jteAg said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

jteAg said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

Trump committed no crimes not even close on January 6 or anything leading up to January 6.

It doesn't matter in the election was stolen or not. He has the right to express his opinion.

The constitution is not a suggestion. At all of these indictments happened when he was the president he's already been impeached for them and acquitted. What we have here is a rogue DOJ and presidential administration going after the man simply because he is breathing.

They are overthrowing the constitution of the United States the guard rails are off and they don't give a damn what the law is.

---

OK… keep telling yourself that.
Love your loyalties to the loser though.
If ANY dem had given that same speech, which encouraged the minions to storm the capital, you'd have the gallows already built.
Oh, wait… they were already built…for Pence!

---

No, where in his speech did, he mention anything about storming the capital he said, go in peace and patriotism, you are a damn liar

---

BS! His rhetoric in that speech fired up those minions like a coach's pre-game speech. He might had said, "go in peace" but he knew what that mob was gonna do, especially when he said, "we've got to fight like hell".
Why do you think it took him hours to call off the dogs, when members of his own party and administration beggged him to do so sooner… cause he loved what he created.

---

lol

JohnLA762 said:

---

They are going after him not because he is breathing, but because he can still become president.

They know the second term would be his last opportunity, and thus he could run rough shot over the whole swamp without having to worry about re-election.

They skeerd!

---

Scared? Haha. That's so cute.

They, the left, are loving how so many on the right are getting behind Glorious Leader. A Trump nomination all but locks in a Dem win in 24'. Scared?….. more like giddy at the stupidity of conservatives.

Casual Cynic said:

---

So firing up people is now a crime?

---

Inciting a riot is.
Oh, right, this wasn't a riot… it was a "peaceful protest ", right?

jteAg said:

---

Casual Cynic said:

---

So firing up people is now a crime?

---

Inciting a riot is.

---

Are you talking about Auntie Maxine?

That's (D)ifferent

Inciting a riot means like actively urging people to riot, Trump never urged people to riot.

jteAg said:

---

Casual Cynic said:

---

So firing up people is now a crime?

---

Inciting a riot is.
Oh, right, this wasn't a riot… it was a "peaceful protest ", right?

---

Man you're reaching. That was in no way inciting a riot. Wonder what they would have done to him had he bailed out the protesters.

Casual Cynic said:

---

It's all just an attempt to criminalize opposition speech.

---

Casual Cynic said:

---

So firing up people is now a crime?

---

Go yell fire in a crowded movie theater and see.

jteAg said:

---

Casual Cynic said:

---

So firing up people is now a crime?

---

Inciting a riot is.
Oh, right, this wasn't a riot… it was a "peaceful protest ", right?

---

Mo
Ron

Quote:

---

I say this as someone who won't vote for him. The level of delusion and stupidity and hypocrisy of the left has to be called out though.

---

snowdog90 said:

---

jteAg said:

---

Casual Cynic said:

---

So firing up people is now a crime?

---

Inciting a riot is.
Oh, right, this wasn't a riot… it was a "peaceful protest ", right?

---

Mo
Ron

---

there just weren't enough shootings, burned down buildings, or looted stores for some people to recognize what a fiery but mostly peaceful protest looks like anymore.

Aggies2009 said:

---

When did Trump "encourage" anyone to "storm" the capitol?

---

He's talking about Ray Epps.

JohnLA762 said:

---

They are going after him not because he is breathing, but because he can still become president.

They know the second term would be his last opportunity, and thus he could run rough shot over the whole swamp without having to worry about re-election.

They skeerd!

---

They're not scared of him at all. They're being more strategic and effective than us as usual. They're drumming up the Trumpsters to elect him in the primary. After he wins, they'll drop the hammer on all these charges and poopy pants or any dem will handily win.

jteAg said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

Trump committed no crimes not even close on January 6 or anything leading up to January 6.

It doesn't matter in the election was stolen or not. He has the right to express his opinion.

The constitution is not a suggestion. At all of these indictments happened when he was the president he's already been impeached for them and acquitted. What we have here is a rogue DOJ and presidential administration going after the man simply because he is breathing.

They are overthrowing the constitution of the United States the guard rails are off and they don't give a damn what the law is.

---

OK… keep telling yourself that.
Love your loyalties to the loser though.
If ANY dem had given that same speech, which encouraged the minions to storm the capital, you'd have the gallows already built.
Oh, wait… they were already built…for Pence!

---

Such a stupid statement. I cannot believe anyone with half a brain thinks Trump was inciting a riot on 1/6. If you actually believe that, then you can't be helped. So dumb.

And I can't stand Trump.

But if you think the dims are not completely destroying the Constitutikn, you are insane!

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

Trump committed no crimes not even close on January 6 or anything leading up to January 6.

---

I guess a jury of his peers will decide that.

His "peers," huh?

fc2112 said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

Trump committed no crimes not even close on January 6 or anything leading up to January 6.

---

I guess a jury of his peers will decide that.

---

There s no such thing in our Constitution. That's an English common law concept as they had royals and then plebicites.

Literally on Page 2 of the Indictment, Jack Smith makes it clear that President Trump is not being indicted for his speech.

It would help if you actually read the indictment rather than listen to all the same pundits who helped laundered President Trump's lies.

READ THE INDICTMENT

Quote:

---

3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

Literally on Page 2 of the Indictment, Jack Smith makes it clear that President Trump is not being indicted for his speech.

It would help if you actually read the indictment rather than listen to all the same pundits who helped laundered President Trump's lies.

READ THE INDICTMENT

Quote:

---

3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

---

---

And? Did you have a point?

FTA 2001 said:

---

Literally on Page 2 of the Indictment, Jack Smith makes it clear that President Trump is not being indicted for his speech.

It would help if you actually read the indictment rather than listen to all the same pundits who helped laundered President Trump's lies.

READ THE INDICTMENT

Quote:

---

3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

---

---

Someone got a new sock.

No free speech when committing a crime or fraud

agz win said:

---

No free speech when committing a crime or fraud

---

Brandenberg v. Ohio. Look it up.

Yep, imminent lawless action standard,

aggiehawg said:

---

agz win said:

---

No free speech when committing a crime or fraud

---

Brandenberg v. Ohio. Look it up.

---

Dondaldson v Read Magazine...the First Amendment doesn't reach attempts to defraud someone in order to induce an act.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

really misses the core of the indictment. They were, allegedly, trying to induce government officials to take actions.

---

Gee, where I have heard that argument before?

Maybe when SCOTUS b**** slapped Smith for charging the same thing against McDonnell?

LOL. Smith stinks at statutory construction. Always has. Maybe you might consider a suit against your law school? Just a suggestion.

---

The Court in McDonnell said McDonnell acted poorly but was not promising to take an "official act" within his official duties in return for the $175,000, so he wasn't guilty of the particular crime of taking money in return for an taking an official act. It was a bribery case interpreting the definition of "official act."

It didn't say its OK to defraud someone into action. It certainly didn't say it was OK to defraud a government official in hopes they'd take action. And generally has little to nothing to do with anything in this indictment.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

really misses the core of the indictment. They were, allegedly, trying to induce government officials to take actions.

---

Gee, where I have heard that argument before?

Maybe when SCOTUS b**** slapped Smith for charging the same thing against McDonnell?

LOL. Smith stinks at statutory construction. Always has. Maybe you might consider a suit against your law school? Just a suggestion.

---

The Court in McDonnell said McDonnell acted poorly but was not promising to take an "official act" within his official duties in return for the $175,000, so he wasn't guilty of taking money in return for an official act. It was a bribery case interpreting the definition of "official act."

It didn't say its OK to defraud someone into action. It certainly didn't say it was OK to defraud a government official in hopes they'd take action. And generally has little to nothing to do with anything in this indictment.

---

So Jack Smith was not involved with both cases?