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

[themagadon]

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

It’s in the constitution

 

[themagadon]

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

Not a crime to object to presidential elections.

Allowed by Electoral Count Act of 1887.

Not a crime to twist political arms.

Did Trump act within official capacity?

Presidential immunity.

Or personal capacity?

First Amendment.

Trump will prevail on these legal grounds.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

The fact that they're making it a criminal act to question an election is a first amendment issue.

Nope. Not at all.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

If his lawyers in the upcoming trials are as shitty as those he used in the "rigged election" farce, the trials will be a circus. Again.

The orange national embarrassment continues.

He should try paying for advice.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Not a crime to object to presidential elections.

Allowed by Electoral Count Act of 1887.

Not a crime to twist political arms.

Did Trump act within official capacity?

Presidential immunity.

Or personal capacity?

First Amendment.

Trump will prevail on these legal grounds.

read the indictment(s)

your arguments are regurgitated bullshit

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I read the charges.
I bet you don't have a clue what they deal with .
I looked up the charges in the US Code books, and read what they are supposed to be for, and I just laid out what it's about.
You'd better get your shit together on this because you're making yourself look like a fool again.

Two of the counts are almost identical. Just reworded but under the same US Code.

• 18 USC 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the government (Lying about the election)
• 18 USC 1521(k) Obstructing an official proceeding (False charges of starting a riot in the Capital)
• 18 USC 1521(c)(2), 2 Obstructing and official proceeding ( Just another false accusation of starting a riot in the Capital)
• 18 USC 241 Conspiracy against Rights (Preventing a vote which took place anyway)

where are the free speech charges ?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

If his lawyers in the upcoming trials are as shitty as those he used in the "rigged election" farce, the trials will be a circus. Again.

Nope. It's in the courts, not the public arena.

 

[themagadon]

read the indictment(s)

your arguments are regurgitated bullshit

I tried ,, but I can’t stop laughing at them lol

 

[Mac1958]

He should try paying for advice.

The amazing thing is that any lawyer would go NEAR him at this point.

Kind of like banks.

I sense a trend!

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I tried ,, but I can’t stop laughing at them lol

Funny, Trump's not laughing at them. but okay

 

[themagadon]

Funny, Trump's not laughing at them. but okay

Of course he is lol

Not a crime to object to presidential elections.

Allowed by Electoral Count Act of 1887.

Not a crime to twist political arms.

Did Trump act within official capacity?

Presidential immunity.

Or personal capacity?

First Amendment.

Trump will prevail on these legal grounds.

 

[luiza]

.

aka "The Guardian".

When will these losers realize that their lame UK "sources" are not going to get them any points, especially the UK tabloids like the Guardian, when they're talking about American issues?

.

Particularly when it is the MI6 daily known to be a globalist mouthpiece for Fake News . Only financially saved from sinking under by Bill Gates money . Turdy nearly always uses this as a source for his Fake News Topics. Ironic that a Communist like Turdy shelters behind the UK Intel agency which is tied to Langley and the Pentagon . Hypocricy at its finest .

 

[jbrownson0831]

Funny, Trump's not laughing at them. but okay

Hes appreciative of all the free campaigning.

 

[jbrownson0831]

The amazing thing is that any lawyer would go NEAR him at this point.

Kind of like banks.

I sense a trend!

He doesn't need lawyers, your kooks are doing all the free campaigning he needs and then all this fake crap will be overturned or just thrown out by real judges.

 

[Blaster]

Once again you show that you are ignorant of the charges.

Your ignorance is on display everytime you post here.

 

[Arlette]

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

Trump** is left with no defense

**impeached

 

[Donald H]

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

Over and above all this Tommy, is the question on whether or not America had a stolen election. If not the Trump should be looking at their death penalty solution.
If true then there must be a civil war to have him reinstated.

None of their amendments or even their outdated Constitution apply when a coup is successful. And none of it applies when treason's result is only appropriately a firing squad.

They're eventually going to have to make their choice for going forward as a country. It's no different than Cuba making the choice.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rule #2 in America 2.0: Domestic enemies of the democrat 1,000 Year Reich are not afforded rights under Constitution 2.0

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump** is left with no defense

**impeached

Impeachment # 3 or 4?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Over and above all this Tommy, is the question on whether or not America had a stolen election. If not the Trump should be looking at their death penalty solution.
If true then there must be a civil war to have him reinstated.

None of their amendments or even their outdated Constitution apply when a coup is successful. And none of it applies when treason's result is only appropriately a firing squad.

They're eventually going to have to make their choice for going forward as a country. It's no different than Cuba making the choice.

You Progressive Fascists (but I repeat myself) need to keep pushing for your 1,000 year American Reich!