On 1/26/21 12:49 AM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:07:30 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

===

To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting
him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of
working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we
have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's
probably not going to happen.

I doubt he would end up running again anyway but if the Senate votes
to convict, unlikely, I expect to see an appeal and he has grounds.
Then it will depend on just how "constructionist" the current Roberts
court is.
If the democrats really had a case, they would have the DoJ bring it
but I doubt they do.



And how much of Pelosi and the House Democrats support of the the BLM and
ANTIFA riots is going to be brought up? With Federal Courthouses attacked.
I think the Democrats are going to look at this in the future and ask
themselves how could we **** up so majorly?


I haven't read of many Dems calling for ANTIFA or BLM members to storm
federal buildings, disrupt Congress, upset the results of elections,
beat up guards and cops, kill or serious injure a few, et cetera, and
otherwise engage in violent insurrection. No one who is intelligent and
who really cares for this country is going to miss Donald Trump in high
political office.

--
Bozo Binned: Herring, Bert Robbins, JackGoff 452471atgmail.com,
Just-AN-Asshole, Tim, AMDX, and Gunboy Alex, aka the Gang of Dull,
Witless, Insult-Tossing Trumpsters. If you are on this list, I don't see
most of your posts and I don't read any of them.

On 1/26/21 12:03 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:07:30 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

===

To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting
him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of
working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we
have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's
probably not going to happen.

I doubt he would end up running again anyway but if the Senate votes
to convict, unlikely, I expect to see an appeal and he has grounds.
Then it will depend on just how "constructionist" the current Roberts
court is.
If the democrats really had a case, they would have the DoJ bring it
but I doubt they do.


Trump is pretty much finished as an electable political candidate,
though he may try to run again. The impeachment and the legal actions
awaiting him are just more nails for the coffin of electability. He'll
still play a role in the GOP for a while as he leads that party into
electoral obscurity.


--
Bozo Binned: Herring, Bert Robbins, JackGoff 452471atgmail.com,
Just-AN-Asshole, Tim, AMDX, and Gunboy Alex, aka the Gang of Dull,
Witless, Insult-Tossing Trumpsters. If you are on this list, I don't see
most of your posts and I don't read any of them.

On 1/25/21 11:57 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:26:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/25/21 2:27 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?


You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it is the
correct one. Repugnant as saying "kill all the Jews" is, it isn't on its
face, inciting a revolt against the U.S. government. Inciting an
insurrection is.

The jury is literally "out on that". Lets see what the Senate says.
It was your party who said they should decide.
I hope you are happy with the result.


If by jury , you mean the spineless Repubs in the U.S. Senate, I
wouldn't bet on them convicting Trump. They have no spine.

--
Bozo Binned: Herring, Bert Robbins, JackGoff 452471atgmail.com,
Just-AN-Asshole, Tim, AMDX, and Gunboy Alex, aka the Gang of Dull,
Witless, Insult-Tossing Trumpsters. If you are on this list, I don't see
most of your posts and I don't read any of them.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 07:30:57 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/26/21 12:49 AM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:07:30 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

===

To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting
him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of
working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we
have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's
probably not going to happen.

I doubt he would end up running again anyway but if the Senate votes
to convict, unlikely, I expect to see an appeal and he has grounds.
Then it will depend on just how "constructionist" the current Roberts
court is.
If the democrats really had a case, they would have the DoJ bring it
but I doubt they do.



And how much of Pelosi and the House Democrats support of the the BLM and
ANTIFA riots is going to be brought up? With Federal Courthouses attacked.
I think the Democrats are going to look at this in the future and ask
themselves how could we **** up so majorly?


I haven't read of many Dems calling for ANTIFA or BLM members to storm
federal buildings, disrupt Congress, upset the results of elections,
beat up guards and cops, kill or serious injure a few, et cetera, and
otherwise engage in violent insurrection.

I haven't heard Trump say that either. Perhaps you have some actual
quotes that say that.
This will be brought up in the trial if it actually goes that far.
My guess the Senate "trial" are going to be a few speeches by
sanctimonious democrats, a vote Chuck loses and it will be over. There
are already enough GOP Senators opposing the whole boondoggle that the
outcome seems certain.
It will just be another swing and a miss by Nancy and a waste of time
by a congress that has more important things to do.
The SCOTUS seems to think anything targeting a former president using
articles aimed at a sitting president are moot so this could end
before it starts if Trump wants to go that way. I think he would
rather be found not guilty tho.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 07:33:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/26/21 12:03 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:07:30 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

===

To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting
him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of
working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we
have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's
probably not going to happen.

I doubt he would end up running again anyway but if the Senate votes
to convict, unlikely, I expect to see an appeal and he has grounds.
Then it will depend on just how "constructionist" the current Roberts
court is.
If the democrats really had a case, they would have the DoJ bring it
but I doubt they do.


Trump is pretty much finished as an electable political candidate,
though he may try to run again. The impeachment and the legal actions
awaiting him are just more nails for the coffin of electability. He'll
still play a role in the GOP for a while as he leads that party into
electoral obscurity.

That might be true if the democrats had just let this go but being
found not guilty will just make Trump feel more confident and damage
the democrats for wasting our time.

People are really waiting to see results and if Biden starts out 0 and
1, it doesn't help his case much. The real issue is Covid,
unemployment and the plight of the working class and this is just a
distraction. If they don't see significant improvement in the next 16
months kiss the Senate and maybe even the House goodbye.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 07:39:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/25/21 11:57 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:26:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/25/21 2:27 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?


You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it is the
correct one. Repugnant as saying "kill all the Jews" is, it isn't on its
face, inciting a revolt against the U.S. government. Inciting an
insurrection is.

The jury is literally "out on that". Lets see what the Senate says.
It was your party who said they should decide.
I hope you are happy with the result.


If by jury , you mean the spineless Repubs in the U.S. Senate, I
wouldn't bet on them convicting Trump. They have no spine.

Why? Because they won't do what you want them to do?

Were they spineless when they acquitted Clinton too?

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 07:30:57 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/26/21 12:49 AM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:07:30 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

===

To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting
him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of
working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we
have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's
probably not going to happen.

I doubt he would end up running again anyway but if the Senate votes
to convict, unlikely, I expect to see an appeal and he has grounds.
Then it will depend on just how "constructionist" the current Roberts
court is.
If the democrats really had a case, they would have the DoJ bring it
but I doubt they do.



And how much of Pelosi and the House Democrats support of the the BLM and
ANTIFA riots is going to be brought up? With Federal Courthouses attacked.
I think the Democrats are going to look at this in the future and ask
themselves how could we **** up so majorly?


I haven't read of many Dems calling for ANTIFA or BLM members to storm
federal buildings, disrupt Congress, upset the results of elections,
beat up guards and cops, kill or serious injure a few, et cetera, and
otherwise engage in violent insurrection. No one who is intelligent and
who really cares for this country is going to miss Donald Trump in high
political office.

Does ignoring them make their actions make them right?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Wrote in message:r
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:07:30 -0500, Wayne wrote:On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser wrote:On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: ...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..." Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version... https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89 I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision. Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s). I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one to hang a jury. So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you won't support. The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit: 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103?322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone? That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anythingremotely political, "protected speech".If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" ispolitical protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purelypolitical bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things. You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... whythe impeachment?===To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejectinghim from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style ofworking mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as wehave already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that'sprobably not going to happen.I doubt he would end up running again anyway but if the Senate votesto convict, unlikely, I expect to see an appeal and he has grounds. Then it will depend on just how "constructionist" the current Robertscourt is. If the democrats really had a case, they would have the DoJ bring itbut I doubt they do.

I doubt he would run again as well. He'd be Bidens age then and
possibly just as senile. look at all the errors Biden has made
already; and he's only been in office a few days.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazon...net/index.html

Keyser Söze Wrote in message:r
On 1/26/21 12:49 AM, Bill wrote: wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:07:30 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: ...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..." Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version... https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89 I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision. Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s). I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one to hang a jury. So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you won't support. The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit: 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103?322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone? That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore. I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything remotely political, "protected speech". If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable. The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect 9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things. You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why the impeachment? === To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's probably not going to happen. I doubt he would end up running again anyway but if the Senate votes to convict, unlikely, I expect to see an appeal and he has grounds. Then it will depend on just how "constructionist" the current Roberts court is. If the democrats really had a case, they would have the DoJ bring it but I doubt they do. And how much of Pelosi and the House Democrats support of the the BLM and ANTIFA riots is going to be brought up? With Federal Courthouses attacked. I think the Democrats are going to look at this in the future and ask themselves how could we **** up so majorly? I haven't read of many Dems calling for ANTIFA or BLM members to storm federal buildings, disrupt Congress, upset the results of elections, beat up guards and cops, kill or serious injure a few, et cetera, and otherwise engage in violent insurrection. No one who is intelligent and who really cares for this country is going to miss Donald Trump in high political office.-- Bozo Binned: Herring, Bert Robbins, JackGoff 452471atgmail.com,Just-AN-Asshole, Tim, AMDX, and Gunboy Alex, aka the Gang of Dull,Witless, Insult-Tossing Trumpsters. If you are on this list, I don't seemost of your posts and I don't read any of them.

How would Fat Harry know what intelligent caring people think. He
doesn't care enough to pay his federal or state taxes. he doesn't
care enough about people to honor his debts private and public.
He doesn't even care about his own flesh and blood. In fact I
doubt he would give a **** about Dr. Dr. if she weren't
supporting him.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazon...net/index.html

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/26/21 12:49 AM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:07:30 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:27:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:12:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:43:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 9:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:26:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/24/21 12:18 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
...new entry on "Storming of the Capitol..."
Interesting read. Justan, of course, will have to wait until a family
member of his can get her hands on the Classic Comics version...

https://tinyurl.com/y3pnyv89


I notice there are already complaints about the article and under revision.


Duh...that's how Wiki works, dummy. As it stands, though, it is a pretty
complete article on the Republican-Trump Insurrection, with lots of
cites, and much of it will be brought up in Trump's second impeachment
trial, if there is one or, better, perhaps his criminal trial(s).

I suspect in a real trial anything Trump said would fall under 1st
amendment protection. It was ambiguous enough to be held as political
speech. That was affirmed in National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43

In a politically driven witch hunt like an impeachment circus it just
depends on who can whip the most votes. In a trial it only takes one
to hang a jury.


So, my posit was correct: there is nothing Trump can do or say that you
won't support.

The First Amendment has its limitations, to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

How many successful prosecutions have there been for speech alone?


That wasn't what you asked. You implied incitement to insurrection was
protected free speech. It isn't. And Trump isn't a sitting POTUS anymore.

I am not really sure that is true. The Burger court made anything
remotely political, "protected speech".

If walking around with swastikas saying "kill all the Jews" is
political protected speech, I doubt anything Trump said is actionable.
The impeachment is not really about the law tho, it is a purely
political bill of attainder from congress and it gets by Art 1 Sect
9(3) by limiting the scope to purely political things.

You just said he doesn't have a chance of winning an election ... why
the impeachment?

===

To keep him from running for office, and also as a basis for ejecting
him from republican party leadership. Trump's campaign style of
working mobs of supporters into an emotional frenzy is dangerous as we
have already seen. He richly deserves to be in jail but that's
probably not going to happen.

I doubt he would end up running again anyway but if the Senate votes
to convict, unlikely, I expect to see an appeal and he has grounds.
Then it will depend on just how "constructionist" the current Roberts
court is.
If the democrats really had a case, they would have the DoJ bring it
but I doubt they do.



And how much of Pelosi and the House Democrats support of the the BLM and
ANTIFA riots is going to be brought up? With Federal Courthouses attacked.
I think the Democrats are going to look at this in the future and ask
themselves how could we **** up so majorly?


I haven't read of many Dems calling for ANTIFA or BLM members to storm
federal buildings, disrupt Congress, upset the results of elections,
beat up guards and cops, kill or serious injure a few, et cetera, and
otherwise engage in violent insurrection. No one who is intelligent and
who really cares for this country is going to miss Donald Trump in high
political office.


You should read real news, not just DNC memos.