1 edit
@sh76
This is a first amendment issue regarding free speech. It should be overturned at the SCOTUS for that reason alone. Everything comes down to words, not actions. This is all about speech.
The FBI must not have been brought up for evidence. I'll bet you they omitted this.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/
Maybe they could make it about a Brandenburg analysis and say that he was far enough away from the Capitol that the threat wasn't imminent or that intent wasn't proven or something. That would really be opening themselves up and going out on a limb.
I don't know. Though I plan to vote for Biden (first time I'm voting for a Dem for Pres in 24 years), this just seems like the wrong way to defeat Trump. That's not a legal argument, of course, but taking him off the ballot without a conviction doesn't feel like it's going to have political legitimacy.
@metal-brain saidThe free speech issue does seem to be the most honest way to analyze the case, since the construction arguments on the insurrection clause seem very weak.
@sh76
This is a first amendment issue regarding free speech. It should be overturned at the SCOTUS for that reason alone. Everything comes down to words, not actions. This is all about speech.
The FBI must not have been brought up for evidence. I'll bet you they omitted this.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/
1 edit
@sh76 saidThe Colorado State Court did a Brandenburg analysis. The distance from Trump's speech to the Capitol is less than a 20 minute walk, Trump directed them to go immediately to it and said if they didn't do something they'd lose their country.
Maybe they could make it about a Brandenburg analysis and say that he was far enough away from the Capitol that the threat wasn't imminent or that intent wasn't proven or something. That would really be opening themselves up and going out on a limb.
I don't know. Though I plan to vote for Biden (first time I'm voting for a Dem for Pres in 24 years), this just seems like the w ...[text shortened]... g him off the ballot without a conviction doesn't feel like it's going to have political legitimacy.
Hard to see how that is not imminent incitement particularly when Trump told them to come to Washington the day of the Electoral College certification in the first place.
@sh76 saidYes, everything is about what Trump said. The Jack Smith indictment is the same. That is all about speech. Jack dishonestly claimed it was about Trump's "actions" but even he wrote all about what Trump's words were when trying to make his case that is was about actions. He never cited a single action!
The free speech issue does seem to be the most honest way to analyze the case, since the construction arguments on the insurrection clause seem very weak.
This is an attack on freedom of speech, the most precious speech of all, political speech.
@metal-brain saidNo a newspaper article more than two years old supposedly relying on unnamed sources in the FBI isn't "evidence".
@sh76
This is a first amendment issue regarding free speech. It should be overturned at the SCOTUS for that reason alone. Everything comes down to words, not actions. This is all about speech.
The FBI must not have been brought up for evidence. I'll bet you they omitted this.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/
@no1marauder saidIt always comes down to speech with you democrats. You want to censor political speech to get Trump. Did Trump direct them to do something illegal?
The Colorado State Court did a Brandenburg analysis. The distance from Trump's speech to the Capitol is less than a 20 minute walk, Trump directed them to go immediately to it and said if they didn't do something they'd lose their country.
Hard to see how that is imminent incitement particularly when Trump told them to come to Washington the day of the Electoral College certification in the first place.
@metal-brain saidIncitement to imminent violence isn't protected by the concept of free speech and neither are words used in planning illegal acts.
Yes, everything is about what Trump said. The Jack Smith indictment is the same. That is all about speech. Jack dishonestly claimed it was about Trump's "actions" but even he wrote all about what Trump's words were when trying to make his case that is was about actions. He never cited a single action!
This is an attack on freedom of speech, the most precious speech of all, political speech.
@no1marauder saidpulled that one out of thin air...you are a gullible unAmerican fool
Incitement to imminent violence isn't protected by the concept of free speech and neither are words used in planning illegal acts.
@mott-the-hoople saidFor your homework, moron, read Brandenburg v. Ohio.
pulled that one out of thin air...you are a gullible unAmerican fool
@metal-brain saidHow were they going to "stop the steal" so they'd still have a country anymore at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 minutes after Trump's speech?
It always comes down to speech with you democrats. You want to censor political speech to get Trump. Did Trump direct them to do something illegal?
@sh76 saidThey have to if they want to rectify a wrong that is poised to ruin the USA>. Elections will never be the same, all the loser libs will have signs that they will just carry all the time.
They don't need an excuse. They deny cert to 49 of every 50 cases appealed to it.
They'll take this one, though. It's too big for them to duck.
I'd give 3 to 1 odds that they'll take it.
There wiil be any number of actions to be brought if someone is pissed off. We would be caught ion civil strife all the time. We would stop wasting our time on the Forum
@averagejoe1 saidHey I answered your question here. Can you answer me??
Well, trespass, destruction of property, disorderly conduct, noise, vandalism, publio intoxication, lewd behavior, suspected jaywalking, profanity..... I love your saying what they intended to do. You and Sonhouse. Y'all know what people are thinking, why they do things, their plan....
:"...intended to..", "...force', and to "overthrow". and to "allow the defeated candidate to..."
Hw do you and Sonhouse know what is going on in a person's mind?!
@averagejoe1 saidI already did on p. 9 of the thread.
Hey I answered your question here. Can you answer me??
2 edits
@no1marauder saidTheoretically, "do something" could mean protest very loudly.
The Colorado State Court did a Brandenburg analysis. The distance from Trump's speech to the Capitol is less than a 20 minute walk, Trump directed them to go immediately to it and said if they didn't do something they'd lose their country.
Hard to see how that is not imminent incitement particularly when Trump told them to come to Washington the day of the Electoral College certification in the first place.
Just playing a little Devil's advocate.
I don't know. I just re-read the whole speech.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
Here's the key section:
Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down.
Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
He did say "And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
But that could mean "fight" by protesting loudly. "Fight" is used all the time in political contexts.
I don't know. I think it's a close case.