Trump has no serious first amendment defense in a court of law. Here’s why

[Tommy Tainant]

Trump has no serious first amendment defense in a court of law. Hereâs why | Laurence H Tribe and Dennis Aftergut

Words that criminal defendants have written or spoken are used against them all the time. Perhaps you’ve heard of a confession?

www.theguardian.com

Hence, it’s worth a bit of a dive into why Trump has no serious first amendment defense in a court of law to the charges set forth in the masterful, 1 August DC grand jury indictment in which he’s charged with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.

The law puts it this way: “Speech integral to criminal conduct” is not protected speech. UCLA Law professor and first amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has written that “t’s now a standard item on lists of First Amendment exceptions.”

The article makes serious points that make a lot of sense. A first amendment defence is a defence to things he isnt being charged with.

If you stretch the concept of speech to this extent then speech itself becomes meaningless.

Creating fake electors isnt "speech" its criminal conspiracy. I would expect his legal team to find something more substantial before trial.

Otherwise it will be over very quickly.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Trump has no serious first amendment defense in a court of law. Hereâs why | Laurence H Tribe and Dennis Aftergut

Words that criminal defendants have written or spoken are used against them all the time. Perhaps you’ve heard of a confession?

www.theguardian.com

Hence, it’s worth a bit of a dive into why Trump has no serious first amendment defense in a court of law to the charges set forth in the masterful, 1 August DC grand jury indictment in which he’s charged with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.

The law puts it this way: “Speech integral to criminal conduct” is not protected speech. UCLA Law professor and first amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has written that “t’s now a standard item on lists of First Amendment exceptions.”

The article makes serious points that make a lot of sense. A first amendment defence is a defence to things he isnt being charged with.

If you stretch the concept of speech to this extent then speech itself becomes meaningless.

Creating fake electors isnt "speech" its criminal conspiracy. I would expect his legal team to find something more substantial before trial.

Otherwise it will be over very quickly.

Its called kookbait Commie.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump has no serious first amendment defense in a court of law. Hereâs why | Laurence H Tribe and Dennis Aftergut

Words that criminal defendants have written or spoken are used against them all the time. Perhaps you’ve heard of a confession?

www.theguardian.com

Hence, it’s worth a bit of a dive into why Trump has no serious first amendment defense in a court of law to the charges set forth in the masterful, 1 August DC grand jury indictment in which he’s charged with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.

The law puts it this way: “Speech integral to criminal conduct” is not protected speech. UCLA Law professor and first amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has written that “t’s now a standard item on lists of First Amendment exceptions.”

The article makes serious points that make a lot of sense. A first amendment defence is a defence to things he isnt being charged with.

If you stretch the concept of speech to this extent then speech itself becomes meaningless.

Creating fake electors isnt "speech" its criminal conspiracy. I would expect his legal team to find something more substantial before trial.

Otherwise it will be over very quickly.

Jack Smith saw this bullshit coming, so he addressed it early in the indictment.

It's about Trump's actions, not his words.

 

[mudwhistle]

Trump has no serious first amendment defense in a court of law. Hereâs why | Laurence H Tribe and Dennis Aftergut

Words that criminal defendants have written or spoken are used against them all the time. Perhaps you’ve heard of a confession?

www.theguardian.com

Hence, it’s worth a bit of a dive into why Trump has no serious first amendment defense in a court of law to the charges set forth in the masterful, 1 August DC grand jury indictment in which he’s charged with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.

The law puts it this way: “Speech integral to criminal conduct” is not protected speech. UCLA Law professor and first amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has written that “t’s now a standard item on lists of First Amendment exceptions.”

The article makes serious points that make a lot of sense. A first amendment defence is a defence to things he isnt being charged with.

If you stretch the concept of speech to this extent then speech itself becomes meaningless.

Creating fake electors isnt "speech" its criminal conspiracy. I would expect his legal team to find something more substantial before trial.

Otherwise it will be over very quickly.

The fact that they're making it a criminal act to question an election is a first amendment issue.
Never mind the judge threatening to charge him with further acts if he dares to mention something she doesn't want him to say during stump speeches.
So again, this is a first amendment issue.

 

[mudwhistle]

Jack Smith saw this bullshit coming, so he addressed it early in the indictment.

It's about Trump's actions, not his words.

Tell me something I don't know.
The underlying fact is Jack Smith is trying to convict a political candidate for doing everything he legally can to reverse the outcome of an crooked election.
Several states legislatures requested Pence to send their electors back but he refused to do so because he felt it would cause chaos.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The fact that they're making it a criminal act to question an election is a first amendment issue.
Never mind the judge threatening to charge him with further acts if he dares to mention something she doesn't want him to say during stump speeches.
So again, this is a first amendment issue.

Once again you show that you are ignorant of the charges.. I f you read them you can ccontribute to the conversation.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Once again you show that you are ignorant of the charges.. I f you read them you can ccontribute to the conversation.

Right Commie....you are the only one informed.

 

[Mac1958]

Tell me something I don't know.
The underlying fact is Jack Smith is trying to convict a political candidate for doing everything he legally can to reverse the outcome of an crooked election.
Several states legislatures requested Pence to send their electors back but he refused to do so because he felt it would cause chaos.

Sure thing, counselor. I'm aware that you know the law better than Jack Smith, so I'm sure you'll be proven right.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Right Commie....you are the only one informed.

The charges are public documents.Its just that you choose not to read them.

 

[jbrownson0831]

The charges are public documents.Its just that you choose not to read them.

We all know what the charges are goofus.
And they mean more points for Trump in the polls and cannot stop him from being the next president, in fact they contribute to him doing so.
You Dims really just get dimmer and dimmer.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Sure thing, counselor. I'm aware that you know the law better than Jack Smith, so I'm sure you'll be proven right.

I am wondering how long the Judge will allow this line of defence to go on.
I give it 6 minutes before the lawyer is asked where he is going with this.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

We all know what the charges are goofus.
And they mean more points for Trump in the polls and cannot stop him from being the next president, in fact they contribute to him doing so.
You Dims really just get dimmer and dimmer.

No you dont.

 

[jbrownson0831]

No you dont.

We all know it better than you Commie. You read way too much kookbait.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Its called kookbait Commie.

.

aka "The Guardian".

When will these losers realize that their lame UK "sources" are not going to get them any points, especially the UK tabloids like the Guardian, when they're talking about American issues?

.

 

[Mac1958]

I am wondering how long the Judge will allow this line of defence to go on.
I give it 6 minutes before the lawyer is asked where he is going with this.

If his lawyers in the upcoming trials are as shitty as those he used in the "rigged election" farce, the trials will be a circus. Again.

The orange national embarrassment continues.

 

[jbrownson0831]

.

aka "The Guardian".

When will these losers realize that their lame UK "sources" are not going to get them any points, especially the UK tabloids like the Guardian, when they're talking about American issues?

.

Commie isn't the only who clicks on the UK kookbait for their information....

 

[mudwhistle]

Once again you show that you are ignorant of the charges.. I f you read them you can ccontribute to the conversation.

I read the charges.
I bet you don't have a clue what they deal with .
I looked up the charges in the US Code books, and read what they are supposed to be for, and I just laid out what it's about.
You'd better get your shit together on this because you're making yourself look like a fool again.

Two of the counts are almost identical. Just reworded but under the same US Code.

• 18 USC 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the government (Lying about the election)
• 18 USC 1521(k) Obstructing an official proceeding (False charges of starting a riot in the Capital)
• 18 USC 1521(c)(2), 2 Obstructing and official proceeding ( Just another false accusation of starting a riot in the Capital)
• 18 USC 241 Conspiracy against Rights (Preventing a vote which took place anyway)

 

[surada]

The fact that they're making it a criminal act to question an election is a first amendment issue.
Never mind the judge threatening to charge him with further acts if he dares to mention something she doesn't want him to say during stump speeches.
So again, this is a first amendment issue.

That's a lie.

 

[mudwhistle]

If his lawyers in the upcoming trials are as shitty as those he used in the "rigged election" farce, the trials will be a circus. Again.

The orange national embarrassment continues.

Shitty?

Seems that there was a ton of evidence of election fraud presented, and in every case the judges threw it all out because of merit and no standing. I've been seeing the testimony presented all week long, yet no judge would even bother to acknowledge any of it.
The whole thing was torpedoed by the Supreme Court refusing to take the issue up. Without that they had nothing.
They couldn't get one state to do a complete audit of their elections.

 

[jbrownson0831]

That's a lie.

No its not.