There is no First Amendment right to overturn an election

[Dutch Uncle]

Jack Smith doesn't care what he can prove. He's just throwing spaghetti at the walls to see if it sticks.
No crime.

Bulverism. Bigotry.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism,

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Blatant lie. You never specified any crime.

Bulverism. Bigotry.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism,

 

[QP!]

Because he was very active politically and speaking out against Biden's administration.

So what?

The DoJ deals with people very actively politically who may speak out against the other party and its POTUS. Do i have to list politicians who have been arrested throughout history?

That has never required a SP prior.

 

[Into the Night]

Low IQ boy

Today, 08:30 PM
Into the Night
Verified User

This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.

 

[Into the Night]

So what?

The DoJ deals with people very actively politically who may speak out against the other party and its POTUS. Do i have to list politicians who have been arrested throughout history?

That has never required a SP prior.

Unconstitutional.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

So what?

The DoJ deals with people very actively politically who may speak out against the other party and its POTUS. Do i have to list politicians who have been arrested throughout history?

That has never required a SP prior.

How many of them were former presidents whom the current president had accused of crimes and trying to overthrow the government of the United States?

 

[floridafan]

I have many times and there is nothing in there.

The only charge is some broad conspiracy charge.

There were no threats or coercion listed in the indictments.

Handjob, you already admitted that you didn't read it.

 

[QP!]

How many of them were former presidents whom the current president had accused of crimes and trying to overthrow the government of the United States?

Does not matter. If Trump is not running again, no matter how politically active he is that would not stop DoJ prosecuting him and it should not.

You are simply arguing that Trump as ex POTUS would be a better voice than Roger Stone or Bannon or others because he is an EX POTUS, but it is not the 'effectiveness of the voice' that matters. That is protected via the 1st amendment.

That is very different than an AG launching investigations against someone who is a declared candidate against your boss, the current POTUS.

 

[Jarod]

RQAA. That question has already been answered by several people. Stop being mindless.

So you got nothing, as usual

 

[Jarod]

Jack Smith doesn't care what he can prove. He's just throwing spaghetti at the walls to see if it sticks.
No crime.

Hahaha

 

[Into the Night]

Does not matter. If Trump is not running again, no matter how politically active he is that would not stop DoJ prosecuting him and it should not.

You are simply arguing that Trump as ex POTUS would be a better voice than Roger Stone or Bannon or others because he is an EX POTUS, but it is not the 'effectiveness of the voice' that matters. That is protected via the 1st amendment.

That is very different than an AG launching investigations against someone who is a declared candidate against your boss, the current POTUS.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

 

[Into the Night]

So you got nothing, as usual

Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA.

Bulverism. Bigotry.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism,

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

Bulverism. Bigotry.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism,