I'm still trying to evaluate Trump and
understand the anti-Trump people.

Thanks for your references and remarks.

Okay, from some of the news, I concluded
that the J6 issues were from what Trump
did on J6 and some role for him in the
disturbance that day at the Capitol
building. But your claim is that,
instead, the issue is about some things
Trump did in 11/5/2020 to 1/6/2021 as
claimed by the J6 committee and that
constitute an attempted "coup". (A) I
can't trust the J6 committee even for the
time of day. (B) If Trump did something
illegal (jay walking doesn't count) in
11/5/2020 to 1/6/2021, then we should have
some actual credible legal actions instead
of just the J6 committee of Congress. (C)
Just from common sense, tough for me to
believe that Trump intended anything like
a "coup", but is dreaming of a "coup"
itself actually illegal?

Trump may have strongly suspected that (a)
he actually won the the 2020 election, (b)
the election was stolen by illegal means,
and (c) he wanted to defend himself.
Sounds reasonable, okay, and not
surprising or at all illegal. He has a
right to defend himself? Right?

For the DC lawsuit, the PDF file seems to
make clear that (A) Trump said some things
that were well within his rights of
freedom of speech but (B) as in the first
actual charge in the PDF, Trump was still
being charged with some consequences of
that free speech? Looks like law-fare.

For Carroll, if Trump did something she
didn't like, she should have, was supposed
to, scream in which case there would be
lots of objective, credible witnesses from
that department store.

As I understand the legal results, Trump
was convicted of "sexual abuse".
Inserting fingers, sure, would be a case
of sexual abuse, but just breast fondling
may also be. All we have from the jury is
"sexual abuse" and that's not necessarily
"rape". That Trump is a convicted rapist
seems to have poor support; seems to be
false.

Also a porn star who did not scream is not
credible; that is, if not consensual, then
scream. That Trump, married, running for
POTUS, and not stupid did anything wrong
with Carroll is not credible.

NY AG Letitia James, out to "get Trump",
and Judge Engoron and his 1/2 $billion
fine are not credible and instead, just
obvious via common sense, look like
Democrat Party law-fare. Trump's loan
application had a disclaimer, and the loan
companies are all happy. The area in
square feet of part of Trump Tower or the
value of Mar-a-Lago seem irrelevant;
claiming that those two are relevant looks
like more law-fare.

(A) NY DA Bragg's many felony charges
based on some goofy issue about some tiny
accounting issue past statute of
limitations and some goofy accusation
about Federal campaign law and (B) Judge
Juan Merchan and his efforts to keep Trump
in court and quiet look like kangaroo
court, election interference law-fare.

In Georgia, Fulton DA Fani Willis and her
boyfriend got, what, $600,000 reasons to
go after Trump? Looks like more Democrat
Party law-fare.

There is a pattern here: Democrat Party
law-fare against Trump.

Sorry, so far I don't see anything
seriously wrong with Trump and don't
understand the anti-Trump people.

We will have to agree to disagree and look
forward to the election.