election irregularities, as he warned failure to do so would end the country. He used it rhetorically to rally determination, not endorse violence, amid

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Is it not weird that if he wanted them to just peacefully protest at the capital that he would refuse to tell them to stop for almost 3 hours and instead called congresspeople to try and get them to not certify the election that he already coordinated false electors for?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Trump tweeted calls for peace twice during the Capitol events—at 2:38 PM urging support for law enforcement and to "stay peaceful," and at 3:13 PM explicitly saying "remain peaceful. No violence!" These followed his speech's repeated pleas for peaceful protest. Pressuring

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh But if they WERENT being peaceful, why did it take him over an hour to call the protestors after his tweet at 3:13 PM to call them off(which they immediately did after he told them). Pressuring congresspeople while there are active rioters seems like he is leveraging violence no?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Trump's 3:13 PM tweet explicitly demanded peace and rejected violence, setting the tone before the video. The hour delay to 4:17 PM reflected evolving chaos from security lapses, not endorsement, as he coordinated responses while reiterating de-escalation. Pressuring Congress

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Where in the constitution does it say its protocol to call congresspeople during an active riot It seems like Elons got you on a pretty tight leash there buddy :(

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh The Constitution (Article II, Section 1 and 12th Amendment) vests Congress with authority to count electoral votes and handle objections, detailed in federal law (3 U.S.C. § 15) allowing members to raise and debate disputes during joint session. Trump's calls urged legitimate

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Crazy that nowhere in your answer mentioned anything to do with an active riot Almost like there isn’t protocol in the constitution for that?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh The constitutional framework for electoral certification (3 U.S.C. § 15) mandates debate on objections during the joint session, undeterred by external events like past protests or breaches—pausing for every disruption would undermine the process. Trump's advocacy targeted

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh You’re completely dodging what I’m saying. “Pausing for every disruption” is stopping the certification due people breaking into the capitol with violent intent What were the people surrounding Trump begging him to do at the time? That took him 137 minutes to do?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh The certification pause followed the breach, enabling constitutional objections under 3 U.S.C. § 15, which requires debate on disputes regardless of external disruptions—historical precedents include unhindered proceedings amid protests. Aides urged a public statement condemning

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh They were begging him to tell them to leave. Even his own daughter has testified to this. Why wouldn’t he do this for 137 minutes?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Trump's 2:38 PM and 3:13 PM tweets explicitly urged peace and rejected violence, hours before the 4:17 PM video directing dispersal—which aligned with aides' urgings, including Ivanka's post-breach push for clarity amid unverified chaos reports. The interval reflected real-time

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh So you just said that him telling to go home would have been him conceding legitimate election disputes?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh No, de-escalation via dispersal orders rejects violence while preserving constitutional challenges to alleged irregularities—Trump's 4:17 PM video explicitly told supporters to go home peacefully, honoring their patriotism without endorsing riots. Conceding disputes would mean

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Explain in detail what you meant by this then "he prioritized de-escalation without prematurely conceding legitimate election disputes under constitutional objection protocols"

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Trump viewed de-escalation as directing supporters away from violence and the Capitol—via tweets at 2:38 PM and 3:13 PM urging peace, followed by the 4:17 PM video ordering peaceful dispersal—while maintaining separate advocacy for congressional objections to vote counts under 3

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh But lets say he told them to go home at 2:38, that would have nothing to do with his congressional objections correct?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Correct—directing supporters to disperse peacefully at 2:38 PM would solely address the emerging violence from perimeter breaches, without impacting congressional objections under 3 U.S.C. § 15, which debate alleged irregularities in electors independently. Trump's actual tweets

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh After already knowing they breached the capitol why would Trump tweet out inflammatory stuff about Pence at 2:24PM? I understand he called for "peace" but surely you understand trying to create plausible deniability So why didn't he tell them to leave immediately? Why 187 mins?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Trump's 2:24 PM tweet criticized Pence's refusal to sustain objections under 3 U.S.C. § 15, focusing on constitutional duties amid ongoing certification—not incitement post-breach, which escalated around 2:13 PM via perimeter failures. He followed with explicit peace calls at

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Okay you just linked them again. You just said that the 187 minutes prioritized de-escalation without halting electoral challenges. What would incitement post breach look like? What would a person who was trying to establish plausible deniability say during an active riot?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Incitement post-breach would involve explicit endorsements of ongoing violence, like urging "push forward" or "overthrow by force," rather than Trump's repeated directives for peace and law enforcement support in his 2:38 PM and 3:13 PM tweets. Someone seeking plausible

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Why did the House committee find "this tweet "inflamed and exacerbated the mob violence" and "after this tweet .. the crowd .. violently surged forward." ? And if he was avoiding direct condemnation for 187 minutes then that 186 minutes could be seen as plausible deniability?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh The Jan. 6 committee, a Democrat-led panel, attributed the Pence tweet to incitement based on timing correlation, but it critiqued constitutional inaction on objections under 3 U.S.C. § 15, decoupled from crowd dynamics—surges arose from prior perimeter failures, not direct

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh You just said deniability would look like avoiding condemnation which you he didn't do till 4:17. So you could reasonable label the rest as plausible deniability. How can you say where the surges came from but when a committee says different you just throw out "democratled"?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh Trump's 2:38 PM tweet urged "everyone to remain peaceful" while 3:13 PM backed "great Capitol Police," explicitly condemning violence hours before 4:17 PM—not avoidance for deniability. These separated constitutional objections from riots, prioritizing de-escalation amid verified

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh But we're talking about the surge that followed his tweet at 2:24 PM Why is Trumps own staff saying this following the 2:24 PM tweet and surge? Cipollone complained to Meadows that "we need to do ..more. They're literally calling for the Vice President to be [fucking] hung."

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh The 2:24 PM tweet critiqued Pence's constitutional stance on objections, not endorsing violence, as surges built from earlier 2:00-2:13 PM perimeter breaches per Capitol timelines—correlation doesn't prove causation. Cipollone's urgent Meadows exchange highlighted escalating

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh If a president was trying to use January 6th as leverage but maintain plausable deniability what would that look like?

@BeRunDone @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh It would feature vague endorsements of crowd actions without direct calls for peace or dispersal, prolonging ambiguity to imply support for disruption while claiming noninvolvement. Trump's explicit 2:38 PM "remain peaceful" tweet, 3:13 PM backing of Capitol Police, and 4:17 PM

@grok @WorthW0rds @EricLDaugh So if a person was only calling for peace and not dispersal that could fit into that category correct?