There is no First Amendment right to overturn an election

Yakuda said:
Yes we shall and the best part will be hearing the heads of leftist heads exploding all across the fruited plain when trump walks scot-free. I'm going to watch The View for the first time ever after trump walks just to soak up the bitch tears
Click to expand...

Your hatred of American ideals and support for a traitor is noted, Yak. Sad.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
There is no such thing as a guaranteed conviction unless you have a tainted jury.

If that were true then why would we even need a trial, just let the prosecutors decide who is guilty and sentence them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is. When a crime is committed in plain sight, or caught on cameras, it is guaranteed to end in guilt. We guarantee a trial so they can present mitigating circumstances that will provide a weaker punishment. Do you think school shooters are being found guilty by a tainted jury? Trump crimed in public and on the phone. It is difficult to see him being found innocent. But he will get his day in court.
 
Nordberg said:
Yeah, there is. When a crime is committed in plain sight, or caught on cameras, it is guaranteed to end in guilt. We guarantee a trial so they can present mitigating circumstances that will provide a weaker punishment. Do you think school shooters are being found guilty by a tainted jury? Trump crimed in public and on the phone. It is difficult to see him being found innocent. But he will get his day in court.
Click to expand...

And what crime did Trump commit over the phone?

Asking them to find votes?

For all you know he meant for them to do it legally.

Simply asking isn't a crime.

Remember that this will be a court of law so you would have to prove intent of what he said which is impossible.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The problem here with the charges Smith has filed is that he has to prove that Trump pressured officials and organized fake electors.
Click to expand...

We all heard the phone call when Trump pressured the GA SOS to find him 11,000 votes and said he (SOS) might be subject to criminal charges. He made other similar calls.

We also know he pressured the VP. When Pence refused he told him he was "too honest."
 
Tinkerpeach said:
And what crime did Trump commit over the phone?

Asking them to find votes?

For all you know he meant for them to do it legally.

Simply asking isn't a crime.

Remember that this will be a court of law so you would have to prove intent of what he said which is impossible.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you do not know? Are you living in a cave? There are a series of calls to various secretaries of state asking them to assist him in overthrowing the election. https://int.nyt.com/data/documentto...ecretary-of-state-1/b67c0d9dbde1a697/full.pdf I think you are lying about this as well as so many other things.
 
Nordberg said:
Are you saying you do not know? Are you living in a cave? There are a series of calls to various secretaries of state asking them to assist him in overthrowing the election. https://int.nyt.com/data/documentto...ecretary-of-state-1/b67c0d9dbde1a697/full.pdf I think you are lying about this as well as so many other things.
Click to expand...

Well if he specifically asked them to help him overthrow an election as you claim then yes he would be guilty.

Too bad nothing in the transcripts has Trump asking anyone to overthrow an election but whatever.

Trump never believed he had lost the election so there was nothing to overthrow.
 
Flash said:
We all heard the phone call when Trump pressured the GA SOS to find him 11,000 votes and said he (SOS) might be subject to criminal charges. He made other similar calls.

We also know he pressured the VP. When Pence refused he told him he was "too honest."
Click to expand...

Saying someone may be subject to criminal charges is not illegal, they may be.

It's not a direct threat.

Now if Trump had said if you don't do what I say I will have the DOJ file criminal charges on you then that would be a threat.

Do you understand the difference yet?
 
Tinkerpeach said:
And what crime did Trump commit over the phone?

Asking them to find votes?

For all you know he meant for them to do it legally.

Simply asking isn't a crime.

Remember that this will be a court of law so you would have to prove intent of what he said which is impossible.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand. This is part of the conspiracy and helps to prove the conspiracy. Each act when taken alone might not prove a crime but they all go to show an ongoing conspiracy.
You are arguing that driving a car to bank isn't a crime so you can't charge the driver with bank robbery. That is nonsense.

It is not impossible to prove intent. It is very easy to prove intent when you can just use the person's own words that are on... wait for it.....

AUDIO!!

(Didn't you claim Smith didn't have any audio at all?)
 
Doc Dutch said:
I'm looking forward to the trial. Trump's lawyers will claim First Amendment but 1) Trump won't take the stand and 2) any depositions will be fill will him pleading the Fifth Amendment, not the First.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-deposed-ny-ag-civil-probe-business-practices-rcna42355
Trump invokes Fifth Amendment nearly 450 times in N.Y. AG’s civil probe of his business practices
An attorney for Trump said the former president answered only one question, about his name, during the four-hour deposition.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Trump is so fucked it is hilarious.

The 'what i really believed' and 'thus i had no intent' defense will require Trump to take the stand and tell the jury what he really believe and for him to appeal to the jury to believe him. Defense lawyers cannot simply enter what a client 'believes' nor use that defense if the client does not state it in court.

Word is Trumps lawyers are planning a moot court or simulated defense questioning and Prosecution cross examination to see if they can risk putting Trump on the stand. The last time that was tried was by WH Counsel, if my recollection is correct and the determination was they would never allow Trump anywhere near the Stand as he simply could not stop lying. And even if he proved innocent of the initial charges they would have him on 10 perjury charges by the time he was done.

I see no way Trump can avoid testifying on this and the other criminal charges as his defenses are all very oriented to 'I had no intent' as opposed to 'I did not do it'. So this is going to be good. We need cameras in those courts.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Saying someone may be subject to criminal charges is not illegal, they may be.

It's not a direct threat.

Now if Trump had said if you don't do what I say I will have the DOJ file criminal charges on you then that would be a threat.

Do you understand the difference yet?
Click to expand...

Threats don't have to be direct to be illegal.

"It would sure be a shame if your business were to burn down."

Your arguments are getting sillier and sillier.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Well if he specifically asked them to help him overthrow an election as you claim then yes he would be guilty.

Too bad nothing in the transcripts has Trump asking anyone to overthrow an election but whatever.

Trump never believed he had lost the election so there was nothing to overthrow.
Click to expand...
LIES!

'I didn't win the election': Donald Trump discusses 2020 loss in interview with historians
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Threats don't have to be direct to be illegal.

"It would sure be a shame if your business were to burn down."

Your arguments are getting sillier and sillier.
Click to expand...

Remember that this is a court of law.

Saying your business may burn down is not a crime.

Saying your business will burn down is a threat.

Your house may burn down tomorrow, are you going to have the cops arrest me for that?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You don't seem to understand. This is part of the conspiracy and helps to prove the conspiracy. Each act when taken alone might not prove a crime but they all go to show an ongoing conspiracy.
You are arguing that driving a car to bank isn't a crime so you can't charge the driver with bank robbery. That is nonsense.

It is not impossible to prove intent. It is very easy to prove intent when you can just use the person's own words that are on... wait for it.....

AUDIO!!

(Didn't you claim Smith didn't have any audio at all?)
Click to expand...


Trying to prove conspiracy in court is almost impossible.
 
guno said:
Shortly after special counsel Jack Smith unveiled four new criminal charges against former president Donald Trump — all arising out of Trump’s failed efforts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election — one of Trump’s lawyers revealed one of the legal arguments he plans to use to defend the former president.


“This is an attack on free speech and political advocacy,” Trump attorney John Lauro told CNN Tuesday evening. In a separate appearance on Fox News, Lauro claimed that Trump is being prosecuted for “what he believed in and the policies and the political speech that he carried out as president.”

Lauro, in other words, appears to be laying the groundwork for an audacious First Amendment defense. His argument appears to be that, even if Smith proves all the facts laid out in the recent indictment — which alleges that Trump pressured officials throughout the federal and state governments to change vote counts, appoint fake members of the Electoral College, and otherwise tamper with the 2020 election’s results — Trump’s actions were all political speech protected by the First Amendment.

There are at least two reasons Trump’s alleged actions are not protected speech. One is that Smith repeatedly accuses Trump of pressuring other government officials to commit criminal acts of election fraud, and it is well established that soliciting another individual to commit a crime is not protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Williams (2008), “offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection.”

Trump, for example, may not pressure a state elections official to “find” fraudulent votes that will change the electoral result in that state, for the same reason that he could not legally tell a hit man, “I will give you $50,000 if you kill my wife.” In both cases, Trump is engaged in speech. But the fact that this speech solicits another person to commit a specific crime generally removes it from the First Amendment’s protections.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p?cvid=75244f451df64538b6e9c4371e904d00&ei=16
Click to expand...

Preach it, terrorist.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top