Trump Has A First Amendment Right To Say The Election Was Stolen

[Flopper]

If i were Jack Smith, I would introduce into evidence the sworn testimony of hundreds of insurrectionist defendants who said Trump did incite them to do it. Spend a few days just reading it to the jury.

Good idea if the case ever comes to trial. The Supreme Court will not render a ruling as to whether a president can be prosecuted for crimes committed while president until July. Which will make it almost impossible to try him before the election.

 

[Faun]

Then why was Bernie Sanders never charged for inciting one of his followers to start a revolution and that person then went to DC to shoot up Republicans? How about dems inciting violence against Supreme Court justices? Kamala Harris herself urged people to fight like hell for abortion rights.

Because there was no revolution.

 

[Faun]

Good idea if the case ever comes to trial. The Supreme Court will not render a ruling as to whether a president can be prosecuted for crimes committed while president until July. Which will make it almost impossible to try him before the election.

Of course they can be. Otherwise, a president really could shoot someone on 5th Avenue in cold blood and not be prosecuted.

 

[Flopper]

Then why was Bernie Sanders never charged for inciting one of his followers to start a revolution and that person then went to DC to shoot up Republicans? How about dems inciting violence against Supreme Court justices? Kamala Harris herself urged people to fight like hell for abortion rights.

Because a prosecutor could not prove that the person making the statements did with intent excite those people to commit the crimes.

 

[Rambunctious]

And now we get to it… all politics. You don’t care who assaulted who. You see an attack point against Biden so you use it and ignore the same accusations against Trump. All a big game. Right??

I'm in fear for my country... sex talk is for another time....

 

[Slade3200]

I'm in fear for my country... sex talk is for another time....

You brought it up!

 

[Flopper]

Because a prosecutor could not prove that the person making the statements did with intent excite those people to commit the crimes.

 

[Slade3200]

Then why was Bernie Sanders never charged for inciting one of his followers to start a revolution and that person then went to DC to shoot up Republicans? How about dems inciting violence against Supreme Court justices? Kamala Harris herself urged people to fight like hell for abortion rights.

Because Bernie Sanders words and actions were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Apples to oranges. Stop with the low IQ comparisons. Doesn’t make you look smart at all

 

[Flopper]

Of course they can be. Otherwise, a president really could shoot someone on 5th Avenue in cold blood and not be prosecuted.

And just about every legal authority agrees with you. The reason Trump's lawyers brought this case to court was two fold, 1st to delay trial till after the election so if Trump is elected he could kill the case. Second, they would like a limited ruling in their favor that could be use to stop the case from going to court. The Supreme Court agreed to rule on the Trump team motion because the high court has never ruled on the degree of protection a president has from prosecution. It seems very unlikely that the court would rule that a president should be totally immune from all criminal charges as Trump has claimed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then why was Bernie Sanders never charged for inciting one of his followers to start a revolution and that person then went to DC to shoot up Republicans?

Because you can't connect those dots. What a ridiculous question.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And just about every legal authority agrees with you. The reason Trump's lawyers brought this case to court was two fold, 1st to delay trial till after the election so if Trump is elected he could kill the case. Second, they would like a limited ruling in their favor that could be use to stop the case from going to court. The Supreme Court agreed to rule on the Trump team motion because the high court has never ruled on the degree of protection a president has from prosecution. It seems very unlikely that the court would rule that a president should be totally immune from all criminal charges as Trump has claimed.

Trump argues for blanket immunity, because he has no defense.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Good idea if the case ever comes to trial. The Supreme Court will not render a ruling as to whether a president can be prosecuted for crimes committed while president until July. Which will make it almost impossible to try him before the election.

But he would not be inaugurated until Jan 20, 2025.

July to January? We shall see. Seems like enough time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because Bernie Sanders words and actions were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Apples to oranges. Stop with the low IQ comparisons. Doesn’t make you look smart at all

He knows. He is running out of talking points and is getting a bit desperate.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Because a prosecutor could not prove that the person making the statements did with intent excite those people to commit the crimes.

No prosecutor bothered to try because of how absurd it is to prosecute a politician for making a speech in front of their constituents.

 

[Slade3200]

No prosecutor bothered to try because of how absurd it is to prosecute a politician for making a speech in front of their constituents.

Nobody is being prosecuted for making a speech infront of their constituents

 

[Flopper]

But he would not be inaugurated until Jan 20, 2025.

July to January? We shall see. Seems like enough time.

If he is tried before the election he almost certainly will be convicted and if that happens he will not be elected. Voters will not elect a convicted felon facing jail time, not even it's Trump.

We might get one of the two federal trials this year. Georgia will be next year. The soonest the federal trials could start would be about Sept. Since Smith is prosecuting both of them, they can't run at the same time.

 

[billyerock123]

More ignorant commentary which I can easily flip on your argument. Where’s the Biden accuser today? That claim was so 2020. Totally debunked….

See how easy and useless it is to have lazy retorts? Do better. Try to actually read things instead of ignorantly reacting

Well said ...

 

[billyerock123]

Yeah, just like the ***** Ms. Ford accused Justice Kavanaugh of inappropriate touching over 30 years ago, then finding out how she lied because she couldnt remember even if it was him. You fuckers on the left are such despicable assholes, in bringing up BS charges, because that is what MARXISTS always do. And as for William Jefferson Clinton who put a cuban cigar up Monica's you know what, yeah, that was him lying about the sexual relations. But then, Joe Biden voters would believe anything the Marxists tell them.

View attachment 930670

It is hard to argue with a person who posts exaggerations, childish cartoons of the issues ... never run into a person who is so ignorant about the issues ... we aren't talking about justice Kavan that has nothing to do with Trump's situation ...try to stay on topic ...

then you go even further on joe biden voters would believe anything the Marxist tells them .. that too is a total exaggeration about Joe Biden ... why do you use this kind of insult to justify your ideas ... you think it makes you look clever ... it makes you look like a ignorant morainic childish nut case responses... and I know you will respond to me with more of your childish rhetoric ... I won't respond until you grow up ...

when you have a nut like Trump attacking these women in the press and you have your nut case trump followers threatening their lives, their children's lives, and so on ... you think they are going to come to the press or courts to testify and start taking numbers ... not going to happen ... you got too many nut cases in your parties supporting violence...

then you comment about Bill Clinton lying under oath ... I challenge you to find any court charged him for lying about sexual relations ... your ignorance of terms shows ... he was never convicted of lying under oath ... they charged him for giving misleading testimony... that's not lying under oath ... because of Clinton's use of words you can't deal with it ... he left office with no felony charges. or Felony convictions of lying under oath... but you got to bring it up his name because you haven't a leg to stand on so let's say he never had sexual relations with that woman and his new cigar holder to justify Trump's attacking a woman ...that crap makes it ok ...... you bring up these things to justify your ignorance of what is being said ... ... trump is a known rapest ... Clinton never raped anyone, or forced sex on anyone Trump has ... because you haven't a leg to stand on you use these things as shiny objects

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nobody is being prosecuted for making a speech infront of their constituents

Ah. So, you know what specific actions Trump took that he is being prosecuted for?

Tell us, quick!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It is hard to argue with a person who posts exaggerations, childish cartoons of the issues ... never run into a person who is so ignorant about the issues ... we aren't talking about justice Kavan that has nothing to do with Trump's situation ...try to stay on topic ...

then you go even further on joe biden voters would believe anything the Marxist tells them .. that too is a total exaggeration about Joe Biden ... why do you use this kind of insult to justify your ideas ... you think it makes you look clever ... it makes you look like a ignorant morainic childish nut case responses... and I know you will respond to me with more of your childish rhetoric ... I won't respond until you grow up ...

when you have a nut like Trump attacking these women in the press and you have your nut case trump followers threatening their lives, their children's lives, and so on ... you think they are going to come to the press or courts to testify and start taking numbers ... not going to happen ... you got too many nut cases in your parties supporting violence...

then you comment about Bill Clinton lying under oath ... I challenge you to find any court charged him for lying about sexual relations ... your ignorance of terms shows ... he was never convicted of lying under oath ... they charged him for giving misleading testimony... that's not lying under oath ... because of Clinton's use of words you can't deal with it ... he left office with no felony charges. or Felony convictions of lying under oath... but you got to bring it up his name because you haven't a leg to stand on so let's say he never had sexual relations with that woman and his new cigar holder to justify Trump's attacking a woman ...that crap makes it ok ...... you bring up these things to justify your ignorance of what is being said ... ... trump is a known rapest ... Clinton never raped anyone, or forced sex on anyone Trump has ... because you haven't a leg to stand on you use these things as shiny objects

I bring up point after point, that your Marxist side always accuses the other side of doing, what they, the Marxists themselves do. I cant help it if you are a stupid Joe Biden voter, as Forest Gump said about people like you. Stupid is as stupid does. And they vote Democrat.