Special Council SHIT THE BED on 1/6 indictment!!!

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Your “free speech” ends when you yell “fire!” in a crowded theater.


Your “free speech” ends when you yell “fight like hell!” to a riled up mob directing them to the Capitol.

How convenient to leave out the part about Peaceful and patriotic. You would make a good prosecutor, ignorant of the facts

[oilfieldace]

There are more meanings to fight like hell, and that dipshit bought and paid for Speacial dick sucker can’t not , prove intent. It’s a story for the weak minded to buy and grin while the get fucked in the ass

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Of course, Ace; I am sure it is just an attack on a normal citizen's right to free speech. LOL

What could possibly go wrong when you have a band of gullible fools assembled within walking distance of the Capitol when you rile them up and they think they are losing their country because a bunch of dumb fucks actually believe their savior was victimized in a false election?

Trump may not be president, but he is undeniably powerful. And nobody knows the power of his words more than a conman like him; especially when he knows this country has a lot of stupid people who will listen and believe every word of his bullshit rhetoric.

One question, are you calling me stupid, yes or no.. if it’s possible for you to say that little. Even with 150 _ to million words there still isn’t any meat .

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Your “free speech” ends when you yell “fire!” in a crowded theater.


Your “free speech” ends when you yell “fight like hell!” to a riled up mob directing them to the Capitol.

You need to check the laws , the act of yelling fire in a theater, crowded or otherwise is not a crime ,

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by matchingmole

Maybe...they should have indicted cum guzzling fat ass tRump for murder also.

Her real name is Ashley Neyland and she isn't dead. Government is the Greatest Show Earth now.

[Prolongus]

Originally Posted by oilfieldace

You need to check the laws , the act of yelling fire in a theater, crowded or otherwise is not a crime ,

BULLSHIT. You have NO IDEA on the limits of free speech.

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Your “free speech” ends when you yell “fire!” in a crowded theater.


Your “free speech” ends when you yell “fight like hell!” to a riled up mob directing them to the Capitol.

Trump did not say Fight like hell in the context presented by the ABC presented in its tape ,it was cut and pasted. Yet some bought it hook line and sinker

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

BULLSHIT. You have NO IDEA on the limits of free speech.

I know more than you evidently

[Lucas McCain]

Originally Posted by oilfieldace

One question, are you calling me stupid, yes or no.. if it’s possible for you to say that little. Even with 150 _ to million words there still isn’t any meat .

Come on now, old timer, we both know I can't answer that question for you. If I recall correctly, I don't think you have ever said that you believe every word that Trump speaks. Besides, I'm not the one directly insulting some people participating in this thread. You are.

I would appreciate in the future though if you would stay on topic so I don't have to RTM your post. Just a quick reminder; this thread is about how a Harvard educated lawyer who graduated Cum Laude in his class knows less about the law than the many brilliant legal scholars in this forum who never even went to college know when it comes to legally/lawfully defining free speech.

[VitaMan]

Isn't the 4 count indictment about trying to change election results, tampering with election results ?

Trump is on the phone, calling GA officials, asking or telling them to find 11,780 votes so he can win the state.



That is why the premise of this thread is wrong, or rather, how the OP has attempted to change it to
a discussion and judgement about free speech.

[Lucas McCain]

Technically, Ace did mention in the title 1/6. Because he started the thread (and another one just now about 1/6) and because he keeps bringing up free speech, I assume that is what he simply failed to clarify in the body of his original post. Or maybe he just wanted to take a shot at WD in his original post with the "snick snick" and did so; and poorly I must add.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Come on now, old timer, we both know I can't answer that question for you. If I recall correctly, I don't think you have ever said that you believe every word that Trump speaks. Besides, I'm not the one directly insulting some people participating in this thread. You are.

I would appreciate in the future though if you would stay on topic so I don't have to RTM your post. Just a quick reminder; this thread is about how a Harvard educated lawyer who graduated Cum Laude in his class knows less about the law than the many brilliant legal scholars in this forum who never even went to college know when it comes to legally/lawfully defining free speech.

let's check up on Jack Smith's track record shall we? it's spectacular .. if you consider repeated failure to get a conviction spectacular ...


https://www.politifact.com/article/2...special-couns/


Below are some high-profile cases Smith pursued.


Conviction of former Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell: In 2014, a federal jury convicted McDonnell of 11 counts, including "honest services" fraud, extortion and conspiracy. McDonnell and his wife participated in a scheme to solicit and obtain loans and gifts from a Virginia corporation exceeding $170,000.


The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction unanimously in 2016. Chief Justice John Roberts said the government used a "boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute."


Indictment of former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.: In 2011, a federal grand jury indicted Edwards in a scheme to violate federal campaign finance laws.
Prosecutors said that Edwards, during his 2008 presidential campaign, conspired with other people to receive campaign contributions that exceeded federal limits to avoid disclosure of an affair and a resulting pregnancy.


In 2012, a jury found him not guilty on one count related to accepting illegal contributions and deadlocked on the other five charges, resulting in a mistrial. The Justice Department declined to retry the case.


Indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.: In 2015, Menendez was indicted along with Salomon Melgen, a Florida ophthalmologist, for allegedly accepting gifts from Melgen in exchange for using his Senate office’s power to benefit Melgen’s financial and personal interests. An 11-week trial in 2017 ended in a hung jury, and the Justice Department declined to retry the case.


Conviction of former Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.: Renzi, a congressman from Arizona from 2003 to 2009, was convicted in 2013 by a federal jury of 17 felony offenses related to conspiring to extort and bribe people seeking a federal land exchange. Renzi was sentenced to three years in prison. Trump pardoned Renzi. The pardon doesn’t mean the prosecution was flawed.

[Lucas McCain]

I'm just curious, TWK. What in the fuck do any of those cases have to do with a former president who many people hate in a District he will be tried? The only thing they have in common with Trump is public service.

Do any of those cases have to do with inciting complete morons to challenge the results of an election by force? Did I miss something here or this just the usual apples to oranges comparison that makes no logical sense when comparing one against the other? Just asking for a friend's brother's sister's adopted and unwanted stepson.

Anyway, Trump's innocence or guilt is for the court to decide. And definitely not to be decided by dudes on a whore board political forum with highly biased opinions.

Just for the record, it is obvious that I think Trump is the scum of the earth. But I don't care for witch hunts. And I agree this shit is definitely politically biased. I certainly don't want him to be president again, but not like this because I believe in fair fights. I'd much rather just see him run and get his ass kicked again; but by anyone else other than Biden. Haha

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

I'm just curious, TWK. What in the fuck do any of those cases have to do with a former president who many people hate in a District he will be tried? The only thing they have in common with Trump is public service.

Do any of those cases have to do with inciting complete morons to challenge the results of an election by force? Did I miss something here or this just the usual apples to oranges comparison that makes no logical sense when comparing one against the other? Just asking for a friend's brother's sister's adopted and unwanted stepson.

Anyway, Trump's innocence or guilt is for the court to decide. And definitely not to be decided by dudes on a whore board political forum with highly biased opinions.

Just for the record, it is obvious that I think Trump is the scum of the earth. But I don't care for witch hunts. And I agree this shit is definitely politically biased. I certainly don't want him to be president again, but not like this because I believe in fair fights. I'd much rather just see him run and get his ass kicked again; but by anyone else other than Biden. Haha

it has everything to do with it. Smith's "big rep" stinks. but he's Garland's lapdog. and there is a reason i put this in bold ... added emphasis ...


Chief Justice John Roberts said the government used a "boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute."

the chief justice of the supreme court called this punk out for his misinterpretation of the law. of course this was deliberate unless he's even worse of a lawyer than he appears. i'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's knowingly throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks ..


you did note that every case cited is a politician, yes?

so the president is not a politician or is he?

but hey .. he managed to win 1 case out of four .. that's something, yeah?


bahahahhaaa

[Lucas McCain]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

it has everything to do with it. Smith's "big rep" stinks. but he's Garland's lapdog. and there is a reason i put this in bold ... added emphasis ...


Chief Justice John Roberts said the government used a "boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute." you did note that every case cited is a politician, yes?

so the president is not a politician or is he?

but hey .. he managed to win 1 case out of four .. that's something, yeah?


bahahahhaaa

You really gave yourself 2 likes for that post? Geez, like I always say, I don't forget the room in here. LOL

Anyway, time will tell. And I have given your posts much more attention than deserved; especially when I consider the author. Perhaps you should stick to your cartoons.