I'm still waiting for proof that TRUMP said "storm the capital"

Lets discuss what politicians say and compare it to the results. Misinformation is not your friend and neither is the government.

"Read my lips"
"If you like your plan/doctor, you can keep you plan/doctor"


I prefer to let results do all the talking.

 

"These are the things and events that happen." - Donald Trump giving excuse and approving of his mindless seditious traitors storming the Capitol.

 

I am not a Trump fan, but your claim is one of emotion and not fact.

 

So what do you believe those words meant?

 

It is a political platitude. They mean nothing.

 

Obviously they do mean something.

 

Donald tweeted announcing the rally "will be wild!". That was the signal. A call to arms to destroy America.

 

That was a very wordy way of saying that you were wrong and that I was right.

I love how you argue about what the law could be as opposed to what it is. And that although precedent matters, and the precedent in this case safeguards free speech, which many a great many American patriots died for, you know that there is a possibility that that precedent could be struck down, limiting and frankly putting into jeopardy the scope of free speech, which is what you, as a typical American leftist, would like.

Disgusting.

 

not difficult to school these people... but good job anyway

 

Like I was saying, don't expect charges against Trump for the riot:


https://abcnews.go.com/US/dont-expe...cid=clicksource_4380645_16_comic_strip_sq_hed

 

Like I was saying, don't expect charges against Trump for the

Where is the exhortation to overthrow "by force or violence"?

Note that it doesn't say "by suggestion or coercion."

Words have meaning.

 

Duplicate post

 

Brandenburg vs Ohio strengthens the case against Dirty Donald. The Supreme Court ruled you cannot punish inflammatory speech unless the speech is directed or to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such actions. I think the speech both he Giulliani and Don Jr. made, to the assembled terrorists, all fulfilled those criteria as laid out by the court and we all saw the results of the lawless action.

 

Will be presented any day now. They are still trying to figure out a way to create phony evidence as the imaginary evidence strategy did not work

 

He DEFINITELY won't be, not by this Acting AG. It's in the news now that he won't.


Let's bet $100 that be won't be charged by Biden's AG, either.

It doesn't start with case law. Prosecutions start with a statute, and the facts don't fit.

 

They make up their facts as they go along.

 

No, but you are revealing you are unable to understand what I wrote.

And, I suppose you are the arbiter of what the law is. Got it.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, SCOTUS established that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”

But that is precisely what precisely what happened on January 6. "Imminent lawless action". There were many reasons it was imminent, and that it was lawless is self-evident. So, Brandenburg most certainly will not be the precedent used to protect Trump from legal jeopardy.

Oh puhleez, and didn't you get the memo? "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" --- Samuel Johnson. Now, as it is noted in History, Johnson wasn't writing of patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. Of late, the quote is used to squash those who trot out the term in the false belief it somehow sanctifies their argument, precisely as you are going here. It's the kind of thing that those who are not seasoned in the art of debate do, it's like you are waving a flag, 'hey, look at me, I'm a novice debater'.

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't suggest a precedent to be struck down, I merely suggested it might not be applied, reasons given.

Really? That's pretentious and sophomoric, almost as much as it is moot, given the above.

"typical American leftist" is an argument? No, it's a trope, a boorish comment.

Try and do better, next time.

 

Lawrence Tribe, Professor Emeritus, Harvard Law School, arguing for impeachment, wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d7246c-5206-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html

Simply put, Trump knew perfectly well that his rally on Wednesday was a powder keg of his own creation. But he gleefully lit a match and tossed it at Congress.

The article of impeachment circulated Friday by Democratic Reps. David N. Cicilline (R.I.), Jamie B. Raskin (Md.) and Ted Lieu (Calif.) accurately captures the gravity of Trump’s misconduct. It situates his action within his “prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election.” And it recognizes the terrible damage that Trump, through his incitement, inflicted on the nation as a whole.

Trump’s actions might well qualify as federal crimes

 

Agreed. He couldn't have predicted exactly what, but he should have known something bad could happen given what he had said and given his followers. I don't think its fair to say he purposefully incited violence, but I do think its fair to say he was negligent.

 

I don't disagree that they "might well qualify, " with an emphasis on "might." I only anticipate that he won't be charged in court.

The world is upside down and anything can happen. And Trube is a liberal Trump hater from way back.

But my offer stands; do we have a bet? (And to be clear, I am talking about an indictment in criminal court, not an article of impeachment.)

 

Oh, I don't know. I"m not making a silly bet.

I hope he is, because he's got it coming. I think the evidence is about as clear as evidence gets.

 

Yup. Pretty disturbing

​

 

Fake News.

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".: 702 Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's ...

​

 

Copypasta duly noted
And, So What?

If Trump can use the precedent set by that case to skate, good for him.

BUT, he still should be charged (even if he walks).

 

Of course Trump didn’t say those exact words. Just like no one has said the BLM riots were peaceful. People can twist things all they like and are entitled to their own opinion but they aren’t entitled to their own facts.