(1) Thoughts?
"The "Imminent lawless action" standard was established by the SCOTUS. Under this test, speech is not protected by 1A if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent & likely."
Intent is the key part of this...
"The "Imminent lawless action" standard was established by the SCOTUS. Under this test, speech is not protected by 1A if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent & likely."
Intent is the key part of this...
(2) Trump defenders are going to say he didn't have intent, and that this could never be proven.
But often, it can be. Intent can be inferred from actions or omissions. And I think there are plenty, over several weeks. Not just the speech at the Ellipse that day.
But often, it can be. Intent can be inferred from actions or omissions. And I think there are plenty, over several weeks. Not just the speech at the Ellipse that day.
(3) Some of Trumps Dec/Jan actions or omissions are publicly known. Others are not, as yet.
A proper investigation may reveal crucial evidence. That needs to happen ASAP.
If that's the relevant SCOTUS test, then IMO it may well be met.
A proper investigation may reveal crucial evidence. That needs to happen ASAP.
If that's the relevant SCOTUS test, then IMO it may well be met.
(4) The left are out to "get" Trump in whatever way they can.
His most ardent supporters are out to defend him regardless of the facts.
I was always a supporter based on the facts. When the facts changed, my view changed.
Sad but true.
His most ardent supporters are out to defend him regardless of the facts.
I was always a supporter based on the facts. When the facts changed, my view changed.
Sad but true.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
