7 minutes ago, bignok said:

Just expressed his opinion. The election wasnt overturned.

 

Free speech is no longer in the USA.

Freedom of speech in the US means that the government will not in advance say what one may or may not say before one says it.

 

It does not mean that there won't be consequences of one's speech, including criminal prosecution for fraud or other criminal activity furthered by such speech.

8 minutes ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

Freedom of speech in the US means that the government will not in advance say what one may or may not say before one says it.

 

It does not mean that there won't be consequences of one's speech, including criminal prosecution for fraud or other criminal activity furthered by such speech.

So lying is ok if done by the mob. 

9 minutes ago, bignok said:

Just expressed his opinion. The election wasnt overturned.

 

Free speech is no longer in the USA.

If you actually read the indictment and you think it was only about expressing his opinion then I hope you have no legal ambitions as you missed the entire points laid out. The primary reason that donnie is in deep doo doo is not that he expressed his opinion but that he conspired with others in a variety of crimes as are laid out in excruciating details backed by a mountain of evidence.

 

  The indictment  spells out fact after fact that is no doubt further corraberated by documents, emails, texts, first hand testimony, audio and video tapes. Jack Smith is too smart to throw out a bunch of charges that can be shot down by claiming first amendment free speech.

 

The crimes charged have nothing to do with free speech which anyone who has read it would recognize.    In fact the very first page points out that trump has to right to run his big fat mouth and tell all the lies he wants to his supporters and the media.  The fact that the election was not overturned has ZERO to do with the conspiracy charges....a conspiracy does not have to suceed to prove that there was a conspiracy to commit a crime which is against the law. First year law school stuff.

Name 1 US president who never told lies.

Just now, pomchop said:

If you actually read the indictment and you think it was only about expressing his opinion then I hope you have no legal ambitions as you missed the entire points laid out. The primary reason that donnie is in deep doo doo is not that he expressed his opinion but that he conspired with others in a variety of crimes as are laid out in excruciating details backed by a mountain of evidence.

 

  The indictment  spells out fact after fact that is no doubt further corraberated by documents, emails, texts, first hand testimony, audio and video tapes. Jack Smith is too smart to throw out a bunch of charges that can be shot down by claiming first amendment free speech.

 

The crimes charged have nothing to do with free speech which anyone who has read it would recognize.    In fact the very first page points out that trump has to right to run his big fat mouth and tell all the lies he wants to his supporters and the media.  The fact that the election was not overturned has ZERO to do with the conspiracy charges....a conspiracy does not have to suceed to prove that there was a conspiracy to commit a crime which is against the law. First year law school stuff.

The BBC link has few details. I did first year Law. I see nothing in the link but fluff.

Just now, bignok said:

Name 1 US president who never told lies.

Probably none. Now name one president who has conspired to overturn an election as laid out in the indictment.

1 hour ago, bignok said:

I don't anything real here. All fake trumped up charges. He didn't cause the riots. All he did was question the election results.

 

 

What part of enrolling people as fake electors is "questioning election results"?

1 minute ago, bignok said:

The BBC link has few details. I did first year Law. I see nothing in the link but fluff.

you know a 30 second google would provide you with the indictment in full...you might want to take the time to read it ALL.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/read-trump-january-6-indictment/index.html

1 minute ago, bignok said:

The BBC link has few details. I did first year Law. I see nothing in the link but fluff.

Fluff......?

 

https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment

 

The full indictment above

15 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

What part of enrolling people as fake electors is "questioning election results"?

 

 

1 hour ago, bignok said:

Judge is a black woman appointed by Obama.

 

No bias here.

Tell us about Aileen Cannon.

This guy looks dodgy as

1 minute ago, pomchop said:

Wow... did you actually READ the indictment in full?  I don't think so.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/read-trump-january-6-indictment/index.html

Yeah, there is a section on civil rights violations having to do with fake electors. Maybe you read it, but didn't understand it.

 

Are there any alleged facts in the indictment that you think are untrue?

3 minutes ago, pomchop said:

Wow... did you actually READ the indictment in full?  I don't think so.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/read-trump-january-6-indictment/index.html

Bunch of he said fluff. Sad sad US these days.

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Fluff......?

 

https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment

 

The full indictment above

It is obvious that a lot of the posters here have NOT read the indictment.  Anyone with even a shred of understanding of the charges filed and the outline of evidence supporting those charges would grasp that donnie is in deep doo doo.  Trump is free to lie all he wants and spin all he wants to his cult and to the media. 

 

Courts do not operate that way.  

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/read-trump-january-6-indictment/index.html

3 minutes ago, bignok said:

This guy looks dodgy as

 

If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, attack the prosecutor.

5 minutes ago, bignok said:

Bunch of he said fluff. Sad sad US these days.

Right. Got it.  You did not read the indictment in full.

7 minutes ago, bignok said:

Bunch of he said fluff. Sad sad US these days.

Do you believe that all conspiracies are inherently legal because of the First Amendment?

Just now, Danderman123 said:

Do you believe that all conspiracies are inherently legal because of the First Amendment?

Free speech. End of story.

10 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Yeah, there is a section on civil rights violations having to do with fake electors. Maybe you read it, but didn't understand it.

 

Are there any alleged facts in the indictment that you think are untrue?

sorry i did not mean to respond to your post...a different one

6 minutes ago, bignok said:

Free speech. End of story.

Plead that to Fox News and send some dough to help pay that bill.

4 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Can you stay on topic or just troll.  Your so far off the beaten path.  Free Speech by the way does not give one the ability to try and circumvent an election one lost like the indictment states.  Try and read the indictment.

Biden won. Trump didnt stop him.

9 minutes ago, bignok said:

Free speech. End of story.

Is making death threats also protected under free speech? Free speech is not an unlimited right.

1 minute ago, bignok said:

Biden won. Trump didnt stop him.

Failure does not exempt Trump from having committed a crime.

2 hours ago, bignok said:

I don't anything real here. All fake trumped up charges. He didn't cause the riots. All he did was question the election results.

 

 

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
If it was simply just about him questioning the election results then it wouldn't be as serious as it is. However, he and his cohorts went waaaaaay beyond just 'questioning', hence the indictment.

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

If he is found guilty, put him in prison. I have no problem with that.  Just do it in time for the GOP to have a fair chance at selecting another nominee for the 2024 election.

There are still knuckle-draggers who want to have him as President even if he is in prison.

17 minutes ago, bignok said:

Free speech. End of story.

So Conspiracy as a crime is invalid? Planning a second Holocaust would be protected speech?

 

How about people discussing a plan to murder you?  If you had a recording, you wouldn't report it to the police?

Posts and replies have been removed due to a claim of miss-quoting a member's quoted content. 

 

Troll posts have been removed.

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

So Conspiracy as a crime is invalid? Planning a second Holocaust would be protected speech?

 

How about people discussing a plan to murder you?  If you had a recording, you wouldn't report it to the police?

Who did he plan to murder?

35 minutes ago, bignok said:

The BBC link has few details. I did first year Law. I see nothing in the link but fluff.

You obviously spent most of that year asleep. I'd back Jack Smith's knowledge and experience of the law against yours.

I'm reminded of the aphorism a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.