4 minutes ago, bignok said:

Who did he plan to murder?

You clearly don't get the point. The right to free speech isn't absolute.

17 minutes ago, bignok said:

Who did he plan to murder?

Conspiracy as a crime is not limited to murder. But, you claimed that all conspiracies are legal. 

 

Are you changing your opinion that conspiracies involving murder are illegal?

 

Or are you just trolling?

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You clearly don't get the point. The right to free speech isn't absolute.

"The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

 

Clearly, the first year law student was sleeping in class.

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

"The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

 

Clearly, the first year law student was sleeping in class.

His difficulty with what the right to free speech protects and what it doesn't might explain why he didn't make it to his second year.

51 minutes ago, bignok said:

Free speech. End of story.

If Hunter Biden conspired with Joe to take a bribe from Burisma, that's protected speech?

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

If Hunter Biden conspired with Joe to take a bribe from Burisma, that's protected speech?

I think you should add to the example that govt. investigators discovered their plans and stopped them from going through with it. 

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

If Hunter Biden conspired with Joe to take a bribe from Burisma, that's protected speech?

Did he take a bribe? Yes or no.

 

 

1 minute ago, bignok said:

Did he take a bribe? Yes or no.

 

 

Conspiracy to commit a crime can be a crime in itself whether or not the crime is carried out.

16 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Conspiracy as a crime is not limited to murder. But, you claimed that all conspiracies are legal. 

 

Are you changing your opinion that conspiracies involving murder are illegal?

 

Or are you just trolling?

I don't think he did anything of the sort. He whinged for a few months about a rigged election. Whinging isnt illegal otherwise the English cricket team would be locked up.

 

The election wasnt over turned by him.

 

He simply asked questions.

 

Asking questions and whinging isnt illegal.

 

 

Just now, bignok said:

I don't think he did anything of the sort. He whinged for a few months about a rigged election. Whinging isnt illegal otherwise the English cricket team would be locked up.

 

The election wasnt over turned by him.

 

He simply asked questions.

 

Asking questions and whinging isnt illegal.

 

 

Plotting to create fake electors is not just asking questions and whinging.

Just now, bignok said:

I don't think he did anything of the sort. He whinged for a few months about a rigged election. Whinging isnt illegal otherwise the English cricket team would be locked up.

 

The election wasnt over turned by him.

 

He simply asked questions.

 

Asking questions and whinging isnt illegal.

 

 

I don't think he did anything of the sort. He whinged for a few months about a rigged election. Whinging isnt illegal otherwise the English cricket team would be locked up.

He simply asked questions.

 

You are deliberately spreading misinformation, how your posts remain is up with such false statements is beyond me. 

19 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Conspiracy as a crime

Big word. Did he plan for months to conspire? Did he bribe election officials?

5 minutes ago, bignok said:

Did he take a bribe? Yes or no.

 

 

You are suggesting that conspiracies that fail are legally protected free speech?

 

Conversely, are you now asserting that conspiracies that don't fail are not protected free speech?

4 minutes ago, bignok said:

I don't think he did anything of the sort. He whinged for a few months about a rigged election. Whinging isnt illegal otherwise the English cricket team would be locked up.

 

The election wasnt over turned by him.

 

He simply asked questions.

 

Asking questions and whinging isnt illegal.

 

 

You forgot about the fake electors and January 6.

MAGA alert! Troll at large (Don't waste your time folks.)

The stench is overwhelming!

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

Big word. Did he plan for months to conspire? Did he bribe election officials?

he planned for months.

 

He threatened election officials.

 

You clearly didn't understand the indictment.

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

You are suggesting that conspiracies that fail are legally protected free speech?

 

Conversely, are you now asserting that conspiracies that don't fail are not protected free speech?

Im suggesting he's innocent until proven otherwise.

 

I see no conspiracy here other than powerful Democrats (very rich and powerful) going after him.

Just now, watthong said:

MAGA alert! Troll at large (Don't waste your time folks.)

The stench is overwhelming!

His thoughts are so confused and fact-free that he is making MAGA and Trump look bad.

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

His thoughts are so confused and fact-free that he is making MAGA and Trump look bad.

So now you resort to personal attacks. 

 

Enough said.

Just now, bignok said:

Im suggesting he's innocent until proven otherwise.

 

I see no conspiracy here other than powerful Democrats (very rich and powerful) going after him.

When you are unable to answer  questions to back up your position, you are losing, and make Trump look undefensible.

1 minute ago, bignok said:

Im suggesting he's innocent until proven otherwise.

 

I see no conspiracy here other than powerful Democrats (very rich and powerful) going after him.

Maybe you are now, but you weren't previously. You were claiming back then that Trump did nothing wrong. That's obviously different from a presumption of innocence.

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

His thoughts are so confused and fact-free that he is making MAGA and Trump look bad.

Just ignore him - he's trying to hijack this thread and people are turning away from the garbage being spilled out.

3 minutes ago, bignok said:

So now you resort to personal attacks. 

 

Enough said.

Your inability to back up your assertions, and constantly changing your positions make MAGA and Trump look bad. You can't answer direct questions, and you have multiple positiin on the crime of conspiracy, all of which conflict with the legal description.

7 minutes ago, bignok said:

I don't think he did anything of the sort. He whinged for a few months about a rigged election. Whinging isnt illegal otherwise the English cricket team would be locked up.

 

The election wasnt over turned by him.

 

He simply asked questions.

 

Asking questions and whinging isnt illegal.

 

 

Yea but the first amendment does not protect freedom of speech in the accomplishment of a crime.

Whining is certainly not a crime , if it was, most of you trampsters would all be in jail.????

The big question for this case is the trial date. I suspect its going to be January 2024.

2 minutes ago, watthong said:

Just ignore him - he's trying to hijack this thread and people are turning away from the garbage being spilled out.

Another personal attack. On ignore.

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yea but the first amendment does not protect freedom of speech in the accomplishment of a crime.

Whining is certainly not a crime , if it was, most of you trampsters would all be in jail.????

Up to you. I don't see any crimes.

1 minute ago, bignok said:

Another personal attack. On ignore.

Confession by accusation. Sounds familiar.

59 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The big question for this case is the trial date. I suspect its going to be January 2024.

Actually, probably a lot sooner. That's why Smith is currently only prosecuting Trump:

 

Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 Trump Indictment Is a Prosecutorial Masterstroke

"The new indictment is at once sure-footed, streamlined, and prudently aggressive. It takes on charges that must be brought and whose evidence overlaps in a careful design to ensure an efficient trial that can be completed before the November election."

https://archive.ph/Xa8X8

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/jack-smith-jan-6-trump-indictment-prosecution-masterpiece.html

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The big question for this case is the trial date. I suspect its going to be January 2024.

Yep, let's keep the thread/discussion on the right track. Just kick the trash aside. Thanks.