Oh great everyone was missing hearing from the great Liz Cheney

So will they recommend rounding up Trump voters and putting them in camps in order to protect our Democracy ? ? Some Dems/Libs were supporting this about 1 1/2 years ago.

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Are they just not worried about the honey pot chinese spy?

---

(D)ifferent. The left is fully in bed with the Chinese.

They know at this point this little Soviet Cheka they have conducted us swaying the vote of exactly no one but since they're desperate to run on anything but the issues and how well Dems have handled the past two years, what else would they focus on.

Oh joy, all the res libs and their newest socks will be spamming F16 all day.

This is so old. It seems they don't understand that the same thing now would not cause distress. They are so loathsome in what they are tearing down. Got to hope enough elections remain legit where USA can do what Italy did and put the Left globalist trend out to pasture.

Trump has never been a clear and present danger.

Those spouting this garbage, well yes.

Rapier108 said:

---

Oh joy, all the res libs and their newest socks will be spamming F16 all day.

---

Have to wonder how many networks will carry those live? I think I saw and ad for it on CBS tomorrow but haven't seen where else it will be aired. Not exactly a ratings bonanza.

This is their only battle cry for the midterms, because everything they have done is complete crap.......

Stay focused on the real issues: economy, crime, border, constitutional freedoms....

Clear and present danger is actually a legal test for the silencing of speech in a First Amendment setting.

Quote:

---

The clear and present danger test originated in Schenck v. the United States. The test says that the printed or spoken word may not be the subject of previous restraint or subsequent punishment unless its expression creates a clear and present danger of bringing about a substantial evil. It is a standard which is used to ascertain whether a particular speech is within the First Amendment right or not. See: Schenck v. United States (1919)
Requirements:
The clear and present danger test features two independent conditions: first, the speech must impose a threat that a substantive evil might follow, and second, the threat is a real, imminent threat. The court had to identify and quantify both the nature of the threatened evil and the imminence of the perceived danger.
Scope of the test:
The rule has been appliedwith very mixed resultsin cases involving:

• Criminal prosecutions for opposition to war
• Statutes penalizing the advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force or violence
• Attacks on courts or judges or contempt proceedings against lawyers
• Picketing
• Regulation of prison inmates' access to newspapers, periodicals, and so forth
• Incitement to commit crimes
• Breach of the peace or disorderly conduct

The "clear and present danger" rule has been held not applicable to cases involving:

• Antitrust laws
• Libel cases
• Statutes regulating the conduct of labor union affairs
• Statutes governing the use of school property for non-school purposes
• Demonstrations in an inappropriate place, such as before a courthouse

---

LINK

IOW, they are doing it wrong.

In peach !

mid terms are going to be a landslide. they got nothing and even their distractions are blowing up in their face.

I have got a more important thing to watch on Thursday... Bronx Bombers vs. Indians.

Quote:

---

I think the single most urgent question is OK, what is the continuing clear and present danger we face now from the forces that Donald Trump unleashed."

---

This is what they really want. To continue to persecute and prosecute if they can the "forces" of Trump which reads basically anyone who supports Trump or tge things he stands for.

Lol what freaking network is still showing that? Talk about some toilet bowl level ratings.

This is my shocked face at the people who write our laws not understanding them even a little bit

Line Ate Member said:

---

Lol what freaking network is still showing that? Talk about some toilet bowl level ratings.

---

ABC prime time

4stringAg said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

Lol what freaking network is still showing that? Talk about some toilet bowl level ratings.

---

ABC prime time

---

I thought it was tomorrow afternoon?

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

Lol what freaking network is still showing that? Talk about some toilet bowl level ratings.

---

ABC prime time

---

I thought it was tomorrow afternoon?

---

Could be. I assumed prime time because of the first one

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Adam Schiff is a far greater threat to the Republic than Donald Trump or any Trump supporter.

---

He's a pencil neck limp dick

aggiejayrod said:

---

This is my shocked face at the people who write our laws not understanding them even a little bit

---

Not a statute situation. This is a SCOTUS decision.

But Tom Clancy wrote a fictional novel titled, "A Clear and Present Danger" as a Presidential finding authorizing covert use of the military against a Colombian cartel.

The title got it wrong and ever since, no one understands what it actually means and the origins.

The term has now come to mean in the populace that an "imminent threat" will justify anything they want to do.

BUT, why choose such a phrase, designed for First Amendment sanctions by the federal/state governents and no one else?

Just stupid and spin, spin, spin.

The main focus will be "Trump's state of mind."