The "it was only a speach" defense seems to be off the table.

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by SurgerySleeper

I bought 24 Trump NFT @ 99 each and sold 23 in 2 days @ 1400 each.
Folks, if that isn't winning, I don't know what is! MAGAA

Did you really find someone dumb enough to pay 1400 dollars ea? They are 14x more stupid than the first buyer. Congrats on keeping it all within the tribe of lunatics...and all-lucky holders of pretend digital cards.

It was only a speech is a ridiculous defense no matter what was previously ruled. One need only look back tonight 1941, and listen to the absurdity that was coming from a jackass named Hitler, who incited people to take action against another side, or a group of people.

Should that kind of speech be protected as being " that's okay," because literally it was only a speech till it became the reason people took action that became the beginning of the end for Jews in Germany and Poland.

[chizzy]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Did you really find someone dumb enough to pay 1400 dollars ea? They are 14x more stupid than the first buyer. Congrats on keeping it all within the tribe of lunatics...and all-lucky holders of pretend digital cards.

It was only a speech is a ridiculous defense no matter what was previously ruled. One need only look back tonight 1941, and listen to the absurdity that was coming from a jackass named Hitler, who incited people to take action against another side, or a group of people.

Should that kind of speech be protected as being " that's okay," because literally it was only a speech till it became the reason people took action that became the beginning of the end for Jews in Germany and Poland.

Seriously.. did u even the the time to read his speech? I doubt it, again he said peaceful more than once and said to be respectful of law enforcement

For u to compare that to Hitler is beyond logic or words, just what an extreme left liberal would say.... funny u always spoke of being more towards center

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by chizzy

Seriously.. did u even the the time to read his speech? I doubt it, again he said peaceful more than once and said to be respectful of law enforcement

For u to compare that to Hitler is beyond logic or words, just what an extreme left liberal would say.... funny u always spoke of being more towards center

exactly. that people actually are comparing Trump to Hitler is a testament to the main stream media's active disinformation campaign and it's effectiveness.


where did Walter Cronkite's media go? the soviet era of propaganda it seems.

[String Nutts]

People are evaluating the speech in the framework of the violence. I'm not sure if that's the most relevant area. Frankly that's a tough area to go to and don't think that it's needed.


His speech definitely put the focus on Pence. Pence simply did not have, under the constitution, the power to stop the certification. In his speech, Trump made false statements on what Pence could do. In turn, people were looking for the VP. The secret service was concerned. What Trump asked the crowd to do was unconstitutional.



If the Justice Dept does file charges, this may be the direct they are going. Time will tell.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by String Nutts

People are evaluating the speech in the framework of the violence. I'm not sure if that's the most relevant area. Frankly that's a tough area to go to and don't think that it's needed.


His speech definitely put the focus on Pence. Pence simply did not have, under the constitution, the power to stop the certification. In his speech, Trump made false statements on what Pence could do. In turn, people were looking for the VP. The secret service was concerned. What Trump asked the crowd to do was unconstitutional.



If the Justice Dept does file charges, this may be the direct they are going. Time will tell.

which people? once again .. the Supreme Court has already ruled .. in a rare as an institution ruling .. even if Trump did say "go loot and riot the Capitol" .. which he most certainly did not .. he can't be held liable for it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio


Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. The majority opinion was per curiam, issued from the Court as an institution, rather than as authored and signed by an individual justice. The earlier draft had originally been prepared by Justice Abe Fortas before he was forced to resign in the midst of an ethics scandal, and it would have included a modified version of the clear and present danger test. In finalizing the draft, Justice Brennan eliminated all references to it by substituting the "imminent lawless action" language.[13] Justices Black and Douglas concurred separately.


i would suggest you refrain from getting your talking points from a far left news source like Raw Story ..


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/raw-story/


Raw Story




LEFT BIAS

These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate Raw Story Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to half-true, false, and unproven claims, as well as the promotion of mild pseudoscience misinformation.

[String Nutts]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

which people?

um, you and the other people that immediately responded. People were saying that in their opinion, Trump didn't incite violence. I'm saying that there is an argument, sans the violence aspect either way, that Trump's speech is problematic. Nothing in my last post applied to Brandenburg_v._Ohio.


I agree that if the Jan 6th speech is all they have, they are in trouble. But it's clear that there is more. I hope at some point we can discuss each issue.

Back to your framing of the speech and I agree with the headline, insurrection will be tough to prove. I have my doubts that the Justice Dept will pursue it.



Anyway:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...rge-trump.html

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by String Nutts

um, you and the other people that immediately responded. People were saying that in their opinion, Trump didn't incite violence. I'm saying that there is an argument, sans the violence aspect either way, that Trump's speech is problematic. Nothing in my last post applied to Brandenburg_v._Ohio.


I agree that if the Jan 6th speech is all they have, they are in trouble. But it's clear that there is more. I hope at some point we can discuss each issue.

Back to your framing of the speech and I agree with the headline, insurrection will be tough to prove. I have my doubts that the Justice Dept will pursue it.



Anyway:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...rge-trump.html

so ... you start this hot mess of a thread based on a far left news site's complete misinterpretation of Brandenburg V Ohio that states no matter what Trump did or did not say it wouldn't matter anyway then try to cover up with another far left news site correctly stating it wouldn't matter anyway.

i'm confused as to your purpose with this thread.


thank you valued poster.

[String Nutts]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so ... you start this hot mess of a thread based on a far left news site's complete misinterpretation of Brandenburg V Ohio that states no matter what Trump did or did not say it wouldn't matter anyway then try to cover up with another far left news site correctly stating it wouldn't matter anyway.

i'm confused as to your purpose with this thread.


thank you valued poster.

My purpose is to look at this from different angles. Clearly the first one of those is getting worn out.



In my last post I detailed how an item from the Jan 6th speech can be used as evidence, while not bringing out the violence aspect. Maybe it's me, but if they go after misinformation about the VP, I just don't see how anything mentioned here could be a defense.


As I said before, I agree that if the Jan 6th speech is all they have, they are in trouble. But it's clear that there is more. I hope at some point we can discuss each issue. Guess not.


Lastly, I guess it was another thread, but I did post Chris Christie's comments on the Jan 6th commission and how they are basically interfering w/the process. And this thread, Why the DOJ Might Have a Tough Time Proving Trump Committed “Insurrection”. I'm not a zealot, I'm not afraid to post different views.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by String Nutts

My purpose is to look at this from different angles. Clearly the first one of those is getting worn out.

it was wrong to begin with

In my last post I detailed how an item from the Jan 6th speech can be used as evidence, while not bringing out the violence aspect. Maybe it's me, but if they go after misinformation about the VP, I just don't see how anything mentioned here could be a defense.


As I said before, I agree that if the Jan 6th speech is all they have, they are in trouble. But it's clear that there is more. I hope at some point we can discuss each issue. Guess not.

what item? please explain.

it is all they have. meaning they have nothing.

who went after Race Bannon .. er Pence? the media? the mob?

partisan nothingburger

[jmichael]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so ... you start this hot mess of a thread based on a far left news site's complete misinterpretation of Brandenburg V Ohio that states no matter what Trump did or did not say it wouldn't matter anyway then try to cover up with another far left news site correctly stating it wouldn't matter anyway.

i'm confused as to your purpose with this thread.


thank you valued poster.

And the court never reversed a decision?
Interesting read! https://www.yahoo.com/news/imperial-...130114608.html

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by jmichael

And the court never reversed a decision?
Interesting read! https://www.yahoo.com/news/imperial-...130114608.html

your source speaks for itself. The New York LIBERAL Times.

and this article has what to do with a 1969 ruling that applies to Trump's speech?

nothing.

but I, the all knowing infallible TWK may have missed the reference to ..

Brandenburg V Ohio.

nope. nothing to see here.


what's more frightening ..

Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court ..

or Elena Kagan's opinions on the Supreme Court?

In a similar vein, Justice Elena Kagan noted the majority’s imperial impulses in a dissent from a decision in June that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to address climate change.


“The court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decision maker on climate policy,” she wrote. “I cannot think of many things more frightening.”


bahahahahaaaaaa

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

who went after Race Bannon

Bandit went after him, while Johnny and Hadji stayed with the plane.

If a slip of the tongue, hilarious

If intended satirization, I applaud the specific cartoon choice. Too bad that mane is all they had in common.

He always struck me as more Hank Murphy than Mike Murphy

[String Nutts]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what item? please explain.

it is all they have. meaning they have nothing.

who went after Race Bannon .. er Pence? the media? the mob?

partisan nothingburger

What item? The one I detailed :





His speech definitely put the focus on Pence. Pence simply did not have, under the constitution, the power to stop the certification. In his speech, Trump made false statements on what Pence could do. In turn, people were looking for the VP. The secret service was concerned. What Trump asked the crowd to do was unconstitutional.



I believe that if the DOJ goes forward this will be one of many pieces of evidence. I would hope that anyone with an open mind wouldn't think this is something that Trump should be telling this crowd.

Trump tweeted on Dec 19th to come to Washington Jan 6th , Be there will be wild .... then he gave a speech noting the above. Before the speech he knew that people in the crowd were armed. I believe that there will be presented a chain of events, not one item that will show Trumps role in trying to perform a unconstitutional act.


And of course, that isn't all they have.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by String Nutts

What item? The one I detailed :





His speech definitely put the focus on Pence. Pence simply did not have, under the constitution, the power to stop the certification. In his speech, Trump made false statements on what Pence could do. In turn, people were looking for the VP. The secret service was concerned. What Trump asked the crowd to do was unconstitutional.



I believe that if the DOJ goes forward this will be one of many pieces of evidence. I would hope that anyone with an open mind wouldn't think this is something that Trump should be telling this crowd.

Trump tweeted on Dec 19th to come to Washington Jan 6th , Be there will be wild .... then he gave a speech noting the above. Before the speech he knew that people in the crowd were armed. I believe that there will be presented a chain of events, not one item that will show Trumps role in trying to perform a unconstitutional act.


And of course, that isn't all they have.

show me in Trump's speech where he told anyone to harm Pence? harm anyone? riot?

i'll wait.

[String Nutts]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

show me in Trump's speech where he told anyone to harm Pence? harm anyone? riot?

i'll wait.

To my knowledge he never did, I don't see anything in the report claiming that he did.


But he did tweet: Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect
our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected
set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to
previously certify. USA demands the truth!

And then the evidence shows that the violence increased right after that tweet. It was an irresponsible tweet. Much of his staff thought so. That might be okay with people here, we might get a chance to see how the law views it.


Also, you do understand that Mike Pence couldn't do anything right? That's not what he was projecting to the crowd.



See has you analyze the speech and all the factors surrounding it, I don't think the - it's only a speech will but these charges to rest.