[Action80]

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.

And here come the meaningless cliches...

[AATW]

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.

And here come the meaningless cliches...

By which you of course mean patient explanation of why claiming “free speech” isn’t the silver bullet get out of jail free card you seem to imagine

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.

And here come the meaningless cliches...

yeah...
Here's a meaningless cliche from Bill Barr, Trumps corrupt, Putin sucking, attorney general traitor that has now turned on Trump like the piece of rat shit that he is...

"All conspiracies involve speech, and all fraud involves speech. So, free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy."

[honk]

https://www.si.com/fannation/mlb/fastball/news/comparing-former-president-donald-trump-self-reported-height-and-weight-to-mlb-superstars

Trump is no longer the president, and so his height and weight are no longer something that the public has a right to know, but this is still pretty funny. We'll have to wait for him to be actually convicted and imprisoned before his measurements will be recorded by people who won't lie for him.

[Tom Bishop]

Are they blind to see that Trump has lost weight in the last couple of years? It is fairly obvious even when just looking at his mugshot photo of himself that he posted.

[honk]

He has lost weight, but he's definitely still well over 215 lbs, and there's ample photographic evidence showing that he's no taller than 6'1 at the very most.

[AATW]

Muscle is more dense that fat though so it’s possible to be ripped and weigh the same as a fatso of the same height.

[Pete Svarrior]

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation.

Would be cool if it did, though.

[Action80]

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.

And here come the meaningless cliches...

By which you of course mean patient explanation of why claiming “free speech” isn’t the silver bullet get out of jail free card you seem to imagine

No, by which I mean your endless trope about "shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre," is useless here as nothing of the sort occurred.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

No, by which I mean your endless trope about "shoputing fire in a crowded movie theatre," is useless here as nothing of the sort occurred.

He's right!

This is about federal counts of conspiracy, violations of the Espionage act, falsifying business records and state-level racketeering indictments. None of which is protected speech.

[Tom Bishop]

He has lost weight, but he's definitely still well over 215 lbs, and there's ample photographic evidence showing that he's no taller than 6'1 at the very most.

Trump wears body armor when he is out in public. It is difficult sizing up his body frame. He has clearly lost a lot of weight, and 215 is believable.

[Lord Dave]

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

Well, that is what I am talking about. Trump is being prosecuted for exercising freedom of speech.

"He hasn't ordered a hit on anyone"
True.

"he hasn't passed classified information to anyone,"
False.  By showing a classified attack plan document to two people who had no authorization to see it, he did.

" he never asked anyone to rig an election in his favor,"
He literally called Georgia's governor and asked them to find him enough votes to win.


 "and he never illegally retained classified documents."
How would he have legally retained them?

[Action80]

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

Well, that is what I am talking about. Trump is being prosecuted for exercising freedom of speech.

"he hasn't passed classified information to anyone,"
False.  By showing a classified attack plan document to two people who had no authorization to see it, he did.

No, he didn't.

" he never asked anyone to rig an election in his favor,"
He literally called Georgia's governor and asked them to find him enough votes to win.

Using legal means.

 "and he never illegally retained classified documents."
How would he have legally retained them?

Presidential Records Act.

[Lord Dave]

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

Well, that is what I am talking about. Trump is being prosecuted for exercising freedom of speech.

"he hasn't passed classified information to anyone,"
False.  By showing a classified attack plan document to two people who had no authorization to see it, he did.

No, he didn't.

So his own words of "look at this" and "its classified" mean nothing to you?

" he never asked anyone to rig an election in his favor,"
He literally called Georgia's governor and asked them to find him enough votes to win.

Using legal means.

??
There is no legal way to do that.  Nor did he specify 'legally'.

 "and he never illegally retained classified documents."
How would he have legally retained them?

Presidential Records Act.

Which states that all classified documents are the property of NARA.

[garygreen]

look just because i told a contract killer "this person has become a problem for me, and i need that problem eliminated, here's $10,000 and the person's home address" doesn't mean i committed a crime. i never once said "kill this person for $10,000." stop stealing my free speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Action80]

So his own words of "look at this" and "its classified" mean nothing to you?

Yes, it means something to me.

There is no legal way to do that.  Nor did he specify 'legally'.

Wrong and wrong.

Which states that all classified documents are the property of NARA.

And responsibility for management/possession of those documents is placed with the former President.

[Lord Dave]

So his own words of "look at this" and "its classified" mean nothing to you?

Yes, it means something to me.

And that is?

There is no legal way to do that.  Nor did he specify 'legally'.

Wrong and wrong.

Since we have the transcript, feel free to quote it.  Also, how does one legally "find" 11,000 votes for Trump?

Which states that all classified documents are the property of NARA.

And responsibility for management/possession of those documents is placed with the former President.

Please quote the section of the law, which was made to stop Nixon from taking records, which says Trump can take any classified document he wants.

[markjo]

Which states that all classified documents are the property of NARA.

And responsibility for management/possession of those documents is placed with the former President.

No. That's the job of NARA.

(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.

[Action80]

Since we have the transcript, feel free to quote it.  Also, how does one legally "find" 11,000 votes for Trump?

Read the indictment.

The whole thing details the steps Georgia officials were to take. All of them legal, should the points discussed by Trump and the co-defendants were true.

Progressives are so fucking weak and stupid.

[AATW]

An alarming number of your politicians really should be in care homes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66665682