The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[BowlBrother85]

Trump’s Lawyers Raise First Amendment Defense to Latest Charges. Will It Work?

Trump's First Amendment Defense - FactCheck.org

Basically, Donald Trump's and Jonathan Turley's First Amendment argument doesn't wash because :

"... as the indictment says, they're not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen, when he knew better. But that does not protect you, from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech. And all fraud involves speech. So free speech doesn't give you the right, to engage in a fraudulent or criminal act."

---- Former Attorney General, William Barr

^^^^ There isn't a blanket protection on speech when used to plan or execute a crime. ^^^^

 

[OrangeBoro]

Where jack smith? All these people need to be charged right away

 

[BowlBrother85]

Where jack smith? All these people need to be charged right away

As the indictment itself explains ... Trump was not indicted for questioning the outcome of the election. The indictment even acknowledges that questioning the outcome of an election is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, even when it involves lying.

With the "alternate elector" scheme, Trump entered into a conspiracy to commit fraud.

 

[OrangeBoro]

As the indictment itself explains ... Trump was not indicted for questioning the outcome of the election. The indictment even acknowledges that questioning the outcome of an election is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, even when it involves lying.

With the "alternate elector" scheme, Trump entered into a conspiracy to commit fraud.

Or dems get to play by a different set of rules

 

[Septic]

As the indictment itself explains ... Trump was not indicted for questioning the outcome of the election. The indictment even acknowledges that questioning the outcome of an election is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, even when it involves lying.

With the "alternate elector" scheme, Trump entered into a conspiracy to commit fraud.

You can tell them this, explain it and even draw them pictures - but they aren't going to hear the things that are inconvenient to their desired narrative.

"Fr3eD0M oF SPe3Ch!!!!"

 

[BowlBrother85]

Or dems get to play by a different set of rules

Can you cite an example of Democrats organizing something comparable to Trump's alternate elector scheme?

 

[C-south]

As the indictment itself explains ... Trump was not indicted for questioning the outcome of the election. The indictment even acknowledges that questioning the outcome of an election is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, even when it involves lying.

With the "alternate elector" scheme, Trump entered into a conspiracy to commit fraud.

So you’re saying other indictments are in the works from the 2016 election?

 

[BowlBrother85]

So you’re saying other indictments are in the works from the 2016 election?

Did Democrats plan an "alternate elector" scheme in 2016?

... and the faithless elector ploy is not the same thing.

 

[OrangeBoro]

Can you cite an example of Democrats organizing something comparable to Trump's alternate elector scheme?

Most media and politicians on your side spent 4 years telling us Trump got elected because Putin rigged the election for him.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Most media and politicians on your side spent 4 years telling us Trump got elected because Putin rigged the election for him.

^^^^ That is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, even when proven to be a knowing lie.

 

[tnmarktx]

Can you cite an example of Democrats organizing something comparable to Trump's alternate elector scheme?

Something far worse, the Jan 6 committee.

 

[Septic]

Most media and politicians on your side spent 4 years telling us Trump got elected because Putin rigged the election for him.

Not the same, nor is it a crime.

Literally NO ONE is saying trump can't lie or cry about the election being "rigged." It's well established that politicians can lie without consequence.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[Septic]

^^^^ That is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, even when proven to be a knowing lie.

We may as well be trying to teach algebra to a toddler.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Something far worse, the Jan 6 committee.

Again ... their speech (opinions) had First Amendment protections.

 

[tnmarktx]

Again ... their speech (opinions) had First Amendment protections.

The 2020 election…

 

[clarksvol00]

Just be honest. Stop trying to justify and just admit you voted for Biden because that's who the Democrats ran. They could run Satan himself and he'd get your vote when you saw that "D" next to his name. Hell, if Trump had run as the Democrat nominee, you would have voted for him. Neither party is giving us good choices, but people like you are still voting them into office based on the letter next to their name. Trumpers, Bidenites, Republicans, Democrats..... They're all the same.

But.... But...... continuums!

Weezer is here to speak the unbiased truth... as long as you voted for Trump.

 

[C-south]

Did Democrats plan an "alternate elector" scheme in 2016?

... and the faithless elector ploy is not the same thing.

They illegally created a Russian hoax and preached it for years. Because it didn’t work are they immune from prosecution? Looking back how many “insurrection” events took place? It’s almost like the system is biased.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The 2020 election…

I thought I had covered this? LOL

As the indictment itself explains, Trump was not indicted for questioning the outcome of the 2020 election. That is protected by the First Amendment, even if it can be proven that he knew that he was telling lies.

Trump was indicted for entering into a conspiracy to commit fraud, and that is not protected by the First Amendment.

 

[BowlBrother85]

They illegally created a Russian hoax and preached it for years. Because it didn’t work are they immune from prosecution? Looking back how many “insurrection” events took place? It’s almost like the system is biased.

How was it illegal? It's free speech.

 

[Septic]

They illegally created a Russian hoax and preached it for years. Because it didn’t work are they immune from prosecution? Looking back how many “insurrection” events took place? It’s almost like the system is biased.

The russian hoax was illegal?

how so?

@C-south waive off dude, you clearly have no idea what you're arguing. Between you and @OrangeBoro - it's moving beyond just cringe.

 

[tnmarktx]

I thought I had covered this? LOL

As the indictment itself explains, Trump was not indicted for questioning the outcome of the 2020 election. That is protected by the First Amendment, even if it can be proven that he knew that he was telling lies.

Trump was indicted for entering into a conspiracy to commit fraud, and that is not protected by the First Amendment.

Election fraud is criminal.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Election fraud is criminal.

Explain how election fraud was involved ...

The 2016 election had already taken place by the time that Trump was accused of colluding with Russian agents. The Mueller probe did not begin until May of 2017.

 

[C-south]

How was it illegal? It's free speech.

So it’s legal to fund a Russian hoax against a political opponent that you say won an illegitimate election?

 

[OrangeBoro]

Election fraud is criminal.

Which is also happening right now

 

[Weezer]

Weezer is here to speak the unbiased truth... as long as you voted for Trump.

Not at all. I didn't vote for Trump or Biden. I wasn't willing to give either my support. But acting like one was better than the other is foolish. Neither should have been President.