Law Professor Jonathan Turley: ‘This is a "Disinformation Indictment” and charges “many” things that are protected by the First Amendment.

[MAGA Macho Man]

Turley is right. The US Government just indicted its leading opposition candidate for having unlawful opinions in a speech outside the White House.

Turley: 'Disinformation Indictment' Is Charging Trump for Free Speech

On Tuesday's broadcast of the Fox News Channel's "Special Report," Fox News Contributor and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley | Clips

www.breitbart.com

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Crooked Lawyer Jack Smith has been smacked down by the courts many times.
The Democrats are using the indictment to smear Trump.
It is election interference.
It is an abuse of power by the Dirty AG Merrick Garland.

 

[Thunk]

I watched it live.

Trump said "now lets march to the capitol building and PEACEFULLY let our voiced be heard".

Throw in the fact that TRUMP offered thousands of national guard troops and pelosi rejected the idea.

Case dismissed! (again).

 

[Kondor3]

Turley is right. The US Government just indicted its leading opposition candidate for having unlawful opinions in a speech outside the White House.

Turley: 'Disinformation Indictment' Is Charging Trump for Free Speech

On Tuesday's broadcast of the Fox News Channel's "Special Report," Fox News Contributor and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley | Clips

www.breitbart.com

And now all you need is to convince Federal prosecutors and a trial judge and a criminal trial jury that his partisan opinion has the force of law...

Right, Tvaritch?

 

[DudleySmith]

It's just a corrupt banana republic regime interfering with the next election cycle again; they know they will lose again and hope they can bankrupt Trump and get him out of the race.

 

[Kondor3]

I watched it live.

Trump said "now lets march to the capitol building and PEACEFULLY let our voiced be heard".

Throw in the fact that TRUMP offered thousands of national guard troops and pelosi rejected the idea.

Case dismissed! (again).

A vastly more important question is...

Why were those National Guard troops NECESSARY in the FIRST PLACE????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the answer is because of the malignant, malevolent, lying, cheating way in which your traitorous Orange Phatt Phukk lied to his minions and cultists...

And because he summoned hostile crowds that he knew in advance that he was going to incite and aim against the United States Congress on January 6, 2021.

And now that kokksukker is going to pay.

 

[Kondor3]

It's just a corrupt banana republic regime interfering with the next election cycle again; they know they will lose again and hope they can bankrupt Trump and get him out of the race.

Nope. Your boy illegally tried to hold onto power and set aside centuries of the sacred American tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. He's getting what he deserves.

 

[Thunk]

Why were those National Guard troops NECESSARY in the FIRST PLACE????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because the FBI and BLM were posing as Trump supporters to get the whole ball rolling.

Do you really thunk viking dude DESERVED 7 years for sitting in pelosis chair???

You fucking filth! Sooner or later you will refuse to suck a faggots asshole and it will be YOU getting those 7 years.

THEN you'll figure it out...but not before that!

Just like deniro!

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

Nope. Your boy illegally tried to hold onto power and set aside centuries of the sacred American tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. He's getting what he deserves.

Liar!

 

[DudleySmith]

Nope. Your boy illegally tried to hold onto power and set aside centuries of the sacred American tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. He's getting what he deserves.

You aren't the first moron to fail at lying about Trump. lol

 

[Kondor3]

Because the FBI and BLM were posing as Trump supporters to get the whole ball rolling.

Do you really thunk viking dude DESERVED 7 years for sitting in pelosis chair???

You fucking filth! Sooner or later you will refuse to suck a faggots asshole and it will be YOU getting those 7 years.

THEN you'll figure it out...but not before that!

Just like deniro!

You're full of $hit clean up to your ears...

Just like that Phatt Orange Phukk you worship...

 

[Doc7505]

Turley:​

Trump indictment would ‘bulldoze’ the First Amendment if it succeeds ​

Former President Donald Trump was indicted earlier this week​

Trump indictment would ‘bulldoze’ the First Amendment if it succeeds: Turley

Constitutional law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley says the Trump indictment threatens to destroy the First Amendment.

www.foxnews.com

5 Aug 2023 ~~ By Peter Kasperowicz

The latest indictment of former President Trump threatens to destroy the First Amendment and give the federal government the unprecedented power to criminalize political lies, constitutional law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley warned Saturday.
Trump was indicted this week on four charges related to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into 2020 election interference and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in a Washington, D.C., courtroom Thursday.
In an op-ed for The Hill, Turley wrote that Smith’s indictment essentially charges Trump for spreading "lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election," which he said is a dangerous proposition for the First Amendment.
"In order to secure convictions for this, Special Counsel Jack Smith would need to bulldoze through not just the First Amendment but also existing case law holding that even false statements are protected," he wrote.
Specifically, Turley said Smith’s charges assert that Trump knew the statements he made about the 2020 election were false and said if Trump does believe he won, "the indictment collapses."
In an effort to show Trump knew he lost legitimately, the indictment explains that many people advised him that he lost. Turley said Trump sought out people who said he won but that he is allowed to do this.
~Snip~
Turley said there is a "constitutional problem" with trying to "criminalize lies" in this way. He said a 2012 Supreme Court case, United States v. Alvarez, found that it’s unconstitutional to criminalize lies and that the court recognized that ruling otherwise would give the government "broad censorial power unprecedented in this court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition."
"So, even assuming that Smith can prove Trump lied, there would still be constitutional barriers to criminalizing his false statements," Turley wrote.
Turley added that even if Judge Tanya Chutkan supports Smith’s case, "the Supreme Court would likely balk at the criminalization of false political speech."

Commentary:
Does anyone think it possible for `We The People` to criminalize political lies? Seems that Leftists in our government have stronger protection under the First Amendment than `We The People`
That's what we get when we grant personhood on our corporations, including the ones that extract taxes from us.
A majority of Americans believe that the 2020 election result was not the will of the majority of people who voted, and specifically not the will of the majority of people who voted legally in the crucial swing states for the electoral college count. I think that's exactly the same opinion that Trump has, and that the reason that the charges of determinative fraud are "unsubstantiated" is because every effort he and his team made to litigate the results was thwarted in the courts and the media. Bring it on, Mr. Smith--we thwarted `Deplorables` can finally have our day in court where Trump can prove that he wasn't the one who was lying about the 2020 election.