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

[Prolongus]

Originally Posted by oilfieldace

I know more than you evidently

Nope. You don’t.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck (Trump) could be punished.

Trump incited a riot. His words: “fight like hell” (among others) were far more incendiary than Schenck’s.

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Nope. You don’t.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck (Trump) could be punished.

Trump incited a riot. His words: “fight like hell” (among others) were far more incendiary than Schenck’s.

Horseshit. Fight like hell is a generic statement

[winn dixie]

Not when encouraged or enticed. Council made the right call. Albeit an easy one

[oilfieldace]

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.

Old timer? Resorting to name calling now kiddo? The liberal worked its way to the top? F my memory serves me correctly, you said you weren’t a RTM type guy? But you do what you gotta do kiddo.

Are you suggesting that a law degree from Harvard means you can’t be crooked or coerced into making the wrong judgement call. The whole concept of this clown show is sling shit at the wall in hopes some will stick?

[VitaMan]

Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, there is a long trail of him attempting to subvert the election result.


The only real judgement call was if it was worth it to indict a former President.

[Lucas McCain]

Relax, Ace. My kids actually call me "old timer" because to them, I am. And now that I have random gray hair popping up on my head or when I don't shave for a day, on my face, my little brats really have fun with it. I don't take it as an insult. I actually think it is funny. I've been calling my father the same thing since I was a kid as well. Stop being so sensitive about nothing.

As far as the RTM button, I admit I was fucking around about that. I'll never hit that tattletale pussy button on anyone. I'll leave that game to the sissies who do that bitch shit on this board. I'm not trying to have anybody get points, even if I find their posts to be a bit ridiculous.

Now back to the topic, I am simply saying that Trump's bullshit rally on that day was not protected by free speech IMO. But that is my opinion. I am not a lawyer. I don't act like I am, so I don't post as if my opinion about legal matters is the same as that of a lawyer. On the flip side, we have people posting as if they are lawyers because they have access to the internet and know how to type in words in a Google search.

I've already stated that I don't care for the Trump witch hunt, but some of these charges certainly are valid indictments and 1/6 IMO is definitely one of them.

[Jacuzzme]

Trump incited a riot. His words: “fight like hell” (among others) were far more incendiary than Schenck’s.

That’s nice, although completely irrelevant because he wasn’t charged with incitement.

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Relax, Ace. My kids actually call me "old timer" because to them, I am. And now that I have random gray hair popping up on my head or when I don't shave for a day, on my face, my little brats really have fun with it. I don't take it as an insult. I actually think it is funny. I've been calling my father the same thing since I was a kid as well. Stop being so sensitive about nothing.

As far as the RTM button, I admit I was fucking around about that. I'll never hit that tattletale pussy button on anyone. I'll leave that game to the sissies who do that bitch shit on this board. I'm not trying to have anybody get points, even if I find their posts to be a bit ridiculous.

Now back to the topic, I am simply saying that Trump's bullshit rally on that day was not protected by free speech IMO. But that is my opinion. I am not a lawyer. I don't act like I am, so I don't post as if my opinion about legal matters is the same as that of a lawyer. On the flip side, we have people posting as if they are lawyers because they have access to the internet and know how to type in words in a Google search.

I've already stated that I don't care for the Trump witch hunt, but some of these charges certainly are valid indictments and 1/6 IMO is definitely one of them.

That’s all just too cute, but I don’t give a fuck whether you are anyone else is friendly with the RTM button.


As far as the 1/6 bullshit ,every political speech is enticement , if it isn’t why say it. The only politician I know that doesn’t make a passionate speech is Mike Pence. He is just too nice , don’t understand how he made it this long in politics. That world eats pussies like Pence for brunch.

S far as Trumps 1/6 speech it wasn’t or didn’t say anything Trump said in any of his speeches. It’s a bullshit charge that any Harvard educated lawyer should know, but when the Big Guy applies a directive ,it seems it is followed.

[VitaMan]

When Mr. Trump doesn't get his way, he has a long history of intimidation, threats, and lawsuits.


Only this time he went too far.
Calling GA election officials and telling them to find 11,780 votes ?
Threatening to sue voting officials unless they changed voting results ?
Not to mention over 70 frivolous lawsuits that had no evidence presented at all....every one thrown out.


That is not free speech. That is threats and intimidation.

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

When Mr. Trump doesn't get his way, he has a long history of intimidation, threats, and lawsuits.


Only this time he went too far.
Calling GA election officials and telling them to find 11,780 votes ?
Threatening to sue voting officials unless they changed voting results ?
Not to mention over 70 frivolous lawsuits that had no evidence presented at all....every one thrown out.


That is not free speech. That is threats and intimidation.

That’s your opinion and like mine that’s all it is . You or I don’t know what he asked Georgia . But whatever it was it didn’t reach criminal activity. He had every right to contest the questionable counting. In case you haven’t notice . I thought the election was a fraud long before I heard anything Trump said. Too many last minute rule changes in various states.

For Christ sake this is nearly 8 years since Clinton lost and she still thinks she won the election.maybe she did I don’t really know or care. There is no way Biden got that many votes. All of which were counted under the umbrella of darkness.

You believe what you want, because I certainly believe what I believe. The difference is I am over Hildabeast and you folks won’t ever be over Trump.

[VitaMan]

The phone call to GA was recorded.


We can't wait for Trump to be put on the dust bin of politics.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

The phone call to GA was recorded.


We can't wait for Trump to be put on the dust bin of politics.

Needs to be repeated.

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

The phone call to GA was recorded.


We can't wait for Trump to be put on the dust bin of politics.

So was the Ukraine call, doesn’t prove zilch

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Needs to be repeated.

Ask Adam Schiff if repeating bullshit over and over makes it true

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by oilfieldace

Ask Adam Schiff if repeating bullshit over and over makes it true

It's true cause it's been recorded
That's why it's true