“I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to my dying day your right to say it”

[pknopp]

what the F are you talking about? Of course he committed crimes...murder is a crime, he conspired with others to commit numerous numbers....he literally broke into the house of the LaBianca's and tied up the couple, he provided them weapons....like really?

Murder is a crime.

Disagreeing with the outcome of an election is not a crime...well maybe in leftist utopia's like Saddam's Iraq, Castro's Cuba, Putin's Russia, and Xiden's America

Trump isn't being charged for simply disagreeing with an election.

 

[SeaMajor7]

ie: Charles Manson.

He didn't commit the crimes, he only instructed others to do so.

Yeah, that's NOT what's in question, but your contrarian ass had to chime in.
"You come after me, I'll go after you" is LIGHT YEARS away from your pathetic example.

 

[struth]

Trump isn't being charged for simply disagreeing with an election.

of course he is.

 

[Blues Man]

Trump isn't being charged for simply disagreeing with an election.

It has yet to be proven he did anything more than that.

And No I am not a Trump supporter.

I just distrust everything the government does

 

[pknopp]

Yeah, that's NOT what's in question, but your contrarian ass had to chime in.
"You come after me, I'll go after you" is LIGHT YEARS away from your pathetic example.

And has nothing to do with free speech.

 

[Blues Man]

ie: Charles Manson.

He didn't commit the crimes, he only instructed others to do so.

Conspiracy to commit murder that actually leads to murder is still a crime

 

[pknopp]

It has yet to be proven he did anything more than that.

And No I am not a Trump supporter.

I just distrust everything the government does

No it hasn't. Just as any charge is not proven until a judgment is rendered.

 

[SeaMajor7]

And has nothing to do with free speech.

It has EVERYTHING to do with free speech!!!!

 

[pknopp]

It has EVERYTHING to do with free speech!!!!

If you say so..........

 

[JGalt]

Twitter was a private company, and made their own decisions about what to allow on their site. Which government agency do you want to determine what a private business allows or disallows.

When a private company is acting in conjunction with government agencies in order to attack and stifle people's rights based on their political alignment, we have a fucking problem here.

 

[Blues Man]

No it hasn't. Just as any charge is not proven until a judgment is rendered.

Actually the prosecution has to have the proof before trial.

And you put far too much faith in our "Justice" system if you think the government doesn't already know what the outcome of the trial will be.

 

[pknopp]

Actually the prosecution has to have the proof before trial.

And the Grand Jury seems to be saying they do.

And you put far too much faith in our "Justice" system if you think the government doesn't already know what the outcome of the trial will be.

I have very little faith in the system. Remember I was condemning the system back when Trump was calling us SOB's for doing so.

 

[struth]

And has nothing to do with free speech.

of course it does....why should anyone take someone like you that thinks murdering people isn't a crime? someone that defends Charles Manson....

 

[BULLDOG]

When a private company is acting in conjunction with government agencies in order to attack and stifle people's rights based on their political alignment, we have a fucking problem here.

Nobody has aright to post on any private site unless that site wants you to do so.

 

[struth]

And the Grand Jury seems to be saying they do.




I have very little faith in the system. Remember I was condemning the system back when Trump was calling us SOB's for doing so.

hahaha a Grand Jury doesn't say if a prosecutor proved their case....geez...stick to defending Manson....you are clueless

 

[Blues Man]

And the Grand Jury seems to be saying they do.




I have very little faith in the system. Remember I was condemning the system back when Trump was calling us SOB's for doing so.

Grand Juries?

You mean a secret court with secret witnesses where only the prosecution is allowed to present anything and can actually present evidence that may not be deemed legally admissible during the actual trial?

There is a reason the saying "A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich" came to be.

A so called grand jury where laymen are supposed to tell the Attorney General whether there is enough evidence to go to trial?

WTF do we pay AGs for if they can't even determine the validity of their own evidence?

The Grand Jury System Is Corrupt. The Ferguson Case Shows How to Fix It.

It is a well-worn maxim that hard cases make bad law, and there is little doubt that the case of Darren Wilson, now pending before a St. Louis County...

slate.com

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2544&context=clr

 

[forkup]

This is true, but Trump hasn't been indicted for that, they found no evidence he did that.

Actually that is the whole basis for criminal conspiracy. A conspiracy requires speaking. He is charged with 3 separate conspiracies.

For instance you can lie about the election results. But when you lie to a governor. Saying that the DOJ found significant fraud, when the day before the acting AG, and assistant acting AG said the exact opposite to you, this in order to get him to refuse the legitimate election results you are commiting fraud.

If you circulate a letter to battleground states, Faking a slate of electors. And then call people urging them to sign it, you are commiting fraud.

Etc.,etc.

All this requires speaking it is however not protected speech.

 

[Blues Man]

hahaha a Grand Jury doesn't say if a prosecutor proved their case....geez...stick to defending Manson....you are clueless

A grand jury is 100% a prosecutors tool to get indictments. And it takes the burden of responsibility off the AG's shoulders if he loses the trial

Secret proceedings, secret witnesses, the defense is not allowed a seat in the proceedings. Evidence that is not admissible in the actual trial can be presented.

The term Kangaroo Court comes to mind.

 

[struth]

Actually that is the whole basis for criminal conspiracy. A conspiracy requires speaking. He is charged with 3 separate conspiracies.

For instance you can lie about the election results. But when you lie to a governor. Saying that the DOJ found significant fraud, when the day before the acting AG, and assistant acting AG said the exact opposite to you, this in order to get him to refuse the legitimate election results you are commiting fraud.

If you circulate a letter to battleground states, Faking a slate of electors. And then call people urging them to sign it, you are commiting fraud.

Etc.,etc.

All this requires speaking it is however not protected speech.

actually a conspirary doesn't require speaking. It does require an agreement.

 

[gipper]

Nobody has aright to post on any private site unless that site wants you to do so.

Are you dumb on purpose?