You are so full of S#!+. If you you can be thrown in prison for lying the the entirety of Washington DC would be in prison. Telling a group to peacefully protest is not the same as yelling fire. Auntie Maxine telling people to assault their reps at the grocery store and gasoline station on the other hand could be.GeorgiAg said:
There are limits to "free speech." You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater to cause a general panic where you know there was no fire - it causes a substantial risk of harm to the people therein.
That is an analogy for what Trump did following the election. If he truly believed the election was stolen, they (there was a fire), there is no case. However, if it is shown through his words or circumstantial evidence that he knew he lost the election and did this to sow chaos and disrupt the election process, then he might be in some hot water.
Trump committed freedom of speech
7,683 Views |
114 Replies |
Last: 10 mo ago by PanzerAggie06
Some interesting analysis with your coffee...
The 'Anti-KKK' Law That May Sink Trump's Free-Speech Claim
Law360 (August 2, 2023, 5:55 PM EDT) -- Of the four felony counts that Donald Trump faces for attempting to overturn the 2020 election, a conspiracy charge under a Reconstruction-era federal civil rights statute is the most "creative" and most likely to undercut the former president's anticipated First Amendment defense, experts say.
A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., handed up an indictment Tuesday charging Trump with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
Special counsel Jack Smith alleges Trump deliberately spread false claims of election fraud, pushed Republican officials in seven key battleground states, including Georgia, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and conspired to prevent Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election by stoking riots at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The conspiracy against rights charge alleges that Trump conspired to "injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate one or more persons" in their free exercise of the constitutional "right to vote, and to have one's vote counted," according to the indictment. The statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 241, was enacted as part of the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871 and is known as the "anti-KKK statute" because it was intended to prevent the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups from using threats, violence and other tactics to keep Black voters away from the polls.
Trump is widely expected to mount a First Amendment-based defense, asserting that he was exercising his free speech rights when he contested the 2020 election results. Smith acknowledged in the indictment that Trump had a "right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely … that he had won."
But that defense could hit a legal brick wall with the conspiracy against rights charge, Jon Sale, co-chair of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP's white collar and government investigations practice, told Law360.
Smith is "trying to weaken the First Amendment argument, which is going to be central to the Trump defense," said Sale, who formerly represented Trump's ex-attorney Rudy Giuliani. "To me, it's not a persuasive argument that you could have a First Amendment right to violate someone else's constitutional rights."
Sale added, "The First Amendment argument is the weakest against this count. It's a very creative charging decision."
University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl Tobias, who focuses on constitutional law, also described the charge as "creative."
Smith "has a chance of convicting Trump of it, and I don't think the First Amendment is going to help Trump here," Tobias said. "At best, you have a clash of rights. It seems Trump's argument is that he can say whatever he wants because he's a candidate for the presidency. But I don't think that's very persuasive here."
The conspiracy against rights statute has evolved and its scope has widened over time. For example, the charge was used against officials accused of blocking George Washington Bridge access lanes as political retribution in the "Bridgegate" scandal of 2013.
Earlier this year, a right-wing social media influencer was convicted in New York of conspiracy against rights for scheming to interfere in the 2016 election by using memes to try to dupe Hillary Clinton supporters into believing they could vote by sending text messages.
"Typically, what I've seen in the case law is the people who are charged are the ones on the front lines paying for somebody's vote or going door-to-door and falsely filling out absentee-type ballots," said ex-federal prosecutor Matthew Chester, a partner at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC.
Trump, however, is accused of working with six unnamed co-conspirators to overturn the 2020 election, meaning that he was a step or two removed from the actions in at least some of the alleged schemes, Chester said.
"But there's nothing prohibiting the government from saying, 'Yeah, but you entered into a conspiracy with others who are directly on the front lines,'" he said. "A jury will be asked to evaluate all of this, and as long as they find he took one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, he can still be a co-conspirator."
Trump is scheduled to be arraigned Thursday.
The government is represented by J.P. Cooney, Molly Gulland Gaston and Thomas Windom of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
Counsel information for Trump was unavailable.
The case is USA v. Trump, case number 1:23-cr-00257, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The 'Anti-KKK' Law That May Sink Trump's Free-Speech Claim - Law360
The 'Anti-KKK' Law That May Sink Trump's Free-Speech Claim
Law360 (August 2, 2023, 5:55 PM EDT) -- Of the four felony counts that Donald Trump faces for attempting to overturn the 2020 election, a conspiracy charge under a Reconstruction-era federal civil rights statute is the most "creative" and most likely to undercut the former president's anticipated First Amendment defense, experts say.
A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., handed up an indictment Tuesday charging Trump with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
Special counsel Jack Smith alleges Trump deliberately spread false claims of election fraud, pushed Republican officials in seven key battleground states, including Georgia, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and conspired to prevent Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election by stoking riots at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The conspiracy against rights charge alleges that Trump conspired to "injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate one or more persons" in their free exercise of the constitutional "right to vote, and to have one's vote counted," according to the indictment. The statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 241, was enacted as part of the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871 and is known as the "anti-KKK statute" because it was intended to prevent the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups from using threats, violence and other tactics to keep Black voters away from the polls.
Trump is widely expected to mount a First Amendment-based defense, asserting that he was exercising his free speech rights when he contested the 2020 election results. Smith acknowledged in the indictment that Trump had a "right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely … that he had won."
But that defense could hit a legal brick wall with the conspiracy against rights charge, Jon Sale, co-chair of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP's white collar and government investigations practice, told Law360.
Smith is "trying to weaken the First Amendment argument, which is going to be central to the Trump defense," said Sale, who formerly represented Trump's ex-attorney Rudy Giuliani. "To me, it's not a persuasive argument that you could have a First Amendment right to violate someone else's constitutional rights."
Sale added, "The First Amendment argument is the weakest against this count. It's a very creative charging decision."
University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl Tobias, who focuses on constitutional law, also described the charge as "creative."
Smith "has a chance of convicting Trump of it, and I don't think the First Amendment is going to help Trump here," Tobias said. "At best, you have a clash of rights. It seems Trump's argument is that he can say whatever he wants because he's a candidate for the presidency. But I don't think that's very persuasive here."
The conspiracy against rights statute has evolved and its scope has widened over time. For example, the charge was used against officials accused of blocking George Washington Bridge access lanes as political retribution in the "Bridgegate" scandal of 2013.
Earlier this year, a right-wing social media influencer was convicted in New York of conspiracy against rights for scheming to interfere in the 2016 election by using memes to try to dupe Hillary Clinton supporters into believing they could vote by sending text messages.
"Typically, what I've seen in the case law is the people who are charged are the ones on the front lines paying for somebody's vote or going door-to-door and falsely filling out absentee-type ballots," said ex-federal prosecutor Matthew Chester, a partner at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC.
Trump, however, is accused of working with six unnamed co-conspirators to overturn the 2020 election, meaning that he was a step or two removed from the actions in at least some of the alleged schemes, Chester said.
"But there's nothing prohibiting the government from saying, 'Yeah, but you entered into a conspiracy with others who are directly on the front lines,'" he said. "A jury will be asked to evaluate all of this, and as long as they find he took one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, he can still be a co-conspirator."
Trump is scheduled to be arraigned Thursday.
The government is represented by J.P. Cooney, Molly Gulland Gaston and Thomas Windom of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
Counsel information for Trump was unavailable.
The case is USA v. Trump, case number 1:23-cr-00257, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The 'Anti-KKK' Law That May Sink Trump's Free-Speech Claim - Law360
That's probably the most damning thing you can say about a criminal charge, that it's "creative."Quote:
a conspiracy charge under a Reconstruction-era federal civil rights statute is the most "creative" and most likely to undercut the former president's anticipated First Amendment defense, experts say.
Reminds me of the old BBC comedy series, "Yes, Minister," where the kiss of death for any policy proposal was to label it "courageous."
No s***.Most every Team Mueller indictment (except Manafort, they had him on non Trump related stuff*) I called as "creative." They are also called speaking indictments, long on factual allegations, short on the law. Twenty pages of recitations get to the end and it's a FARA or a false statement case. Big whoop.twk said:That's probably the most damning thing you can say about a criminal charge, that it's "creative."Quote:
a conspiracy charge under a Reconstruction-era federal civil rights statute is the most "creative" and most likely to undercut the former president's anticipated First Amendment defense, experts say.
Reminds me of the old BBC comedy series, "Yes, Minister," where the kiss of death for any policy proposal was to label it "courageous."
ETA: Forgot the * part. Some of what Manafort was charged with related to his political consulting work, in surprise! Ukraine.Funny how things keep circling back, isn't it?
It's just one brick for the wall.
This is not as bright of a comment as you think it is. I see it as an admission that there's really nothing there in any of this - so let's just keep throwing balls of mud at the wall time after time and hope eventually somebody mistakes one as a brick.agz win said:
It's just one brick for the wall.
You really can't help yourself.Quote:
The chyron literally says, hundreds arrested. What did Hillary do? Did she hold a rally and tell them where to march?
Whatever it takes to jail political prisoners and silence any opposition, right?agz win said:
Some interesting analysis with your coffee...
The 'Anti-KKK' Law That May Sink Trump's Free-Speech Claim
America is dividing into the Takers and the Makers. Choose your tribe wisely. One more 'stolen' election will do it. Be it Xiden or Newsom or any other Mao wannabee. The swamp has to kill Trump before they are killed in a political sense by him or his follow on folks. If it is not him it will be someone else. The swamp has to die or America will.
All the Obama/Xiden/Democrat apologists on this board will be the last ones to be eaten.
All the Obama/Xiden/Democrat apologists on this board will be the last ones to be eaten.
Weaponizing.... using the ammo provided by Glorious Leader himself. The orange Bozo is so incredibly incompetent that he not only loses an election to a brain dead lib he can't even properly cover his tracks when doing something of a dubious nature.AGS-R-TUFF said:
Loving or hating Trump is irrelevant.
Weaponizing the legal system to take out your political opponents = Banana Republic 101
Insert any _________ named candidate and this is excessive and concerning to say the least.
4stringAg
Jim Schlossnagle set to leave Texas A&M for Texas head coaching job
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
355
CreekBottom
Jim Schlossnagle set to leave Texas A&M for Texas head coaching job
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
284
Thunder18
Jim Schlossnagle set to leave Texas A&M for Texas head coaching job
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
277
PJYoung
McClain: Schloss lost all credibility outside of Austin
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
223