He's justifying the suppression of speech of the POTUS/exPOTUS in his statement by arguing that he had no facts to back up election steal (false) and that such assertions made when elites like him don't agree is "corrosive".
The people who support such suppression understand the game of a permissive justification argument phrased as a speculation. No one is fooled. He should have said it was outrageous to censor the POTUS, period.
He's justifying the suppression of speech of the POTUS/exPOTUS in his statement by arguing that he had no facts to back up election steal (false) and that such assertions made when elites like him don't agree is "corrosive".
The people who support such suppression understand the game of a permissive justification argument phrased as a speculation. No one is fooled. He should have said it was outrageous to censor the POTUS, period.