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

[Slade3200]

Oh! So it is what he said, not that he gave us speech?

OK, then… You should easily be able to quote a few of the utterances in that speech that were crimes to utter them.

For example, if he said “the best thing for you to do is march into the capital And tear up the place” that would be inciting a riot. If he said “go in there, and make sure the certification doesn’t happen“ that would be inciting them to interfere with an official proceeding.

But, of course, he didn’t say either of those things. Can you please quote what he did say that was a crime?

Read the charges dude. It’s all spelt out there. He was not charged for giving a speech like you inaccurately stated. He was charged for what he said and did. It’s all laid out

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What?!?!

It is exactly prosecuting somebody for giving a speech. He gave us speech, he used words like “fight “ commonly used by Democrats when talking about the right to kill babies or the right to mutilate children, but Trump is no Democrat.

So Trump is being prosecuted for giving a speech.

Or course just lately up in Michigan where Congressbitch Talib "represents" the speaker was leading a chant "DEATH TO AMERICA". Yet that ****** is allowed to walk, because Marxist love people like that, even if they act out on what they are sayin.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump never directed anyone to riot at the Capitol.

Right, he talked in code.

And Gotti never said "kill that guy".

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Prove it!

Lol. Look everyone , a moron .. common knowledge u propagandist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not one person has been charged with insurrection so, obviously, there can't be an insurrection.

Haha, there is the dumbest post of the thread.

 

[Billo_Really]

Lol. Look everyone , a moron .. common knowledge u propagandist.

What I said was true. There is no evidence of a stolen election. None. If you think there is, then you are batshit crazy! You are off your rockwr! You do not reside on planet earth.

If you disagree, then pony up the evidence mother-******, or shut your ******* mouth!

 

[Slade3200]

Or course just lately up in Michigan where Congressbitch Talib "represents" the speaker was leading a chant "DEATH TO AMERICA". Yet that ****** is allowed to walk, because Marxist love people like that, even if they act out on what they are sayin.

Yall really don’t understand the difference between speech and action do you??

 

[Slade3200]

Haha, there is the dumbest post of the thread.

They have a really hard time with definitions

 

[Seymour Flops]

Read the charges dude. It’s all spelt out there. He was not charged for giving a speech like you inaccurately stated. He was charged for what he said and did. It’s all laid out

I’ve read the charges. That’s how I know how wrong you are. The charges on specify what he said. They are very vague.

If you believe he committed a crime by something he said, tell us what it is. If you just say “ I trust the prosecutors, no matter what,” Then just say so. Let’s just say I choose not to trust them.

 

[Slade3200]

I’ve read the charges. That’s how I know how wrong you are. The charges on specify what he said. They are very vague.

If you believe he committed a crime by something he said, tell us what it is. If you just say “ I trust the prosecutors, no matter what,” Then just say so. Let’s just say I choose not to trust them.

It’s not about a word or phrase that he said it’s about leading his people. He lead his followers to believe a lie and attack the capital. He led his staff to organize false electors. He tried to pressure the GA Secretary of State to find votes so he could win the state. Against the information provided to him he pushed false narratives and conspiracy theories and lead his followers down a path of destruction.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It’s not about a word or phrase that he said it’s about leading his people. He lead his followers to believe a lie and attack the capital. He led his staff to organize false electors. He tried to pressure the GA Secretary of State to find votes so he could win the state. Against the information provided to him he pushed false narratives and conspiracy theories and lead his followers down a path of destruction.

I like the apocolyptic language of that paragraph. Almost poetic. I imagine you on horseback with a beard like John Brown yelling those words to a screaming crowd.

If you did make a public speech like that, no matter how much I disagree with it, and then other people rushed into Mar-a-Lago and trashed it, I would not say that you committed a crime by making a speech with which I disagreed.

You challenged my assertion that Donald Trump was prosecuted for making a speech. You said read the charges. I showed you in the charges that part of the charges were for unspecified things he said in a speech.

That was the end of the argument. You lost. What has followed has been you refusing to lose gracefully.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You challenged my assertion that Donald Trump was prosecuted for making a speech. You said read the charges. I showed you in the charges that part of the charges were for unspecified things he said in a speech

Lie. The statements of fact are all taken together and are not the criminal charges themselves.

This is..like saying that, a statement of fact that you drove to the bank in a bank robbery.Charge means you are being charged criminally for driving to the bank.

Please everybody quit feeding the sea lions.

 

[Slade3200]

If you did make a public speech like that, no matter how much I disagree with it, and then other people rushed into Mar-a-Lago and trashed it, I would not say that you committed a crime by making a speech with which I disagreed.

Good, you shouldn’t. It would be a completely different situation than what Trump is being prosecuted for.

He is still running around the country with his posse holding rallies saying the same bullshit and lies, and he is free to do so, nobody is charging him or stopping him.

If you can’t understand the difference between holding a speech and the things he is being charged for then you’re either not trying or you’re just not very bright

 

[Seymour Flops]

Good, you shouldn’t. It would be a completely different situation than what Trump is being prosecuted for.

No, it is exactly the same.

He is still running around the country with his posse holding rallies saying the same bullshit and lies, and he is free to do so, nobody is charging him or stopping him.

Yes, he is free to make speeches. Especially speeches against his prosecution for making a speech.

If you can’t understand the difference between holding a speech and the things he is being charged for then you’re either not trying or you’re just not very bright

Then you must be incredibly stupid not to be able to explain something so simple.

 

[billyerock123]

You are so full of shit!

Trump never directed anyone to riot at the Capitol.

Not one person has been charged with insurrection so, obviously, there can't be an insurrection.

Here's some thoughts on election stealing:



Democrats still claim many elections were stolen, not just 2016 and continue to do so.

Another repub-lie-clown that hasn't a clue ... he says nobody has been convicted of insurrection must of missed these guys 3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for a role in the Capitol attack you seem to missed the 460 3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for role in Capitol attack

 

[Independent thinker]

Another repub-lie-clown that hasn't a clue ... he says nobody has been convicted of insurrection must of missed these guys 3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for a role in the Capitol attack you seem to missed the 460 3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for role in Capitol attack

Please list the ones who have been found guilty of "insurrection".

 

[Flopper]

What?!?!

It is exactly prosecuting somebody for giving a speech. He gave us speech, he used words like “fight “ commonly used by Democrats when talking about the right to kill babies or the right to mutilate children, but Trump is no Democrat.

So Trump is being prosecuted for giving a speech.

He is being prosecuted primarily on what he did not what he said to his supporters encouraging them to demonstrate. This includes putting pressure on officials to ignore the popular vote, organizing fraudulent state electors in 7 states, knowing spreading false information about the election, pressuring his vice-president to reject the election results in the Senate, and ignoring his own staff members that informed him that the demonstrators were becoming violent and he should take action. Even during the attack, he ignored pleas from his vice president. In addition the prosecutor will call witness from his staff and advisors that will testify, that he was well aware of there being no truth to his claims of election fraud yet he persisted in spreading the lies.

 

[Flopper]

What I said was true. There is no evidence of a stolen election. None. If you think there is, then you are batshit crazy! You are off your rockwr! You do not reside on planet earth.

If you disagree, then pony up the evidence mother-******, or shut your ******* mouth!

State and federal agencies have had to spend millions of dollars investigating thousands of bogus claims of election fraud. And what they found is small numbers of isolated cases of illegal voting and bogus claims of vote swapping and destruction of ballots in vote counting centers.

 

[Flopper]

No, it is exactly the same.

Yes, he is free to make speeches. Especially speeches against his prosecution for making a speech.

Then you must be incredibly stupid not to be able to explain something so simple.

Freedom of speech does not mean there will be no legal consequences. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is reserved to courts of law. And that will certainly be an issue in the Jan 6th trial.

Most of the trial is going to be about what Trump did and did not do, not what he said. However, his pattern of constant lies about the election and it's effect on the Jan 6th attack on the Capital will be an issue.

Another issue that will be important in the trial will be Trump's intent. What was the intent of his actions and speeches? After the votes were counted and recounted, claims of fraud investigated, and the states certifying the election, the Supreme Court refusing to get involved, did Trump really believe there was any real legal path to overturning the election results. There was almost no chance of him legally stopping the federal certification in the House and none in the Senate. His only option would be insurrection which was exactly where he was headed on Jan 6th.

 

[Seymour Flops]

He is being prosecuted primarily on what he did not what he said to his supporters encouraging them to demonstrate. This includes putting pressure on officials to ignore the popular vote, organizing fraudulent state electors in 7 states, knowing spreading false information about the election, pressuring his vice-president to reject the election results in the Senate, and ignoring his own staff members that informed him that the demonstrators were becoming violent and he should take action. Even during the attack, he ignored pleas from his vice president. In addition the prosecutor will call witness from his staff and advisors that will testify, that he was well aware of there being no truth to his claims of election fraud yet he persisted in spreading the lies.

As I never tire of explaining to Democrats in the thrall of their own media:

It is not a crime to put pressure on elected officials to do things you want them to. There is a whole job of doing nothing but that. It's called "lobbyist."

It is not a crime to express doubts about the fairness and legality of an election. Democrats do it nearly every single time they lose.

It is not a crime to tell your subordinate how to do their job. Again, there is a whole job of doing that, called "boss."

It is not a crime to ignore your own staff. How could it be when powerful people often get contridictory advise from different staffers.

It is not a crime to ignore naysayers in general. Nearly every unusually successful person in history has had to do that.

In the unlikely event that they can "prove" that Trump knew the election was squeaky clean - ok, the impossible event, because it was not - it is not a crime for a politician to lie. If it were the hoosegow would be full of nearly every president we've had in the last fifty years.

Freedom of speech does not mean there will be no legal consequences. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is reserved to courts of law. And that will certainly be an issue in the Jan 6th trial.

Most of the trial is going to be about what Trump did and did not do, not what he said. However, his pattern of constant lies about the election and it's effect on the Jan 6th attack on the Capital will be an issue.

As I explained above, nothing that you described him doing is a crime.

Another issue that will be important in the trial will be Trump's intent. What was the intent of his actions and speeches? After the votes were counted and recounted, claims of fraud investigated, and the states certifying the election, the Supreme Court refusing to get involved, did Trump really believe there was any real legal path to overturning the election results. There was almost no chance of him legally stopping the federal certification in the House and none in the Senate. His only option would be insurrection which was exactly where he was headed on Jan 6th.

It strains credulity to think that an outgoing president wishing to start an insurrection would offer to send the nation guard to stop any potential violance and would tell his followers to be "peaceful and patriotic."

How many people have been charged with insurrection so far, and how many found guilty?