Liberal Forum

That’s why (as the Justice Department concluded) his speech isn’t punishable as incitement. Under the First Amendment, incitement can be punished only if it intentionally calls for lawbreaking that is likely to occur. Trump did not advocate lawbreaking. What ensued probably surprised him as much as anyone. It would not have happened except for the remarkable, unpredictable failure of the Capitol Police. If the mere knowledge that some lawbreaking would probably happen were enough to punish speech, we would be locking up Black Lives Matter organizers.

On the other hand, criminal law is narrowly limited for good reason. A defendant must be proven to have violated some preexisting, clearly defined prohibition. It is not enough to show that he is nasty. A world in which the state is free to punish those it deems nasty would be frightening. Trump is immune from prosecution because of the very institutions, limiting the abuse of political power, that he has struggled against throughout his presidency.



Why Trump can’t be prosecuted | The Hill
 

COME NOV... WHEN THE GOP TAKES POWER IN THE HOUSE...CAPITOL POLICE OFFICERS WILL BE BROUGHT IN AND ASKED WHO TOLD THEM TO OPEN THE GATES AND DOORS AND INVITE THE PROTESTERS IN. 

QUESTIONS FOR PIGLOSI

When then-USCP Chief Steven Sund made a request for national guard support on January 4th, why was that request denied?

 Did Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on January 4th prior to denying Chief Sund’s request for the national guard?

 What conversations and what guidance did you and your staff give the Sergeant at Arms leading up to January 6th specific to the security posture of the campus? 

Why are your House Officers refusing to comply with preservation and production requests to turn over requested materials relevant to the events of January 6th?
 
 

BUT...BUT...

FBI Confirms No Firearms Were Found During January 6 Capitol …HTTPStennesseestar.com/2021/03/06/fbi-confirms...A leading counterterrorism official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed on Wednesday that, despite frequent and baseless claims that the protests at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th was supposedly an “armed insurrection,” no firearms were recovered in the aftermath of the protests, as reported by the Epoch Times. Jill Sanborn, the FBI’s counterrorism chief, …

FBI: No Firearms Were Found in the US Capitol During the January …HTTPSwww.thetruthaboutguns.com/fbi-no-firearms...Hundreds have since been arrested and charged for their part in what took place at the Capitol on January 6. Earlier today, Jill Sanborn, the FBI’s Assistant Director for Counterterrorism, testified in


 
 

TB7 » 23 Jul 2022, 11:31 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 11:31 am

COME NOV... WHEN THE GOP TAKES POWER IN THE HOUSE...CAPITOL POLICE OFFICERS WILL BE BROUGHT IN AND ASKED WHO TOLD THEM TO OPEN THE GATES AND DOORS AND INVITE THE PROTESTERS IN. 

QUESTIONS FOR PIGLOSI

When then-USCP Chief Steven Sund made a request for national guard support on January 4th, why was that request denied?

 Did Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on January 4th prior to denying Chief Sund’s request for the national guard?

 What conversations and what guidance did you and your staff give the Sergeant at Arms leading up to January 6th specific to the security posture of the campus? 

Why are your House Officers refusing to comply with preservation and production requests to turn over requested materials relevant to the events of January 6th?

I hope they drop the January 6th **** like the insignificant event that it was and go after democrats support of blm domestic terrorists.  

Neo » 23 Jul 2022, 11:53 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 11:53 am

I hope they drop the January 6th **** like the insignificant event that it was and go after democrats support of blm domestic terrorists.

OH...IT WILL. THEY WILL BE TO BUSY DEFENDING BIDEN'S IMPEACHMENT
 

TB7 » 23 Jul 2022, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 11:14 am

That’s why (as the Justice Department concluded) his speech isn’t punishable as incitement. Under the First Amendment, incitement can be punished only if it intentionally calls for lawbreaking that is likely to occur. Trump did not advocate lawbreaking. What ensued probably surprised him as much as anyone. It would not have happened except for the remarkable, unpredictable failure of the Capitol Police. If the mere knowledge that some lawbreaking would probably happen were enough to punish speech, we would be locking up Black Lives Matter organizers.

On the other hand, criminal law is narrowly limited for good reason. A defendant must be proven to have violated some preexisting, clearly defined prohibition. It is not enough to show that he is nasty. A world in which the state is free to punish those it deems nasty would be frightening. Trump is immune from prosecution because of the very institutions, limiting the abuse of political power, that he has struggled against throughout his presidency.



Why Trump can’t be prosecuted | The Hill

You left out this part..

As a moral matter, I believe there is little doubt that Trump is guilty. He is to blame for five deaths, including that of a police officer. He inflamed the mob that attacked the Capitol, and then made no effort to stop them when he was the only one they would have listened to. The violence was the culmination of a campaign of deliberate lies and conspiracy theories about a stolen election, promoting hysteria that was likely sooner or later to get somebody killed. His presidency has been a gift to America’s enemies.  Impeachment is amply warranted. 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 23 Jul 2022, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:15 pm

You left out this part..

As a moral matter, I believe there is little doubt that Trump is guilty. He is to blame for five deaths, including that of a police officer. He inflamed the mob that attacked the Capitol, and then made no effort to stop them when he was the only one they would have listened to. The violence was the culmination of a campaign of deliberate lies and conspiracy theories about a stolen election, promoting hysteria that was likely sooner or later to get somebody killed. His presidency has been a gift to America’s enemies.  Impeachment is amply warranted. 

That’s dumb.

Blackvegetable » 23 Jul 2022, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:15 pm

You left out this part..

As a moral matter, I believe there is little doubt that Trump is guilty. He is to blame for five deaths, including that of a police officer. He inflamed the mob that attacked the Capitol, and then made no effort to stop them when he was the only one they would have listened to. The violence was the culmination of a campaign of deliberate lies and conspiracy theories about a stolen election, promoting hysteria that was likely sooner or later to get somebody killed. His presidency has been a gift to America’s enemies.  Impeachment is amply warranted. 

you zipped past this .......what a MORAN

That’s why (as the Justice Department concluded) his speech isn’t punishable as incitement. Under the First Amendment, incitement can be punished only if it intentionally calls for lawbreaking that is likely to occur. Trump did not advocate lawbreaking. What ensued probably surprised him as much as anyone. It would not have happened except for the remarkable, unpredictable failure of the Capitol Police. If the mere knowledge that some lawbreaking would probably happen were enough to punish speech, we would be locking up Black Lives Matter organizers.
 

Neo » 23 Jul 2022, 11:53 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 11:53 am

I hope they drop the January 6th **** like the insignificant event that it was and go after democrats support of blm domestic terrorists.

That's probably why people resigned, en masse.

Instead, he told the people who we had just watched storm our nation's Capitol with the intent on overthrowing our democracy, violently attack police officers, and chant heinous, things like, hang Mike Pence, we love you, you're very special. And as a spokesperson for him, I knew that I would be asked to defend that.

 And to me, his refusal to act and call off the mob that day and his refusal to condemn the violence was indefensible. And so I knew that I would be resigning that evening. And so I finished out the work day, went home, and called my loved ones to tell them of my decision and resigned that evening.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/11121386 ... transcript

 

Huey » 23 Jul 2022, 12:18 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:18 pm

That’s dumb.

Toady,

You're a **** idiot.

Go ahead and challenge the argument.

You read the Cliff Notes.



 

TB7 » 23 Jul 2022, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:21 pm

you zipped past this .......what a MORAN

That’s why (as the Justice Department concluded) his speech isn’t punishable as incitement. Under the First Amendment, incitement can be punished only if it intentionally calls for lawbreaking that is likely to occur. Trump did not advocate lawbreaking. What ensued probably surprised him as much as anyone. It would not have happened except for the remarkable, unpredictable failure of the Capitol Police. If the mere knowledge that some lawbreaking would probably happen were enough to punish speech, we would be locking up Black Lives Matter organizers.

It's irrelevant. 

Blackvegetable » 23 Jul 2022, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:29 pm

Toady,

You're a **** idiot.

Go ahead and challenge the argument.

You read the Cliff Notes.

Nah, sounds like a demand.

Huey » 23 Jul 2022, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:34 pm

Nah, sounds like a demand.

It probably sounds familiar, Sheilagh. 

Blackvegetable » 23 Jul 2022, 12:27 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:27 pm

That's probably why people resigned, en masse.

 

Trump lost the election, any real point to these resignations? They left a few days early, that's the extent of it. Big **** deal. 
 

Neo » 23 Jul 2022, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:36 pm

Trump lost the election, any real point to these resignations? They left a few days early, that's the extent of it. Big **** deal.

Trump lost the election, any real point to these resignations?

I'm obliged to ask...

Are you really this **** stupid?

Blackvegetable » 23 Jul 2022, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:36 pm

It probably sounds familiar, Sheilagh.

Let me know when the DOJ prosecutes.

Blackvegetable » 23 Jul 2022, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:37 pm

I'm obliged to ask...

Are you really this **** stupid?

Thread proved ^^^ Looking for any direct answers...any at all..like literally even one. - Liberal Forum Political Chat Room

Huey » 23 Jul 2022, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:37 pm

Let me know when the DOJ prosecutes.

What difference will that make?

Blackvegetable » 23 Jul 2022, 12:40 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:40 pm

What difference will that make?

Pound Sand.

I guess you are saying that doesn’t matter.  

Huey » 23 Jul 2022, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2022, 12:43 pm

Pound Sand.

I guess you are saying that doesn’t matter.

Melting down, Sheilagh?

Unless Pat Cipollone is lying, there is no one left, who was present, to contradict what has been described.

Except Grifty.

Do you believe Grifty will take the stand in his own defense?

First time.