US vs. Alvarez

T

Tinkerpeach

New member
In this case the Supreme Court struck down a federal law about a person in politics lying.

On June 28 2012, a divided U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Alvarez, struck down as unconstitutional a federal law that criminalizes lying about being awarded military decorations or medals and imposes an enhanced penalty for lies involving a Congressional Medal of Honor.
Click to expand...

While this case involves stolen valor it has broader implications by saying that it is not illegal for a politician to lie.

How Jack Smith does not know this, or maybe he does, shows he's incompetent and that these charges will not stand.

It is a major hurdle for him to overcome.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/201...une 28 2012, a,a Congressional Medal of Honor.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
In this case the Supreme Court struck down a federal law about a person in politics lying.



While this case involves stolen valor it has broader implications by saying that it is not illegal for a politician to lie.

How Jack Smith does not know this, or maybe he does, shows he's incompetent and that these charges will not stand.

It is a major hurdle for him to overcome.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/201...une 28 2012, a,a Congressional Medal of Honor.
Click to expand...
Lol, clearly, you do not understand the charges against Trump.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
In this case the Supreme Court struck down a federal law about a person in politics lying.



While this case involves stolen valor it has broader implications by saying that it is not illegal for a politician to lie.

How Jack Smith does not know this, or maybe he does, shows he's incompetent and that these charges will not stand.

It is a major hurdle for him to overcome.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/201...une 28 2012, a,a Congressional Medal of Honor.
Click to expand...

Read the indictment sweetie, this case has little if anything to do with trump lying.
 
floridafan said:
Read the indictment sweetie, this case has little if anything to do with trump lying.
Click to expand...

I did and it does.

Trump Indictment
Jan. 6 Riot Was ‘Fueled by Lies’ From Trump, Special Counsel Says

Former President Donald J. Trump was charged with four counts in connection with his efforts to subvert the will of voters in 2020. “Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power,” prosecutors wrote.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/08/01/us/trump-indictment-jan-6

The major part of the indictment is about Trump lying about things.

The majority of the case rests on that.
 
Phantasmal said:
Lol, clearly, you do not understand the charges against Trump.
Click to expand...

Trump accused of knowingly spreading "prolific lies": Prosecutors detailed the “prolific lies” that Trump made in the wake of the 2020 election, including knowingly pushing false claims of voter fraud and voting machines switching votes, the indictment says, despite state and federal officials telling him the claims were wrong.

Trump “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won” the indictment states, adding that the “claims were false, and the Defendant knew they were false.”
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-2020-election-probe-08-01-23/index.html

You sure about that?
 
Tinkerpeach said:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-2020-election-probe-08-01-23/index.html

You sure about that?
Click to expand...
Positive, the indictment lists the activities that Trump committed and is being indicted for them.

“Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding”.



https://www.npr.org › 2023/08/01

The charges facing Trump in the Jan. 6 investigation, explained - NPR






 
Phantasmal said:
Positive, the indictment lists the activities that Trump committed and is being indicted for them.

[FONT=&]“Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding”.
[/FONT]


https://www.npr.org › 2023/08/01

The charges facing Trump in the Jan. 6 investigation, explained - NPR
Click to expand...

Yes and those charges are based on lies he told which the Supreme Court has ruled is legal for a politician to say.

There is nothing in these charges relating to anything substantial other than Trumps words.

Show me one that isn't.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Yes and those charges are based on lies he told which the Supreme Court has ruled is legal for a politician to say.

There is nothing in these charges relating to anything substantial other than Trumps words.

Show me one that isn't.
Click to expand...
The charges are based on actions he took based on his lies. I’m this not the speech itself, again, you’re being obtuse.
 
Phantasmal said:
Lol, again, proving you don’t understand the charges.
Click to expand...

Then feel free to correct me which apparently you can't.

Name an action that Trump took on any of the actions that didn't rely on him lying about something.

Did he threaten anyone, did he coerce anyone, what exactly did he do?

Smith has absolutely no case here.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Then feel free to correct me which apparently you can't.

Name an action that Trump took on any of the actions that didn't rely on him lying about something.

Did he threaten anyone, did he coerce anyone, what exactly did he do?

Smith has absolutely no case here.
Click to expand...
A grand jury thought otherwise and Trump is being arraigned today on those charges. The charges are very clearly stated in very simple terms in the indictment. Your failure to understand them is your problem. I can’t state the charges any clearer than Smith did.
 
Phantasmal said:
A grand jury thought otherwise and Trump is being arraigned today on those charges. The charges are very clearly stated in very simple terms in the indictment. Your failure to understand them is your problem. I can’t state the charges any clearer than Smith did.
Click to expand...

An indictment is nothing but common people saying they think their is enough evidence to go to trial.

Trump can't even have any lawyers in there to argue is case.

People in indictments have no clue what the law is.

That being said, there is no charge brought by Smith in this new set of charges that won't be subject to the Alvarez case precedent.

There is no longer any federal law about a politician lying, it was struck down.

Trump can scream all day that the election was rigged and that he won and it's not illegal.

He can tell people he won and it's legal.

Unless he took some other action beyond speaking he can't be convicted.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
In this case the Supreme Court struck down a federal law about a person in politics lying.



While this case involves stolen valor it has broader implications by saying that it is not illegal for a politician to lie.

How Jack Smith does not know this, or maybe he does, shows he's incompetent and that these charges will not stand.

It is a major hurdle for him to overcome.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/201...une 28 2012, a,a Congressional Medal of Honor.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Because Trump is not accused of lying. Why are you so fucking lazy, Nora? Read the indictment. You don't have to go very far into it before you see this:

"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."

Smith is not alleging that the lies were a crime. He is alleging that the ACTIONS taken by Trump and his co-conspirators was illegal. Jesus fucking Christ, stop making everyone else do your work for you. Read something you ignorant twit.
 
Concart said:
No it isn't. Because Trump is not accused of lying. Why are you so fucking lazy, Nora? Read the indictment. You don't have to go very far into it before you see this:

"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."

Smith is not alleging that the lies were a crime. He is alleging that the ACTIONS taken by Trump and his co-conspirators was illegal. Jesus fucking Christ, stop making everyone else do your work for you. Read something you ignorant twit.
Click to expand...
She’s parroting the talking points of Trump’s lawyers who have no defense for his actions.
 
Phantasmal said:
She’s parroting the talking points of Trump’s lawyers who have no defense for his actions.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And parrots are lazy by nature. But seriously, that quote is on I believe page 3 of the indictment. My baseline expectation for a poster is that they familiarize themselves with the topic of threads they start, and not make someone else point out their laziness and sloth while correcting their completely inaccurate understanding. We spend way too much time debunking things for outright lazy posters.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
In this case the Supreme Court struck down a federal law about a person in politics lying.



While this case involves stolen valor it has broader implications by saying that it is not illegal for a politician to lie.

How Jack Smith does not know this, or maybe he does, shows he's incompetent and that these charges will not stand.

It is a major hurdle for him to overcome.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/201...une 28 2012, a,a Congressional Medal of Honor.
Click to expand...

This is why you need to read the actually indictment and not listen to TrumpDerp talking points by those with TDS.


... As the indictment makes clear, Trump “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.”

But Trump is not being prosecuted for his repeated lies about a stolen election. He is being prosecuted for the efforts he made, the actions he took to operationalize that contention and prevent the clear will of the voters from being realized, or what the indictment calls “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”

Just because words are involved in the commission of these alleged crimes does not mean that prosecuting Trump violates his First Amendment rights. ...
Click to expand...


Put another way, i can claim all day long i believe I am Jeff Bezos love child and heir to his estate and that is protected by my First amendments rights, even if i am lying.

But as soon as i start filling out and filing paper work with gov't agencies to that effect, i have broken the law and cannot claim 'free speech' to protect me.
 
Phantasmal said:
The charges are based on actions he took based on his lies. I’m this not the speech itself, again, you’re being obtuse.
Click to expand...

And stupid. Don't forget she is being stupid.


Yes the SC says we can all lie and that is protected by Free Speech.

Tink is then saying any actions taken based on that lie therefore are also protected by Free Speech.


Tink : I own that building. Its mine. I bought it yesteday. (a complete lie, as Tink does not own it)

Tink : takes bulldozer and tears down building illegally and claims 'you cannot prosecute me as my lie is protected speech and thus any action i take on that lie is also protected'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top