Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I did. You did not.Did you bother to read the tittle of the article?
The SupremeCourt has not yet ruled. That is also an appeal.I did. You did not.
You claimed their convictions would likely be overturned on appeal. That appeal doesn't do that. It modifies the sentencing.
Once again I have to spoonfeed the contents of your own links -- that you did not read -- back to you.
www.vox.com
If one.actually reads the article, one sees that very few people would have all of their criminal convictions overturned. The vast majority were charged with other crimes as well.The SupremeCourt has not yet ruled. That is also an appeal.
The Supreme Court will weigh in on the January 6 insurrection. What could possibly go wrong?
The Court’s decision could potentially undermine over 300 January 6 prosecutions, including Trump’s.
Eventually we will see how everything plays out. Don’t get your hopes up too high.If one.actually reads the article, one sees that very few people would have all of their criminal convictions overturned. The vast majority were charged with other crimes as well.
That one would also then notice that this is completely irrelevant to the Praying Grandma, as she was convicted of 4 other midemeanors and not of the crime at issue in the article.
Of course, you forgot that you were supporting the bogus claim you made about her convictions.
nobody has said he can't say the election was stolen ... only you Republicans keep saying it because you have nothing else to say of value ...Every time I read about these Jan 6th hearings, all I ever hear is that they are building a case that the so-called insurrection happened because Trump kept on saying that the election was stolen, his supporters believed him, and then some of them rioted, attacking the Capitol. They are finding evidence after evidence after evidence to prove that Trump claimed the election was stolen (not that we didn't know that in the first place) but the kangaroo hearing has to prove Trump repeatedly said the election was stolen even though everyone already knows he's said that many times. What a farce!
So what? Trump has a first amendment right to say the election was stolen, as many times as he wants to say it. That doesn't make him legally responsible if others believe the so called "big lie" and then riot and attack the Capitol. That's on them, not on Trump. Democrats called the 2016 election stolen for years and took steps to overthrow Trump. Where are the investigations of them? Oh, wait a minute. I spoke too soon. Those investigations are coming when Republicans take over the House after the midterms.
they never look any further than their noses... hey badcat why do you think they have 91 felony charges against him... could it be he gets convicted of a couple who all have 4 or more years in jail convictions ... could that be the case ... have they appealed on all 91 charges yet " don't think so ...If one.actually reads the article, one sees that very few people would have all of their criminal convictions overturned. The vast majority were charged with other crimes as well.
That one would also then notice that this is completely irrelevant to the Praying Grandma, as she was convicted of 4 other midemeanors and not of the crime at issue in the article.
Of course, you forgot that you were supporting the bogus claim you made about her convictions.
looks like he's losing the bribery trial ... big time ... oh we aren't hopeful at all it is you who is hoping and praying he doesn't get convicted ... with 91 charges against trump something is bound to stick what are the odds ???? 91 to 1 ??? that he doesn't get convicted ??? now that's funny ...Eventually we will see how everything plays out. Don’t get your hopes up too high.
If you are right you would think Trumps popularity would be falling like a rock but it isn’t.looks like he's losing the bribery trial ... big time ... oh we aren't hopeful at all it is you who is hoping and praying he doesn't get convicted ... with 91 charges against trump something is bound to stick what are the odds ???? 91 to 1 ??? that he doesn't get convicted ??? now that's funny ...
Much depends on who you are listening to. CNN and MSNBC have one viewpoint ant Fox News has another. Fox News has often discredited the “bombshells” about Trump from CNN andMSNBC and has often been right.looks like he's losing the bribery trial ... big time ... oh we aren't hopeful at all it is you who is hoping and praying he doesn't get convicted ... with 91 charges against trump something is bound to stick what are the odds ???? 91 to 1 ??? that he doesn't get convicted ??? now that's funny ...
www.foxnews.com
www.foxnews.com
It's pathetic to see someone who believes that the U.S. is becoming a Banana Republic is funny.looks like he's losing the bribery trial ... big time ... oh we aren't hopeful at all it is you who is hoping and praying he doesn't get convicted ... with 91 charges against trump something is bound to stick what are the odds ???? 91 to 1 ??? that he doesn't get convicted ??? now that's funny ...
Given all the evidence (or total lack thereof, considering you found none to support your claim), I think you probably need to take your own advice.Eventually we will see how everything plays out. Don’t get your hopes up too high.
No it doesn't. It depends on the facts.Much depends on who you are listening to.
All Americans have every right to say anything they think or believe or even lie if they aren't under oath short if violating somebody else's civil rights or intentionally causing harm. Certainly saying the election was stolen violates NOBODY's rights and harms no one and no person should be punished or admonished for believing it.Every time I read about these Jan 6th hearings, all I ever hear is that they are building a case that the so-called insurrection happened because Trump kept on saying that the election was stolen, his supporters believed him, and then some of them rioted, attacking the Capitol. They are finding evidence after evidence after evidence to prove that Trump claimed the election was stolen (not that we didn't know that in the first place) but the kangaroo hearing has to prove Trump repeatedly said the election was stolen even though everyone already knows he's said that many times. What a farce!
So what? Trump has a first amendment right to say the election was stolen, as many times as he wants to say it. That doesn't make him legally responsible if others believe the so called "big lie" and then riot and attack the Capitol. That's on them, not on Trump. Democrats called the 2016 election stolen for years and took steps to overthrow Trump. Where are the investigations of them? Oh, wait a minute. I spoke too soon. Those investigations are coming when Republicans take over the House after the midterms.
*unless retsrained by a gag order from the courtAll Americans have every right to say anything they think or believe or even lie if they aren't under oath short if violating somebody else's civil rights or intentionally causing harm
Any court that would put a gag order on something like that should be removed from the court system and never be allowed to practice any form of law again.*unless retsrained by a gag order from the court
Sorry, you lost that debate decades ago in the Supreme Court. There is no special exception for orange piles of crap.Any court that would put a gag order on something like that should be removed from the court system and never be allowed to practice any form of law again.
No I didn't. Have a great day.Sorry, you lost that debate decades ago in the Supreme Court.
You sure did. Go check. You're kind of embarrassing yourself, really.No I didn't. Have a great day.
You sure did. Go check. You're kind of embarrassing yourself, really.
Gag orders happen all the time. Why do you suddenly care about just this one? It's all so transparent and pathetic.
www.latimes.com
Sorry, regurgitating someone else making the false claim is not support for the truth of that clam.Emphasis is mine:
". . .Even more to the point, in Nebraska Press Assn. vs. Stuart (1976), the justices held that the courts can almost never keep the press from reporting on criminal cases, even when the goal is to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Although the Supreme Court hasn’t considered gag orders on parties to a case and their lawyers, the same strong presumption should apply against such prior restraints. What is particularly troubling about Chutkan’s order is that it seems primarily concerned with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s vitriol. The law is clear that speech can’t be restricted to prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the 1st Amendment protects a right to criticize government officials, even harshly. In New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan (1964), the court unanimously declared that the amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. . ."
Opinion: A federal judge's gag order against Trump may be satisfying. But it isn't constitutional
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's order, issued in response to a motion by special counsel Jack Smith in the Jan. 6 case, runs afoul of the 1st Amendment.
