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

[themagadon]

Nope. You wrote that Trump 'objected to the presidential election' not the results of the state elections.

And I did not say he can't object to presidential elections. He could, but it would be objecting to the US Constitutional mandates

Ahhh he can object to state results or mandates? Well gosh why didn’t you say so

 

[Stryder50]

One of many "tips of the iceberg" involved in this issue;
Mystery Swirls Over Batch of Thousands of 2020 Voter Registration Forms in Michigan

Numbers reveal that there were thousands more people that filed voter registration forms with the Muskegon, Michigan City Clerk's office than there were unregistered voting age people in the 2020 presidential election. And at least 10,500 forms were filed by a single individual.
.....
Legal Battle Over Public Inspection of Maine Voter Rolls Continues

Maine Democrats, led by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, are continuing their long fight to make it harder for people to access and analyze the state’s voter registration rolls.
...

 

[gmeyers1944]

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.

President Trump did not tell his campaign subordinates to "organize slates of fake electors". Electors are chosen in advance of elections. There is plenty of evidence to prove that the vote count in these several states was deliberately erroneous. Democrats claim that there was no evidence because they deliberately did not investigate. Asking for a recount is not a crime. Al Gore wanted a recount in limited counties in Florida in 2000.

 

[marvin martian]

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 guy who's a subject living in a country with no free speech rights at all wants to talk about our first amendment. LOL!

 

[Tommy Tainant]

President Trump did not tell his campaign subordinates to "organize slates of fake electors". Electors are chosen in advance of elections. There is plenty of evidence to prove that the vote count in these several states was deliberately erroneous. Democrats claim that there was no evidence because they deliberately did not investigate. Asking for a recount is not a crime. Al Gore wanted a recount in limited counties in Florida in 2000.

There is no evidence. None.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

^^^The guy who's a subject living in a country with no free speech rights at all wants to talk about our first amendment. LOL!

Its an American article. The courts will decide on this shortly.

 

[marvin martian]

Its an American article. The courts will decide on this shortly.

Doesn't change the fact that your little racist shithole country doesn't recognize your right to free speech. Which is why you post here, instead of on a site in your own country that would throw you in the gulag.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Doesn't change the fact that your little racist shithole country doesn't recognize your right to free speech. Which is why you post here, instead of on a site in your own country that would throw you in the gulag.

It really wouldnt. You are very ignorant Moron Martian.

 

[gmeyers1944]

There is no evidence. None.

No evidence only because no investigation