|
Post by gordonbombay on Aug 3, 2023 14:00:44 GMT
We all know what he did but “the law” is besides the point is one hell of a way to run a justice system
|
|
|
Post by Ridiculously Dull Bobby on Aug 3, 2023 14:05:28 GMT
“My opinion” ≠ “a justice system.”
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 3, 2023 14:09:03 GMT
I mean, if I’m honest, I don’t care what the “criticism” is. We all know what he did. That he may have muddied the waters enough with bullshit to save his own ass is beside the point. We can stipulate that everything in the indictment is factual. The question is whether it’s criminal. And the ramifications for politics going forward if it is.
|
|
|
Post by elcircogrande on Aug 3, 2023 15:32:32 GMT
Stipulating arguendo (apologies all around) that Trump legitimately believes that he won, the First Amendment clearly protects his right to repeat the lie. The question is going to be: Given the events that ensued, were his repeated, broadcasted lies so similar to the "yelling fire in a theater" hypothetical that they wouldn't be protected by 1A?
If I yell "fire" and a stampede immediately ensues, cause and effect is pretty simple. I suspect it will be more challenging to prove some of the assertions against Trump.
To be honest, I always viewed the Eastman false elector plot as the rubber really hitting the road on the attempted coup, even if it never had a chance of success.
|
|
|
Post by btexpress on Aug 3, 2023 15:40:46 GMT
Somehow they gotta prove that lies = tangible harm. Will be a lot harder to do than it was for Dominion.
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Aug 3, 2023 16:18:18 GMT
Stipulating arguendo ( doctorquant came back, right?) that Trump legitimately believes that he won, the First Amendment clearly protects his right to repeat the lie. The question is going to be: Given the events that ensued, were his repeated, broadcasted lies so similar to the "yelling fire in a theater" hypothetical that they wouldn't be protected by 1A? If I yell "fire" and a stampede immediately ensues, cause and effect is pretty simple. I suspect it will be more challenging to prove some of the assertions against Trump. To be honest, I always viewed the Eastman false elector plot as the rubber really hitting the road on the attempted coup, even if it never had a chance of success. I'd greatly appreciate it if you would keep me out of your arguments and posts.
|
|
|
Post by elcircogrande on Aug 3, 2023 16:26:42 GMT
Stipulating arguendo (redacted, with apologies) that Trump legitimately believes that he won, the First Amendment clearly protects his right to repeat the lie. The question is going to be: Given the events that ensued, were his repeated, broadcasted lies so similar to the "yelling fire in a theater" hypothetical that they wouldn't be protected by 1A? If I yell "fire" and a stampede immediately ensues, cause and effect is pretty simple. I suspect it will be more challenging to prove some of the assertions against Trump. To be honest, I always viewed the Eastman false elector plot as the rubber really hitting the road on the attempted coup, even if it never had a chance of success. I'd greatly appreciate it if you would keep me out of your arguments and posts. I just tagged you because of the Latin. I promise you don't have to worry about it again.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 3, 2023 16:43:36 GMT
The media wanting to deny anyone their First Amendment rights is astounding to me. PFEIFFER: So prosecutors are saying that these are criminal acts, but you're making the argument that former President Trump was exercising his constitutionally protected right to free speech. Is that the case you plan to make?
LAURO: Exactly. And free speech encompasses political advocacy, which often involves acting on that free speech. So for example, if I were to take a position that I believe - or I don't believe that service - that young men should register for, you know, service, there's a Supreme Court case right on point that says I'm entitled to do that. Even though I am advocating a certain action or inaction, it's still protected by the First Amendment.
PFEIFFER: So I know you have said that you believe Trump was genuinely concerned about the integrity of the election, and the prosecutors will presumably argue that Trump was lying when he said the election was stolen or may have been stolen. I heard a previous interview you did in which you said that prosecutors would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had corrupt intent, which they will never do. Is that what you see as the government's legal burden - is proving that Trump didn't really believe the election was stolen?
LAURO: It's embedded in the statute that they have to prove corrupt intent under 18 U.S.C. 1512, which is the obstruction statute. And corrupt intent means that you don't believe in - not only that you don't believe in the position that you're advancing, but you're doing it for a corrupt purpose. You're doing it to obstruct a government function rather than a truth-seeking function. And here, what we will argue to the jury - and we'll win - is that President Trump was arguing for the truth to come out in that election cycle rather than the truth to be denied. Even at the end, when he asked Mike Pence to pause the voting, he asked that it be sent back to the states so that the states, in exercising their truth-seeking function, could either audit or recertify. So...
PFEIFFER: Quick final question before we lose you...
LAURO: Yeah. Sure.
PFEIFFER: ...If the government can prove that Trump lied or that he had corrupt intent, will you still argue that's free speech?
LAURO: Well, free - political speech covers even information that turns out not to be true. So it's all protected by free speech, but at a - at the bottom, the government will never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as I said, that President Trump did not believe in the righteousness of his cause.
PFEIFFER: But if they can, will you say it was free speech?
LAURO: Well, the only way that they can even attempt to prove it is at the end of a trial. I'm going to be arguing that throughout the trial. www.npr.org/transcripts/1191627739
|
|
|
Post by Ridiculously Dull Bobby on Aug 3, 2023 16:44:52 GMT
I mean, if I’m honest, I don’t care what the “criticism” is. We all know what he did. That he may have muddied the waters enough with bullshit to save his own ass is beside the point. We can stipulate that everything in the indictment is factual. The question is whether it’s criminal. And the ramifications for politics going forward if it is. I have no such concerns.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 3, 2023 16:48:18 GMT
We can stipulate that everything in the indictment is factual. The question is whether it’s criminal. And the ramifications for politics going forward if it is. I have no such concerns. That's cool. But, if this is the way things are going to go, then we're going to be a country where politicians regularly prosecute their political rivals.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 3, 2023 16:49:10 GMT
Kaitlan Collins also does not think that the First Amendment is a defense.
|
|
|
Post by Ridiculously Dull Bobby on Aug 3, 2023 16:54:05 GMT
That's cool. But, if this is the way things are going to go, then we're going to be a country where politicians regularly prosecute their political rivals. LOL. No, we’re not.
|
|
|
Post by oop on Aug 3, 2023 17:03:03 GMT
Bingo! (See folks. That's how that works.) Mocking you aside, that answer simply isn't good enough. You made the claim. It is on you to back it up or admit you can't. I'm asking you to present what it is you are talking about. If you refuse to do either, you're once again proving yourself to be lying coward. oop , you’re an idiot. It’s not like I saw one article criticizing the indictment. If you’re unaware of the issue, then you literally aren’t following the news, and it’s not worth discussing with you. Of course, people are going to criticize the indictment. You can find people to criticize anything that works against Trump. That is why I'm asking you to present those criticisms, so I can see the specific ones you are talking about and see who is doing the criticizing. My request is fair and appropriate. Your refusal to back up what you are saying is a dodge. If you believe these criticisms are valid, why not share them? Why act like a coward and hide behind lame insults rather than actually making your case?
|
|
|
Post by oop on Aug 3, 2023 17:04:41 GMT
I have a feeling one’s “knowledge” of the indictment varies wildly depending on what “news” one “follows.” I mean, ok. But I take in a broad range of news. And the criticism of this indictment is pretty straightforward, and it’s not coming just from lunatics. Prove it. Based on your many years of posting here and the other place, there is no reason anyone should trust your opinion on this. Hell, it would be a stretch to trust anyone's opinion on this.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 3, 2023 17:04:46 GMT
That's cool. But, if this is the way things are going to go, then we're going to be a country where politicians regularly prosecute their political rivals. LOL. No, we’re not. A well motivated DOJ could have prosecuted Bill Clinton, GWB, Hillary, and will have a case against Biden. Mature democracies like South Korea and Brazil commonly lock up political rivals. To think it can't happen here is silly, especially if this case is won. It criminalizes political speech.
|
|