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

[String Nutts]

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-crimi...es-2658978597/


Granted the logic is a bit if reverse engineering, but knowing much of the evidence, seems to be logical.



"As we heard the reporting, it sounds like some of the charges are ones we have been talking about for a long time like obstruction of official proceedings, and a conspiracy to defraud the united states," she explained. "The new one we are hearing is a very big one. It is inciting insurrection."

"This is a crime that is not charged and that is because of the strong First Amendment defenses that anyone would have against it," she continued. "And you know, there is nothing illegal about giving a fiery speech, but, if the committee is to recommend charges for inciting insurrection, it will be because they believe that Donald Trump crossed the legal line with the Supreme Court said in a case called Brandenburg vs. Ohio."

"It says that the government cannot criminalize speech unless it qualifies under this very, very high standards," she added. "That is, it is designed for the purpose of just inciting imminent, lawless action, and likely to have that effect. So, recommending that charge would mean that it is their finding."

[chizzy]

horseshit pure horseshit

read his speech, several times he said peaceful and to respect the law enforcement

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...apitol-1561718

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by chizzy

horseshit pure horseshit

read his speech, several times he said peaceful and to respect the law enforcement

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...apitol-1561718

go easy on 'em. he was having a moment of joy and hope. you coulda let him enjoy for a few more hours.


bahahahahaaaaa

[String Nutts]

.

They will be using Brandenburg vs. Ohio as their justification for the charge. I haven't read it, probably wouldn't understand it, but according to the article, that case sets a precedence where the charge doesn't bring in any possible threat to the 1st amendment. Or something like that. Here is the case;


https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...denburg-v-ohio

[rmg_35]

Originally Posted by chizzy

horseshit pure horseshit

read his speech, several times he said peaceful and to respect the law enforcement

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...apitol-1561718

Bullsit. He's going to be guilty on all charges. Only fools and imbeciles who are slaves to extremism from the radical far-right news propaganda think he's innocent... total fools, like all the January 6th assholes who stormed the Capitol. He used them like he continues to use the grift money off of his delusional base. Hope you spent money buying his moronic tRump super hero cards. Only a fool and his money are soon parted.

[String Nutts]

Yeah, getting ugly. Sorry everyone.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by String Nutts

.

They will be using Brandenburg vs. Ohio as their justification for the charge. I haven't read it, probably wouldn't understand it, but according to the article, that case sets a precedence where the charge doesn't bring in any possible threat to the 1st amendment. Or something like that. Here is the case;


https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...denburg-v-ohio

maybe you should.

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.

Originally Posted by rmg_35

Bullsit. He's going to be guilty on all charges. Only fools and imbeciles who are slaves to extremism from the radical far-right news propaganda think he's innocent... total fools, like all the January 6th assholes who stormed the Capitol. He used them like he continues to use the grift money off of his delusional base. Hope you spent money buying his moronic tRump super hero cards. Only a fool and his money are soon parted.

if you say so

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by rmg_35

Bullsit. He's going to be guilty on all charges. Only fools and imbeciles who are slaves to extremism from the radical far-right news propaganda think he's innocent... total fools, like all the January 6th assholes who stormed the Capitol. He used them like he continues to use the grift money off of his delusional base. Hope you spent money buying his moronic tRump super hero cards. Only a fool and his money are soon parted.

Only if the jurors are as dumb as this post. There’s 0% chance he gets convicted of something that he specifically said to not do.

[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

[1pittsburgh]

Winning for you. Not so much for the Cult 45 morons who bought them from you.

[Boredinop]

Guess PT Barnum was on to something.....

[HDGristle]

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

I bought a $19 steak and enjoyed the process of cooking it and even more thoroughly enjoyed eating it.

Earlier I sipped some bourbon, smoked a cigar and watched some football with the boys after posting on a hooker board.

You won your day.

I won mine.

[String Nutts]

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

The address for Trump's wallet is posted somewhere. He personally has either 1 or 10k NTF's. Might be wise to monitor that to see when to sell. Of course his selling might be tied to when he pays legal fees. That is if he pays his fees and the assumption that he know what he's doing. Both a stretch I guess.

[snoopy75]

I'm not sure what's worse. The people who continually post about how Trump is the worst human being ever on the planet or the people who continually defend him.

Either way, I'm ready to move on. I'm sure the next Republican nominee will be "worse than Trump". Yawn.

[Dr-epg]

Gentlemen we are getting off topic.