On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

On 1/25/21 2:27 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?


You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it is the
correct one. Repugnant as saying "kill all the Jews" is, it isn't on its
face, inciting a revolt against the U.S. government. Inciting an
insurrection is.

--
Bozo Binned: Herring, Bert Robbins, JackGoff 452471atgmail.com,
Just-AN-Asshole, Tim, AMDX, and Gunboy Alex, aka the Gang of Dull,
Witless, Insult-Tossing Trumpsters. If you are on this list, I don't see
most of your posts and I don't read any of them.

Wrote in message:r
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser wrote:On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: ...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..." Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version... https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89 I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision. Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s). I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one to hang a jury. So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you won't support. The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit: 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103?322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone? That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anythingremotely political, "protected speech".If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" ispolitical protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purelypolitical bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things. You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... whythe impeachment?

You are talking way over Fat Harry's head.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazon...net/index.html

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

===

To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting
him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of
working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we
have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's
probably not going to happen.

On 1/25/21 10:07 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

===

To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting
him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of
working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we
have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's
probably not going to happen.


Correct, and also a bit of payback for the horrors he has presented to
this republic.

--
Bozo Binned: Herring, Bert Robbins, JackGoff 452471atgmail.com,
Just-AN-Asshole, Tim, AMDX, and Gunboy Alex, aka the Gang of Dull,
Witless, Insult-Tossing Trumpsters. If you are on this list, I don't see
most of your posts and I don't read any of them.

Wayne B Wrote in message:r
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser wrote:On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: ...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..." Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version... https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89 I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision. Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s). I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one to hang a jury. So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you won't support. The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit: 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone? That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anythingremotely political, "protected speech".If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" ispolitical protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purelypolitical bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things. You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... whythe impeachment?===To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejectinghim from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style ofworking mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as wehave already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that'sprobably not going to happen.

SAYS A BIDEN LOVER WHO IS AFRAID OF TRUMP.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazon...net/index.html

Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

===

To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting
him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of
working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we
have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's
probably not going to happen.


Working mobs of supporters in to an emotional frenzy has been used by the
Democrats for years. Hell, look at the support they have given ANTIFA and
BLM for the last few years.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:26:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/25/21 2:27 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?


You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it is the
correct one. Repugnant as saying "kill all the Jews" is, it isn't on its
face, inciting a revolt against the U.S. government. Inciting an
insurrection is.

The jury is literally "out on that". Lets see what the Senate says.
It was your party who said they should decide.
I hope you are happy with the result.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:07:30 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

===

To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting
him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of
working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we
have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's
probably not going to happen.

I doubt he would end up running again anyway but if the Senate votes
to convict, unlikely, I expect to see an appeal and he has grounds.
Then it will depend on just how "constructionist" the current Roberts
court is.
If the democrats really had a case, they would have the DoJ bring it
but I doubt they do.

wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:07:30 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

===

To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting
him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of
working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we
have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's
probably not going to happen.

I doubt he would end up running again anyway but if the Senate votes
to convict, unlikely, I expect to see an appeal and he has grounds.
Then it will depend on just how "constructionist" the current Roberts
court is.
If the democrats really had a case, they would have the DoJ bring it
but I doubt they do.



And how much of Pelosi and the House Democrats support of the the BLM and
ANTIFA riots is going to be brought up? With Federal Courthouses attacked.
I think the Democrats are going to look at this in the future and ask
themselves how could we **** up so majorly?