|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 13, 2021 10:27:58 GMT -8
Freedom. Of. Speech. Should. NEVER. Include. ANY. Incitement. To. Insurrection. PERIOD. That is *EXACTLY* what I've been trying to say. Constitutionally Protected Freedom of Speech is a class of speech. Incitement is a class of speech with a legal definition. They do not overlap. Freedom of Speech does not include Incitement. They are mutually exclusive classes of speech. The measure to determine if particular speech is in the class of Constitutionally Protected speech or in the class of Incitement is called the Brandenburg test. You summed up in 11 words why Trump is not guilty of the thing he has been charged with. If Trump's speech, as per all the evidence presented so far, does not rise to the level set in the Brandenburg test then it is not Incitement and therefor is Constitutionally Protected Freedom of Speech. A large number of Senators all know this because they themselves are lawyers, and seeing the gaping hole in the middle of their case, they have now decided to change the rules of the trial and are scrambling to bring in witnesses to fill the hole. Will the new witnesses fill in as of yet unheard details that meet the Brandenburg requirements? I don't know. What I do know is that even if you find the outcome reprehensible morally, I see the defect in their case. The Senators who want to convict Trump see the defect in their case. While I won't speak for you, as both you and AztecRyan have pointed out this not being a criminal trial as to sidestep the meeting of legal requirements, I strongly suspect you see the defect in the case as well. Either you want that or you're a troll. Choose your comments carefully with mindfulness of the forum rules. Just so I'm clear on this threat, you are saying that either I agree with your opinion or I will be designated a troll and banned. If that is the case then just do it. I do not agree with your opinion here. I have a different opinion that isn't empty contrarianism but principled and backed in-post with applicable legal standards and historical precedent. If you want to follow the fashion of Jack Dorsey and prove that you don't have to tolerate opinions that don't align with yours, no one is debating that. You do have that power but at least be honest with what you are doing. I'm clearly not trolling. I just have a different opinion. No, you have an opinion backed in psychobabble that has no foundation beyond regurgitated right-wing garbage. This isn't about the Brandenburg test, this isn't about the Constitution, this isn't about BS platitudes. The article of impeachment covers abuse of power (check), failure to uphold the oath (check) and speaks to a pattern of behavior that falls short of the Presidential standard. (Billions of checks) - Republicans said they would hold COVID relief hostage if witnesses were called. House managers approached witnesses that could speak to Trump's state of mind and they declined to do so out of fear of reprisal. Let the actual criminal proceedings begin now in earnest. By the way, for those who are sane, the Brandenburg verdict includes three important words : "Imminent. Lawless. Action." Or, in simple terms, what happened on January 6th. Trump's defense team can't even pronounce Philadelphia right, so I doubt they can manage an actual legal defense. "GO TO THE CAPITOL = IMMINENT. LAWLESS. ACTION." |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 13, 2021 10:44:46 GMT -8
Freedom. Of. Speech. Should. NEVER. Include. ANY. Incitement. To. Insurrection. PERIOD. That is *EXACTLY* what I've been trying to say. Constitutionally Protected Freedom of Speech is a class of speech. Incitement is a class of speech with a legal definition. They do not overlap. Freedom of Speech does not include Incitement. They are mutually exclusive classes of speech. The measure to determine if particular speech is in the class of Constitutionally Protected speech or in the class of Incitement is called the Brandenburg test. You summed up in 11 words why Trump is not guilty of the thing he has been charged with. If Trump's speech, as per all the evidence presented so far, does not rise to the level set in the Brandenburg test then it is not Incitement and therefor is Constitutionally Protected Freedom of Speech. A large number of Senators all know this because they themselves are lawyers, and seeing the gaping hole in the middle of their case, they have now decided to change the rules of the trial and are scrambling to bring in witnesses to fill the hole. Will the new witnesses fill in as of yet unheard details that meet the Brandenburg requirements? I don't know. What I do know is that even if you find the outcome reprehensible morally, I see the defect in their case. The Senators who want to convict Trump see the defect in their case or they wouldn't be asking for more evidence. While I won't speak for you, as both you and AztecRyan have pointed out this not being a criminal trial as to sidestep the meeting of legal requirements, I strongly suspect you see the defect in the case as well. Either you want that or you're a troll. Choose your comments carefully with mindfulness of the forum rules. Just so I'm clear on this threat, you are saying that either I agree with your opinion or I will be designated a troll and banned. If that is the case then just do it. I do not agree with your opinion here. I have a different opinion that isn't empty contrarianism but principled and backed in-post with applicable legal standards and historical precedent. If you want to follow the fashion of Jack Dorsey and prove that you don't have to tolerate opinions that don't align with yours, no one is debating that. You do have that power but at least be honest with what you are doing. I'm clearly not trolling. I just have a different opinion. Accusing people of, "Lying," when they themselves are offering honest opinions while you're posting stuff just to disagree and be a contrarian most definitely qualifies as Trolling. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Feb 13, 2021 11:08:05 GMT -8
That is *EXACTLY* what I've been trying to say. Constitutionally Protected Freedom of Speech is a class of speech. Incitement is a class of speech with a legal definition. They do not overlap. Freedom of Speech does not include Incitement. They are mutually exclusive classes of speech. The measure to determine if particular speech is in the class of Constitutionally Protected speech or in the class of Incitement is called the Brandenburg test. You summed up in 11 words why Trump is not guilty of the thing he has been charged with. If Trump's speech, as per all the evidence presented so far, does not rise to the level set in the Brandenburg test then it is not Incitement and therefor is Constitutionally Protected Freedom of Speech. A large number of Senators all know this because they themselves are lawyers, and seeing the gaping hole in the middle of their case, they have now decided to change the rules of the trial and are scrambling to bring in witnesses to fill the hole. Will the new witnesses fill in as of yet unheard details that meet the Brandenburg requirements? I don't know. What I do know is that even if you find the outcome reprehensible morally, I see the defect in their case. The Senators who want to convict Trump see the defect in their case or they wouldn't be asking for more evidence. While I won't speak for you, as both you and AztecRyan have pointed out this not being a criminal trial as to sidestep the meeting of legal requirements, I strongly suspect you see the defect in the case as well. Just so I'm clear on this threat, you are saying that either I agree with your opinion or I will be designated a troll and banned. If that is the case then just do it. I do not agree with your opinion here. I have a different opinion that isn't empty contrarianism but principled and backed in-post with applicable legal standards and historical precedent. If you want to follow the fashion of Jack Dorsey and prove that you don't have to tolerate opinions that don't align with yours, no one is debating that. You do have that power but at least be honest with what you are doing. I'm clearly not trolling. I just have a different opinion. Accusing people of, "Lying," when they themselves are offering honest opinions while you're posting stuff just to disagree and be a contrarian most definitely qualifies as Trolling. Alometer and psdthor are both trolls, only because they regurgitate talking points that are readily available on Hannity, Tucker Carlson, et al. Neither one seems to ever bring original analysis. Why listen to them, when you can hear the exact same talking points on right wing media? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 13, 2021 11:56:16 GMT -8
It's not funny, but...
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 13, 2021 12:19:10 GMT -8
Now that is a statement of opinion. It doesn't happen to be correct as the stuff I'm posting is principled and supported rather than contrarian, but as an opinion it isn't something I'm able to prove to you. No. At the same time, you're promoting obviously disingenuous and false statements. You know Mitch McConnell blocked the Senate from convening. You know the vote was held to declare this a constitutional trial. You bring up unrelated and irrelevant notions and use that to justify warped and false narratives. The Brandenburg test, the legal jargon that has no standing basis in an impeachment trial, the faulty interpretation and phony, hollow repetition of excerpts that suit your agenda. Disagreeing with someone is fine, what you are doing is intentional, disgraceful and bad faith. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 13, 2021 12:51:42 GMT -8
Trump acquitted by the Senate. Now, legal proceedings can begin.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Feb 14, 2021 11:02:08 GMT -8
The sham is over. Move on to other more pressing issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 14, 2021 11:23:11 GMT -8
The sham is over. Move on to other more pressing issues. The sham is never over as long as the jurors are allowed to conclude before the trial begins. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Feb 14, 2021 13:44:01 GMT -8
The sham is over. Move on to other more pressing issues. The sham is never over as long as the jurors are allowed to conclude before the trial begins. It’s the second whiff by the I hate Trump Dem politicians. This time was so absurd, Chief Justice Roberts didn’t even bother to show. That’s how weak the case was, a complete waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Feb 14, 2021 13:49:29 GMT -8
The sham is never over as long as the jurors are allowed to conclude before the trial begins. It’s the second whiff by the I hate Trump Dem politicians. This time was so absurd, Chief Justice Roberts didn’t even bother to show. That’s how weak the case was, a complete waste of time. We shall see about your "sham" after District of Columbia get their turn. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 14, 2021 14:14:39 GMT -8
The sham is never over as long as the jurors are allowed to conclude before the trial begins. It’s the second whiff by the I hate Trump Dem politicians. This time was so absurd, Chief Justice Roberts didn’t even bother to show. That’s how weak the case was, a complete waste of time. Is the sky blue? |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 15, 2021 9:54:15 GMT -8
Does anybody know why they cancelled calling the witnesses to testify? I heard it was cancelled, because Pelosi and AOC would be called to testify, and they didn't want to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 15, 2021 10:46:51 GMT -8
Does anybody know why they cancelled calling the witnesses to testify? I heard it was cancelled, because Pelosi and AOC would be called to testify, and they didn't want to do that. Where did you get that from? The Republicans threatened to hold up Senate confirmations and COVID relief for Americans. McConnell was never going to vote to acquit, so they reached a deal to have Herrera-Beutler's statement read into the record instead. No amount of witnesses were going to change the minds of traitors like Hawley and Cruz. There was not enough support to convict. House Managers contacted people who were in the room with Trump and could testify to his state of mind - They refused to do so, out of fear. No idea why Pelosi and AOC would even be relevant to testifying. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 15, 2021 14:49:24 GMT -8
Does anybody know why they cancelled calling the witnesses to testify? I heard it was cancelled, because Pelosi and AOC would be called to testify, and they didn't want to do that. Where did you get that from? The Republicans threatened to hold up Senate confirmations and COVID relief for Americans. McConnell was never going to vote to acquit, so they reached a deal to have Herrera-Beutler's statement read into the record instead. No amount of witnesses were going to change the minds of traitors like Hawley and Cruz. There was not enough support to convict. House Managers contacted people who were in the room with Trump and could testify to his state of mind - They refused to do so, out of fear. No idea why Pelosi and AOC would even be relevant to testifying. Ok. I had heard that the Republicans had said that if the Dems wanted witnesses to testify, the Republicans were going to call on Pelosi and AOC, and they didn't want to testify and have to answer certain questions. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 15, 2021 14:57:23 GMT -8
Where did you get that from? The Republicans threatened to hold up Senate confirmations and COVID relief for Americans. McConnell was never going to vote to acquit, so they reached a deal to have Herrera-Beutler's statement read into the record instead. No amount of witnesses were going to change the minds of traitors like Hawley and Cruz. There was not enough support to convict. House Managers contacted people who were in the room with Trump and could testify to his state of mind - They refused to do so, out of fear. No idea why Pelosi and AOC would even be relevant to testifying. Ok. I had heard that the Republicans had said that if the Dems wanted witnesses to testify, the Republicans were going to call on Pelosi and AOC, and they didn't want to testify and have to answer certain questions. Not truthful in the slightest. You don't call witnesses up "cold", they knew they had no option to change the minds of those who were also guilty like Cruz and Hawley...no win situation. The option now is just to let the courts do the work. The Republicans sang the chorus of "unconstitutional" as grounds for acquittal, which is of course complete nonsense because it was voted on and passed. I don't know where you get your news from, but it's not a credible outlet. |
|
