Trump Has A First Amendment Right To Say The Election Was Stolen

[Seymour Flops]

Democrats on here seem to think this case is much more than it is. I speak specifically of those who claim that "the witnesses against Trump will all be former associates, friends, and family," and who go on to talk about his supposed lifetime of criminality, that "everyone" is aware of.

Witnesses to what? He is charged with ONE thing. One thing repeated more than thirty times, but the same thing: Falsifying or causing to be falsified a business record with intent to conceal a crime.

If Trump did that, how many people could have seen him? Not all his family, friends, and associates.

As far as I know, the only witness who could say that Trump did or said that would be Michael Cohen. Good luck with a case that is Cohen's word against Trump, in front of a jury that the judge has worked so hard to make fair.

 

[billyerock123]

It's why all of their cases are going to fail.

wishful thinking on your part ...

 

[billyerock123]

Democrats on here seem to think this case is much more than it is. I speak specifically of those who claim that "the witnesses against Trump will all be former associates, friends, and family," and who go on to talk about his supposed lifetime of criminality, that "everyone" is aware of.

Witnesses to what? He is charged with ONE thing. One thing repeated more than thirty times, but the same thing: Falsifying or causing to be falsified a business record with intent to conceal a crime.

If Trump did that, how many people could have seen him? Not all his family, friends, and associates.

As far as I know, the only witness who could say that Trump did or said that would be Michael Cohen. Good luck with a case that is Cohen's word against Trump, in front of a jury that the judge has worked so hard to make fair.

heres what makes it a crime for Trump that's going to convict him ....
Just before a MAGA mob descended on the US Capitol on Wednesday and caused a riot that killed five people, including a Capitol police officer who was beaten to death, President Donald Trump delivered a speech to his supporters in which he used the words “fight” or “fighting” at least 20 times.


“We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us,” Trump said at one point, alluding to Pence’s ultimate refusal to attempt to steal the election for him during that day’s hearing where the Electoral College made his loss official.


“You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be strong,” he added during the speech in which he pushed long-debunked lies about Joe Biden’s convincing victory over him being the product of fraud.

this is what will convict him ...its a crime what he said to the crowd...

 

[billyerock123]

But, is the court really working hard to make sure it is a fair jury? What is your evidence for that? It sounds more like an argument you make, moreso than something you know.

Looking at his other actions, it seems that he is targeting not only Trump's ability to defend himself in court, but to campaign for president. It cannot be constitutional for a judge to order a politician running for office and under attack by members of the opposite party in government to be silent about the attacks.

That won't hold up if it reaches the USSC. Luckily, in office, Trump was working hard to make sure a fair Supreme Court happened.

I agree that it is weak. Whether it is the weakest, I'm not sure. But if I saw your reasoning on that, I might agree. I work hard to be a fair poster.

I do agree that the classified document case is the strongest of four very weak cases. Trump could absolutely be convicted, if H. Clinton, M. Pence, and J. Biden had not been given the kid glove treatment for similar actions. Since they were not even prosecuted, under various pretexts, the precedent was set and should be followed regardless of personal distaste for Trump on the part of prosecutors and investigators.

it appears you forgot a lot of the charges against him in the January 6 attack on the capitol ...

 

[Rawley]

wishful thinking on your part ...

All of your cult's cases are exceptionally weak. The NY scam particularly

 

[billyerock123]

All of your cult's cases are exceptionally weak. The NY scam particularly

like I said wishful thinking on your part ...once the jury is set trump will get convicted there's no doubt there but you keep wishing it's all ya got ...

 

[Rawley]

like I said wishful thinking on your part ...once the jury is set trump will get convicted there's no doubt there but you keep wishing it's all ya got ...

He'll likely get convicted. Did you follow yesterday's show? Literally have the jury said they could not be fair to Trump and were dismissed.

This is not going to end well for your cult.

 

[Seymour Flops]

heres what makes it a crime for Trump that's going to convict him ....
Just before a MAGA mob descended on the US Capitol on Wednesday and caused a riot that killed five people, including a Capitol police officer who was beaten to death, President Donald Trump delivered a speech to his supporters in which he used the words “fight” or “fighting” at least 20 times.


“We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us,” Trump said at one point, alluding to Pence’s ultimate refusal to attempt to steal the election for him during that day’s hearing where the Electoral College made his loss official.


“You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be strong,” he added during the speech in which he pushed long-debunked lies about Joe Biden’s convincing victory over him being the product of fraud.

If it’s a crime to say “we have to fight” or other such language in a political speech, prosecutors are gonna be busy.

this is what will convict him ...its a crime what he said to the crowd...

One of your fellow TDS sufferers got mighty huffy when I said that Trump was being prosecuted for making a speech. Saying things to a crowd is literally making a speech.

 

[M14 Shooter]

heres what makes it a crime for Trump that's going to convict him ....
Just before a MAGA mob descended on the US Capitol on Wednesday and caused a riot that killed five people, including a Capitol police officer who was beaten to death, President Donald Trump delivered a speech to his supporters in which he used the words “fight” or “fighting” at least 20 times.

Counterman v. Colorado (2023).
The same idea arises in the law respecting obscenity and
incitement to unlawful conduct. Like threats, incitement
inheres in particular words used in particular contexts: Its
harm can arise even when a clueless speaker fails to grasp
his expression’s nature and consequence. But still, the
First Amendment precludes punishment, whether civil or
criminal, unless the speaker’s words were “intended” (not
just likely) to produce imminent disorder.

Why do you think you can prove Trump intended to produce imminent disorder?

 

[Faun]

like I said wishful thinking on your part ...once the jury is set trump will get convicted there's no doubt there but you keep wishing it's all ya got ...

It doesn't matter to the 5th Avenue cult. He could be convicted on clear cut evidence and they will still deny he had a fair trial.

 

[para bellum]

so what about rebellion or insurrection both trump did ... so what's your point

Well you claimed all these people were guilty of insurrection.

"Another repub-lie-clown that hasn't a clue ... he says nobody has been convicted of insurrection must of missed these guys 3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for a role in the Capitol attack you seem to missed the 460 3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for role in Capitol attack"

Insurrection is a crime that is punishable under 18 USC 2383. None of the people you claim were convicted of insurrection were charged with insurrection. To charge someone with insurrection, the event has to meet the legal definition of insurrection, and J6 does not.

"The legal definition of “engaging in insurrection or rebellion” did not require taking up arms and levying war against the United States, but came from the militia act of 1795—a predecessor of the Insurrection Act of 1807—which gave the President certain powers in case of insurrection or rebellion. Per that act—and the Insurrection Act that followed, which remains as amended on the books today— insurrections and rebellions consisted of either uprising and threatening the government of a state, leading the state’s legislature to petition for federal intervention, or opposing or obstructing the
execution of the laws of the United States “by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals.” In either case, the President must make a proclamation ordering a cessation of the uprising and “it is only after disobedience to that proclamation” that it can duly be considered insurrection or rebellion."

Disloyalty & Disqualification: Reconstructing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment

To become President of the United States, you must be constitutionally qualified. You must be thirty-five years old, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident within the United States. Neither Congress nor any state can set this threshold higher; the same is true for congresspeople...

scholarship.law.wm.edu

My point is words have definitions, and a riot is not the same thing as an insurrection...

 

[billyerock123]

He'll likely get convicted. Did you follow yesterday's show? Literally have the jury said they could not be fair to Trump and were dismissed.

This is not going to end well for your cult.

Not to worry there will be 12 to say guilty on all 34 counts

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well you claimed all these people were guilty of insurrection.

"Another repub-lie-clown that hasn't a clue ... he says nobody has been convicted of insurrection must of missed these guys 3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for a role in the Capitol attack you seem to missed the 460 3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for role in Capitol attack"

Insurrection is a crime that is punishable under 18 USC 2383. None of the people you claim were convicted of insurrection were charged with insurrection. To charge someone with insurrection, the event has to meet the legal definition of insurrection, and J6 does not.

"The legal definition of “engaging in insurrection or rebellion” did not require taking up arms and levying war against the United States, but came from the militia act of 1795—a predecessor of the Insurrection Act of 1807—which gave the President certain powers in case of insurrection or rebellion. Per that act—and the Insurrection Act that followed, which remains as amended on the books today— insurrections and rebellions consisted of either uprising and threatening the government of a state, leading the state’s legislature to petition for federal intervention, or opposing or obstructing the
execution of the laws of the United States “by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals.” In either case, the President must make a proclamation ordering a cessation of the uprising and “it is only after disobedience to that proclamation” that it can duly be considered insurrection or rebellion."

Disloyalty & Disqualification: Reconstructing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment

To become President of the United States, you must be constitutionally qualified. You must be thirty-five years old, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident within the United States. Neither Congress nor any state can set this threshold higher; the same is true for congresspeople...

scholarship.law.wm.edu

My point is words have definitions, and a riot is not the same thing as an insurrection...

And our grandchildren will be reading about the violent insurrection attempt in their history classes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Counterman v. Colorado (2023).
The same idea arises in the law respecting obscenity and
incitement to unlawful conduct. Like threats, incitement
inheres in particular words used in particular contexts: Its
harm can arise even when a clueless speaker fails to grasp
his expression’s nature and consequence. But still, the
First Amendment precludes punishment, whether civil or
criminal, unless the speaker’s words were “intended” (not
just likely) to produce imminent disorder.

Why do you think you can prove Trump intended to produce imminent disorder?

It sounds to me like you need to read the statements of fact in the indictment. There is where you will find your answer.

 

[Flopper]

But, is the court really working hard to make sure it is a fair jury? What is your evidence for that? It sounds more like an argument you make, moreso than something you know.

Looking at his other actions, it seems that he is targeting not only Trump's ability to defend himself in court, but to campaign for president. It cannot be constitutional for a judge to order a politician running for office and under attack by members of the opposite party in government to be silent about the attacks.

That won't hold up if it reaches the USSC. Luckily, in office, Trump was working hard to make sure a fair Supreme Court happened.

I agree that it is weak. Whether it is the weakest, I'm not sure. But if I saw your reasoning on that, I might agree. I work hard to be a fair poster.

I do agree that the classified document case is the strongest of four very weak cases. Trump could absolutely be convicted, if H. Clinton, M. Pence, and J. Biden had not been given the kid glove treatment for similar actions. Since they were not even prosecuted, under various pretexts, the precedent was set and should be followed regardless of personal distaste for Trump on the part of prosecutors and investigators.

What makes the NY case weak is it's complexity. It's going to be very easy for the prosecutor to prove that Trump falsified business records, however those are just criminal misdemeanors. In order for those misdemeanors to become felonies, the prosecutor has to prove that they were connected to other crimes that were done by Cohen working as an agent for Trump. Some of the crimes were committed by people working for Cohen. Those other crimes involve violations of state and federal election laws, laws that govern setting up of shell corporations and movement of money through them.

The Fact that Clinton, Biden or whoever was not charged with violating a classified document law is not a valid defense that Trump can use. It might be a good defense in the court of public opinion but not in a court of law.

 

[Flopper]

Democrats on here seem to think this case is much more than it is. I speak specifically of those who claim that "the witnesses against Trump will all be former associates, friends, and family," and who go on to talk about his supposed lifetime of criminality, that "everyone" is aware of.

Witnesses to what? He is charged with ONE thing. One thing repeated more than thirty times, but the same thing: Falsifying or causing to be falsified a business record with intent to conceal a crime.

If Trump did that, how many people could have seen him? Not all his family, friends, and associates.

As far as I know, the only witness who could say that Trump did or said that would be Michael Cohen. Good luck with a case that is Cohen's word against Trump, in front of a jury that the judge has worked so hard to make fair.

In the indictment we learned that Trump falsified business records by written transmittal to his bookkeeper(s). Some of the evidence came from a check register. For example, Trump had a deal with Cohen to payoff the hushmoney in monthly checks to Cohen which was recorded as legal expenses.

 

[Flopper]

Not to worry there will be 12 to say guilty on all 34 counts

If any one of 12 votes not guilty and sticks with it, Trump will walk.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What makes the NY case weak is it's complexity. It's going to be very easy for the prosecutor to prove that Trump falsified business records, however those are just criminal misdemeanors.

Now, that is interesting that you say it.

I've asked several times on here - or maybe it was an implied question - how in the world that the prosecutor will prove that Trump made the entries. It seems that there would be several layers of management between Trump and a guy or girls with a stack of invoices, bills, and other expense documents making entries in a ledgers.

I'll get to the rest of your post, soon, but first I want to respectfully ask for a serious answer to that question.

 

[Seymour Flops]

In the indictment we learned that Trump falsified business records by written transmittal to his bookkeeper(s). Some of the evidence came from a check register. For example, Trump had a deal with Cohen to payoff the hushmoney in monthly checks to Cohen which was recorded as legal expenses.

Flopper, here are the first two counts:

FIRST COUNT:

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice
from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump
Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

SECOND COUNT:

AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the
defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE,
in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in
the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number
842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

The rest are just the same. It's basically the same charge repeated almost verbatim 34 times. It doesn't say "made or caused to be made," it says "made and caused."

That seem pretty far-fetched.

It's a stretch to say that payments to a lawyer is not a legal expense.

When someone pays their lawyer or law firm, it isn't just for billable hours of work by the lawyer, but also copies, private investigators, court fees that the lawyer paid on behalf of the client, and any other way the firm either worked for or spent money on behalf of the client.

"Legal expenses" seems a reasonable description. How wo you even know that was what the entry said? The indictment does not support that claim.

If the entry said "purchase of classic Cadillac," but it was payment for the NDA, they might have a point. Again, if they could prove Trump made the entry.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If any one of 12 votes not guilty and sticks with it, Trump will walk.

... right into a another courtroom for a retrial.