Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democrats will stand trial for inciting violence.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kidicious
    replied
    It's unconstitutional for the government (or private actors) to limit speech except what the Supreme Court has ruled.

    Change my mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • -Jrabbit
    commented on 's reply
    You seem to be incapable of understanding what words mean, nor how logic works.
    You admit haven't actually watched the proceedings, as demonstrated in literally every misguided, inaccurate post you type.
    You are embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

  • Kidicious
    replied
    The House Charge is inciting violence. JR admits that Trump has the right to say what he said. So he must want Trump to be removed from office for saying things he doesn't like even though Democrats say those things too. No. It's really because JR thinks Orange Man Bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Literally Wiglaf
    replied
    "Cruel and unusual distributive justice is constitutional."

    "if you had to define such a thing for the Constitution, it was not a usual matter"

    ahem

    "any expansion to retributive justice would be inherently unusual, proven by the need for a new legal definition"

    "but how will we know when we are being cruel"

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
    Trump was the president, not a private citizen.

    JM
    The government doesn't get to tell you what you can't say when you become the President.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    commented on 's reply
    The government can not punish people for speaking legally.

    You are making things up.

  • Kidicious
    commented on 's reply
    Call it just annulment.

  • -Jrabbit
    commented on 's reply
    Dude, this is not a criminal matter. Please, if you're going to cut/paste/comment of this stuff, at least pay enough attention to understand at least the basics of how impeachment works. Criminal law does not apply to a Senate impeachment trial.

    Again: Yes, freedom of speech is a protected right, but that speech still has consequences.

  • -Jrabbit
    commented on 's reply
    They are derelict in their sworn duty as jurors.

  • Jon Miller
    replied
    Trump was the president, not a private citizen.

    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    "The First Amendment: Brandenburg v. Ohio




    Court decisions stress that democracy cannot stand if speech or conduct disagreeing with the government is criminalized—even when that speech advocates unpopular beliefs, condones racism, or suggests the use of force.

    In a seminal case involving a Ku Klux Klan leader, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a KKK leader’s anti-black, anti-Semitic, and anti-government comments were protected speech, even those comments that suggested taking future “revengeance” (sic) on the federal government.

    To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)
    Applying the Brandenburg Test




    Cases applying the Brandenburg test stress just how high the bar is set before the government can criminalize someone for advocating dissent or violence.

    First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)"

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    I didn't listen to Ratkin, but I'm assuming that he was just being ridiculous. That's why they walked out.

    Leave a comment:


  • BeBro
    replied
    Eugene Goodman, heralded as hero during Capitol riot, to be awarded Congressional Gold Medal

    WASHINGTON – The Senate on Friday unanimously passed legislation to award Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman with a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor awarded by Congress.

    Goodman was in the chamber during the announcement, which was made following the conclusion of the question-and-answer portion of the Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump.

    He received a standing ovation from the entire body, putting his hand over his heart as senators stood.

    Goodman has been lauded after a video showed him leading a pro-Trump mob away from the Senate chamber during the deadly Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, potentially saving lives.

    New security footage played during the trial showed Goodman during the breach running down a hallway, where he passed Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah. He signaled to Romney and an aide with him to turn back around, and Romney then turned and ran.

    The Congressional Gold Medal is considered the "highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions," according to the House of Representatives. Legislation has also been introduced in the House to award Goodman the medal. It needs to pass both chambers and is expected to do so

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., while asking for unanimous consent to the pass legislation to award Goodman the medal, said “the world has learned about the incredible, incredible bravery of officer Goodman on that fateful day,"

    Schumer added that Goodman's “courage in the line of duty, his foresight in the midst of chaos, his willingness to make himself a target of the mob rage so that others might reach safety.”

    Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, R-KY., said that without Goodman's heroism, "people in this chamber may not have escaped that day unharmed."

    After being heralded as a hero for his actions Jan. 6, Goodman escorted Vice President-elect Kamala Harris at the inauguration on Jan. 20, as the acting deputy Senate sergeant-at-arms.

    In the footage of Jan. 6, where he leads the mob away from the chamber, Goodman pushes the leader of the pack, a man wearing a black QAnon shirt later identified as Doug Jensen from Des Moines. Jensen, who was armed with a baton, was focused on Goodman and appeared not to notice the open hallway leading to the Senate chambers.

    Jensen chased Goodman, who led him and the mob away from the Senate floor. The group followed him into a group of police in a back corridor outside the Senate. Jensen was later arrested by the FBI on five federal charges.

    Goodman served in the Army as an infantryman for more than four years, leaving with the rank of sergeant in December 2006 after a year in Iraq. He has worked for the Capitol Police since at least mid-2009.
    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/p...al/6747099002/

    Leave a comment:


  • Ming
    replied
    Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
    Over a dozen Republicans walked out of the trial Thursday after House Managers claimed that Trump incited violence at his rallies.
    So a dozen moron senators who don't take their constitutional duties seriously...
    They probably all believe the BIG LIE, proving that they don't really care about evidence, just their cult leader.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Over a dozen Republicans walked out of the trial Thursday after House Managers claimed that Trump incited violence at his rallies.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X