|
Post by oop on Aug 3, 2023 17:07:30 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/1191627739Your overly simplistic and misleading interpretation of this is exactly why your opinion of what is fair criticism of the indictment cannot be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by oop on Aug 3, 2023 17:09:17 GMT
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. It was fraud that sparked an assault on the U.S. Congress. Come on. Do better.
|
|
|
Post by Ridiculously Dull Bobby on Aug 3, 2023 17:17:14 GMT
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. LOL. No, it doesn’t.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 3, 2023 22:23:43 GMT
Well, when you put it that way…
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Aug 3, 2023 22:48:57 GMT
There are pages and pages of analysis, theory, hyperbole, and nonsense regarding Hunter Biden, but you are all backing away from a very real indictment, which is just the latest for Trump. Condemn him. Defend him. Cry conspiracy either way. There is a hell of a lot more meat on these bones, yet none of you are willing to engage. YankeeFan won't even post on the thread at all. That is a special kind of cowardice on his part. To be fair, 99.9 percent of the Hunter Biden theorizing is by one poster …
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Aug 3, 2023 22:50:22 GMT
I have a feeling one’s “knowledge” of the indictment varies wildly depending on what “news” one “follows.” And which “tweets.”
|
|
|
Post by oop on Aug 3, 2023 23:01:50 GMT
Well, when you put it that way… It's interesting to see you find some common ground with Al Sharpton. You both make some very poor analogies. Now, please provide links to some of these criticisms of the indictments that you claim are being made by reasonable people. I don't doubt that they exist, but if you are going to refer to them, you should show us what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by oop on Aug 3, 2023 23:06:41 GMT
There are pages and pages of analysis, theory, hyperbole, and nonsense regarding Hunter Biden, but you are all backing away from a very real indictment, which is just the latest for Trump. Condemn him. Defend him. Cry conspiracy either way. There is a hell of a lot more meat on these bones, yet none of you are willing to engage. YankeeFan won't even post on the thread at all. That is a special kind of cowardice on his part. To be fair, 99.9 percent of the Hunter Biden theorizing is by one poster … Given how few people actually post here regularly, that's a big chunk of the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by oop on Aug 3, 2023 23:13:20 GMT
Takeway from Trump ArraignmentOf course, the legal tactic here is going to be to delay the actual trial as much as possible. Instead of trying to clear his name, he's going to try to run out the clock on the indictments he faces until near or after the election. The closer they get to the election, the more he can cry about interference. There is also no reason not to keep his legal team spinning its wheels. He's got all those political donations he can redirect to cover his legal fees.
|
|
|
Post by btexpress on Aug 4, 2023 5:36:39 GMT
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. Absolutely. All future candidates who refuse to concede elections they lose and attempt to overturn the results will be subject to criminal prosecution!
|
|
|
Post by Ridiculously Dull Bobby on Aug 4, 2023 12:18:49 GMT
Y’all didn’t seem too angry when Bill Clinton urged thousands of his supporters to kill Al Gore!
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 4, 2023 12:21:17 GMT
Y’all didn’t seem too angry when Bill Clinton urged thousands of his supporters to kill Al Gore! Obama hates Joe Biden just as much as Trump hates Pence. He just didn't have the balls to act on it.
|
|
|
Post by Ridiculously Dull Bobby on Aug 4, 2023 12:22:35 GMT
Obama hates Joe Biden just as much as Trump hates Pence. He just didn't have the balls to act on it. Yeah, what a pussy.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 5, 2023 15:40:49 GMT
Yes. It’s really troubling when opposition leaders are locked up on politically motivated charges.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 5, 2023 17:14:25 GMT
I hope oop doesn’t see this.
|
|