The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.Trump argues First Amendment protects him from 'insurrection' cases aimed at keeping him off ballot
By NICHOLAS RICCARDI DENVER©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
49 Comments
plasticmonkey
Trump may say and do anything. He is above all laws and norms. Because he is God. And because far left Marxist witch hunt.
There, I saved our MAGA cult friends some time.
dagon
Trump is undoubtedly guilty of a long list of crimes from the 80's onward and should have been locked up long ago.
But recent polling, which I am sure will get mentioned by the usual suspects, shows support for Biden to be very weak and Trump surprisingly strong. I guess what they say about no bad press has some truth.
It seems to be setting up a showdown between the courts and the election (again).
EFD
Yeah, not so much.
But what kind of argument can one really expect from an illiterate moron who also happens to be guilty AF?
Superlib
I really don't support the 14th Amendment stuff without a conviction. That might he coming soon, but we aren't there yet.
EFD
Super lib,
agreed but that it’s blathering about it goes to show how scared the orange blob is.
Politik Kills
So, like political bribery money, insurrection is now protected under the first amendment! His current lawyers (who will never get paid) are as twisted as he is.
2020hindsights
Superlib
I agree. If he is barred from running but not convicted of anything, people will lose faith in democracy. That said, it is an amendment to the constitution...
EFD
When he is convicted of either the Jan 6th charges or GA charges, then it will come into play.
As the Lardo documents case is not directly tied to overthrowing the government, (in that case He “only” stole, disseminated and obstructed the return of classified documents that were not his and then conspired to cover it up) I don’t believe the 14th Amendment would apply.
But he IS going to be convicted (thus his general freak out) in the Jan 6th case (because he is so obviously guilty AF) and THEN…..
The 14th is self-executing. There is no need for congressional action.
yamada1043
The former Insurrectionist-in-Chief will continue spreading disinformation and misinformation until the end.
He is the biggest threat to U. S. national security and will continue to be until he is muzzled.
The end of the Trump Nightmare will be sooner or later … the sooner the better.
bass4funk
First amendment.
What are you talking about, no one MAGA I knows thinks, however, we do think that this administration thinks of itself as omnipotent.
The Dems will fail on the 14th amendment ploy, they know it and they’re putting all their eggs in one basket again.
lincolnman
Agree - no 14th Amendment pursuit without a conviction - but convictions are a given for the Ultra MAGA King....
Witnesses will testify that he told them to lie when being questioned under oath by the FBI...clear obstruction of justice...
Witnesses will testify he told them to move boxes of classified in violation of a subpoena, then destroy the video evidence of that crime...
There are texts and emails that show he approved a plan to gain unauthorized access to a secure polling area in Georgia and tamper with voting machines...
The author of his scheme to steal the election, John Eastman, admitted his plan "violated federal statute"...
That, plus the other over 80 charges he faces...
My opinion is his recent speech where he confused Obama and Biden and said Biden would "start WW II" are enough to disqualify him on mental health grounds...
bass4funk
Well , that’s one strike and Joe has more than a dozen
https://nypost.com/2023/09/15/bidens-gaffetastic-week-more-than-a-dozen-lies-and-bumbles/
And in just one week.
Superlib
The court ruling will be interesting. They might say there is no case without a conviction which opens up the door again if Trump is convicted. Call it a blueprint.
I still think the chances of him being convicted is less than 50% except for the documents case which looks like a slam dunk with all the video evidence, text messages, and Trump's own actions on audio.
wallace
The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors.
https://www.freedomforum.org/what-speech-is-protected-first-amendment/
"The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words."
marc laden
Since we have our judge , who was appointed by obama and the jury all are our people... it is really set up..... So do not worry he will be indicted ..
If he run then big problem... He will win..
So lets find more cases and bring those to Obama appointed judges court ..
And lets cheer lead . please join with me ...
Long live Biden .. Harris ..
bass4funk
Again, you just made my point for me.
Well, with the tapes of Trump telling the crowd to stand down, listen to the police, go home, good luck proving malicious intent.
wallace
bass4funk
How?
That was later in the day at the White House after the Capitol Building rioting and looting had already started.
Desert Tortoise
Donald Trump's post-impeachment video decried the “unprecedented assault on free speech we have seen in recent days” and “efforts to censor, cancel and blacklist our fellow citizens.” While these words seem to refer to steps taken by Twitter and YouTube to prevent their platforms from being used to incite further violence, Mr. Trump was presumably laying the groundwork for the defense of his own incendiary statements at the rally just before the invasion of the Capitol by his supporters. Because the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the First Amendment requires criminal incitement to be both intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action, Mr. Trump may be able to escape criminal liability for those remarks because he avoided explicit calls to violence at the rally and wove in mixed messages about being “peaceful” with his violent rhetoric. It depends on how a jury reads what he said.
But the First Amendment does not protect R. Trump from liability for his failure to act once his rally speech set serious federal crimes in motion. The strongest case for both convicting Mr. Trump of insurrection would be based primarily not on what he said at the pre-invasion rally but on what he failed to do after the insurrection began. Mr. Trump cannot escape responsibility for failing to take decisive action for hours while his supporters invaded, vandalized, and terrorized the Capitol.
Desert Tortoise
Mr. Biden is a stutterer. Public speaking is excruciatingly difficult for a stutterer. They have to choose words carefully to avoid those they know cause them to stutter, leading to pauses in their speech and sometimes clumsier wording than a non stutterer would use. Stuttering is not a reflection of mental acuity but can be mistaken for such. That is the case with Mr. Biden.
Btw, if you think you are so perfect put your money where your (big) mouth is and run for public office. Try speaking to a crowd in front of reporters and see what it looks like afterwards when you watch the recording. Some of us who have had a chance to see ourselves after speaking in public maybe don't recognize ourselves. Public speaking isn't easy.
bass4funk
Re-read what you wrote, slowly.
Doesn’t matter, it’s written into the evidence, can’t omit it.
Again, the prosecution needs to show intent on the President’s part that he intentionally tried to cause discontent and a protest.
Ahh, like this: I have criticized the increasing use of gag orders for years due to concerns over the free speech. Typical orders often seek to shutdown public comments in the interests of protecting jury pools. Even “narrower” orders are written with vague terminology like “disparaging” and “intimidating” that expose defendants to punitive action if they cross uncertain lines in public defending themselves. No one seriously questions the ability of courts to limit the release of sealed material or to bar threatening comments directed at jurors, witnesses, or court staff. Moreover, there are laws on the books allowing for the prosecution of cases of threats or efforts to influence jurors or witnesses.
Well, always liked the professor.
Jimizo
I think we need scamdemic, climate change as an hoax and EVs are a scam threads.
The free-thinking will be overwhelming.
lincolnman
Good, glad to see you agree with him...
How about testimony from one of his aides that Trump told them to lie under oath to the FBI?
How about testimony from one of his aides that Trump told him to move boxes in violation of a subpoena and then destroy the video evidence?
How about testimony from the Arizona Repub Speaker that John Eastman admitted to him that his scheme to draft fake electors violated federal statute - and that he told Trump that?
Bye-Don, Hello Leavenworth...
bass4funk
I have criticized the increasing use of gag orders for years due to concerns over the free speech. Typical orders often seek to shutdown public comments in the interests of protecting jury pools. Even “narrower” orders are written with vague terminology like “disparaging” and “intimidating” that expose defendants to punitive action if they cross uncertain lines in public defending themselves.
Well, that’s where the prosecution needs to show an attempt on Trump’s part knowingly and intentionally trying to lie under oath, good luck with that.
Again, show proof and the willingness and intent to deceive the Feds
Once Again, show proof and the willingness and intent to deceive the Feds
Not going to happen.
lincolnman
Yep, he said the classified stash and steal case was "damning"... He sure called that one, right?
You need to study up on witness intimidation and obstruction of justice...good luck with that...
See above...
That's just what Arizona Speaker testified to - implementing a scheme both Trump and Eastman KNEW WAS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL STATUTE....
Definitely going to happen....prepare yourself now so it won't be such a shock and defeat later...
wtfjapan
The Dems will fail on the 14th amendment ploy, they know it and they’re putting all their eggs in one basket again.
actually theres more than one state controlled by republicans that are bring up the 14th
another fact that MAGA probably dont know, of all the witnesses that were called on the Jan 6 hearings not one of them were democrat, all republicans, those same witnesses are being subpoena for the numerous upcoming trials. I can hear the screams now RINO RINO
wtfjapan
Not going to happen.
ditto on MAGA 2024, MAGA really dont know the shite storm heading Trumps way, only 2 trails have been complete, both civil, both lost by Trump, the criminal trials are up next, at least 6 LOL
bass4funk
He also said that his right to free speech is protected not to mention that Smith is overreaching a bit…legally
You need to understand the problematic endeavors in trying to establish intentional guilt on an individual.
No video or audio, remember the Feds were in his home for half of the day and his lawyers weren’t allowed to be present another gap for the prosecution that they will have to defend, good luck.
But it has NOT been proven in a trial which they have to do
No, it won’t, Trump knows it, Smith knows it and everyone else that hasn’t hit the pipe yet.
I think it’s the other way around.
EFD
Oh well then stop the presses, that settles it!
lol.
Peter Neil
If Trump does not have his bail revoked this week and placed in pre-trial confinement for violating the terms of his bail agreement for threatening and trying to intimidate Gen Milley, the US is screwed.
All three branches of government would be corrupt.
Peter Neil
An MIT study in the early 70's predicted the collapse of civilization in 2040. KPMG said in the 90's that we're ahead of schedule. Donald Trump is doing his best to accelerate things.
bass4funk
Yup!
stormcrow
This traitor should never be allowed to run for anything again.
lincolnman
Thanks for agreeing with me...
"Molly, when the FBI interviews you next week, I want you to lie and say "you know nothing about the boxes"....
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-wrote-lists-assistant-white-house-documents-marked/story?id=103226113
WRONG. The aide didn't wipe the video of them moving the boxes - Jack Smith has that. And the Aide is a prosecution witness. BINGO!
That's because the trial hasn't started yet. They'll call the Repub Speaker and he'll testify. And given how many have already flipped, maybe Eastman will take a deal and testify too.
It will...
That's what you said in 2020 - how accurate was that then?
bass4funk
What?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-joint-chiefs-chairman-gen-mark-milley-should-step-down
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/25/politics/mark-milley-chairman-joint-chiefs-controversial-legacy/index.html
No, the people that run it are, and it seems like at least on the House side they got rid of the mostly Washington Swamp supporting rats out, at least on the GOP side, now it’s the Senate Republicans turn.
u_s__reamer
This article omits to mention, as is the wont of our MSM, that there's a whole lot of "cherry-pickin'" going on by Trump's defenders, like,* "No person shall (be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or*) *hold any office*, (civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,) *who,*** having previously taken an oath (, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,) to support the Constitution of the United States, (shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,) or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. **
The would-be "Dear Leader" of America has no clothes and no defense. Life in a Supermax for this multiple miscreant is now democracy's only effective means of self-defense against a smarter, more stable genius to strut the stage in future.
Jeremiah
Democrats in Colorado clearly fear, and hate, Trump to go to such extremes such as this court case.
wallace
"If Donald Trump stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue after robbing the Chase Bank branch by passing a note to the teller saying, “Your money or your life,” he’d likely plead the first amendment as his defense: “I was just exercising my rights to free speech!”
"The law puts it this way: “Speech integral to criminal conduct” is not protected speech. UCLA Law professor and first amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has written that “[i]t’s now a standard item on lists of First Amendment exceptions.”"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/14/trump-has-no-serious-first-amendment-defense-in-a-court-of-law-heres-why
lincolnman
John Eastman told Trump that his scheme to draft fake, fraudulent electors and use them to stage a coup was a VIOLATION OF FEDERAL STATUTE....but Trump agreed to go forth anyway...
Just like if your roommate and best friend came to you and said, "Hey, we're short rent money (votes) this month, why don't we go rob a bank? You agree, and go to the bank and fill out a fake, fraudulent withdrawal slip (electors list) and present it to the teller. The teller hands it to the Bank Manager (Pence) who says "this is a fake and isn't in compliance with banking rules". He then calls the police.
Think you won't be arrested and prosecuted for bank fraud? Which by the way is also a VIOLATION OF FEDERAL STATUTE....
Add in witness intimidation, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence....all testimony provided by first-hand witnesses, quoting his former AG Bill Barr, "Trump is toast"...
Admit it now, and safe yourself the pain and anguish when the verdicts drop and the jail sentences are announced...
bass4funk
I didn’t.
1: Trump declassifies doc re: JCS "secret" plan to attack Iraq.
2: Trump waves doc under venal reporter's nose, says it's "classified."
3: Reporter takes bait.
5: Tape becomes "evidence" for indictment.
6: Smith must prove negative, that Trump did NOT declassify IRAQ WAR PLAN!
Intent? Hmmm..lol
They can do that all day, good luck with that. Doesn’t mean even remotely it’s a slam dunk.
No, it won’t..
Very, why is it that the House Democrats look always ticked off? Ahh, sucks to be in the minority, I get it.
EFD
Every time this orange buffoon opens his mouth he:
Incriminates himself (Jack Smith and Co send their thanks, Don!)
Proves (as if any further evidence was needed) that knows not one damn thing about the law.He’s flailing because he has no legal defense.
He’s guilty AF, and he is going to face the reckoning.
wallace
Declassified documents are stamped with the date and level of declassification.
bass4funk
According to criminal defense attorney Michael Mullen, Trump's old age and lack of a criminal record could prevent him for receiving a hefty sentence. After the Stormy Daniels case in April, Mullen told Nexstar's WPIX that in similar cases, someone in their 70s with no arrest record "for a non-violent E felony with no identifiable victim" would not go to prison.
On June 4, 2018, President Trump tweeted "I have the absolute right to PARDON myself. After that tweet many legal experts and constitutional scholars debated whether a sitting president is able to pardon himself. According to Brookings Instution expert, Norman Eisen, "The text and spirit of the Constitution strongly suggest...that president's power of pardon is broad, but not so broad as to allow him to pardon himself."
However, according to Jeffrey Crouch, an assistant professor of American politics at American University, "No president has ever tried it, so we don't know what the result would be if it was attempted."
Given that Trump's criminal cases do not prevent him from running for president, should he emerge victorious in 2024, he will most likely try to pardon himself. Courts would probably challenge this decision but it remains an option that could potentially help the former president avoid jail time.
Furthermore, should a different Republican candidate win the election. Some candidates have said they would pardon Trump, while others, such as Mike Pense, have said they would consider it.
The Evidence May Not Be Enough
Some allies of Trump are arguing that the evidence presented thus far does not seem to support the criminal charges against him. Prominent Trump supporters such as Alan Dershowitz, suggest that the evidence presented in Trump's indictments is not compelling enough to establish criminal charges against him beyond a reasonable doubt.
The lack of explicit proof and the speculative nature of the legal foundation raise concerns about the strength of the case, according to those who back the former president. Therefore Dershowitz and some other analysts are questioning the attorney general's decision to approve the indictment and believe it may have been politically motivated.
-msnbc
wallace
The MAGA is more twisted than a grapevine.
EFD
Yeah not so much. 5 year mandatory min on the GA charges. And the Chief rioters got between 17&22 years.
The seditionist in Chief will get at least that and possibly more as a statement on what NOT to do when one loses a free and fair election.
George Conway, member of the Federalist Society and conservative attorney in good standing says that Trump will most likely die in jail.
Works for me!
And as he actually went to law school AND actually was recruited by none other than Trump to be solicitor general AND turned him down, I’ll go with his expert opinion over “I disagree”.
bass4funk
Love the compliment.
Neither do the Dems
Politics, a blood sport.
Yeah, won’t happen.
Slap on the wrist?
Kellyanne Conway, says he probably will never see the inside of a prison
I feel better now.
Than his ex-wife came instead and was instrumental at getting him elected.
Yup.
agondocz
From the 1713 ‘Works of Thomas Chalkley:
lincolnman
You did.
That's hilarious. You missed the part where he said he didn't take any classified, only empty folders.... And the part where he directed his lawyer to lie in writing that all the classified at MAL was turned in, and the FBI finds 184 next month. And the part where he told his aides to move the boxes in violation of a subpoena, then destroy the evidence... Keep trying...
Witnesses proving intent - his own people...with his own words...
It's beyond a slam dunk...your favorite guy Turley called it "damning"...
Yes it will...
Sure, that's why Trump has been living in the WH the last 2 years.....ROFL...
Desert Tortoise
Molly Michaels is going to testify that Mr. Trump told her, referring to the many boxes of classified documents in Mar a Lago "You don't know anything about the boxes"
That single sentence proves both criminal intent, witness tampering, evidence tampering and attempted conspiracy.
She is a credible witness. She was not turned or flipped. She has never lied or changed her story. She was straight arrow when everyone around her was lying and conniving. Her testimony is damning and authoritative.
bass4funk
I didn’t.
Then prove it.
Sure, trust the Feds who rummaged throw Trump’s home without his legal counsel present, that should be a field day for his lawyers to contest, bring it on.
Which has nothing to do with Trump himself since it’s him they’re after. Keep up.
The part where he said that Smith is over-reaching? Seems so
Nope.
And living in the lefts head way longer.