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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did you bother to read the tittle of the article?

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.

 

[Batcat]

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.

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.

www.vox.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Batcat]

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.

Eventually we will see how everything plays out. Don’t get your hopes up too high.

 

[billyerock123]

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.

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 you read that crap you are reading some right-wing blogger or conspiracy theorist... trump clearly said lets now go down to the capitol and take back America... that trump telling them to attack the capital any way you want to look at it ... ... if you watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or credible news outlets you would know that ... they have a case against Trump... the reason they are waiting to prosecute Trump is he has a half of a dozen court appeals on they going to court about ... and if you had watched one of these real news outlets you would know trump has lost each and everyone ... until they get to the last one the court case against him can't start ... it called jamming up the system hoping you get elected to be president ...so you can stop all the court cases ... give himself a pardon on all charges ... idiots every where you go ...

 

[billyerock123]

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.

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 ...

 

[billyerock123]

Eventually we will see how everything plays out. Don’t get your hopes up too high.

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 ...

 

[Batcat]

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 ...

If you are right you would think Trumps popularity would be falling like a rock but it isn’t.

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Plus Joe Biden‘s popularity isn’t changing all that much.

Politics News | Breaking Political News, Video & Analysis-ABC News

ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

You may be right that if Trump is convicted, it might make the big difference. On the other hand, voters may feel Trump was a victim of legal tricks by the Democrats to tie him up in court and not let him campaign. That might just make him a martyr.

SCOTUS has not weighed in yet. That decision may prove very interesting.

Justices Seem Ready to Limit the 2020 Election Case Against Trump (Published 2024)

Such a ruling in the case, on whether the former president is immune from prosecution, would probably send it back to a lower court and could delay any trial until after the November election.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Batcat]

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.

Of course the jury in NewYOrk City might convict Trump and on appeal the decision will be overturned.Time will tell.

Trump hush money trial is a 'Frankenstein case' that's been 'zapped' into life: Turley

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley said Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's case against former President Donald Trump is over something that is "not a recognizable crime."

www.foxnews.com

JONATHAN TURLEY: This is a Frankenstein case. They took a dead misdemeanor. They attached it to a dead alleged federal felony and zapped it back into life. So many of us are just amazed to watch this actually walk into court, because it's not a recognizable crime that any of us have seen. This does not appear to be a federal crime, but that's the theory that Bragg is using. So they need to go into the Wayback Machine.


This state misdemeanor died because of the statute of limitations. Then what Bragg said was, well, I'm going to allege that you did false filings on business records to hide a crime, but he was very ambiguous [on] what that crime might be. He still is ambiguous, but it is assumed to be a federal election crime. The problem is the federal government doesn't view it as a crime. They decided not to prosecute. And most election experts say that this is the type of thing that's failed in the past. So this bizarre indictment is now going to be an equally bizarre trial. And to this day, there's some confusion as to Bragg's actual theory as to what was the exact crime that Trump was hiding from all of this.

Trump hush-money case 'could not be worse for our country,' Jonathan Turley warns

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley examines the "horrendous" optics of former President Donald Trump's ongoing legal battles ahead of the 2024 election.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Markle]

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 ...

It's pathetic to see someone who believes that the U.S. is becoming a Banana Republic is funny.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Eventually we will see how everything plays out. Don’t get your hopes up too high.

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Much depends on who you are listening to.

No it doesn't. It depends on the facts.

But yes, no doubt your perspective is warped, if you take Turley seriously.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

*unless retsrained by a gag order from the court

 

[Foxfyre]

*unless retsrained by a gag order from the court

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Sorry, you lost that debate decades ago in the Supreme Court. There is no special exception for orange piles of crap.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, you lost that debate decades ago in the Supreme Court.

No I didn't. Have a great day.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

www.latimes.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

www.latimes.com

Sorry, regurgitating someone else making the false claim is not support for the truth of that clam.

The test is the Supreme Court. And you failed that test decades ago. Sorry.