Jaff's stupid shit

[Lov2fish]

Everyone's first amendment rights are absolute. The constitution is absolute, period. The document was created to restrain government from infringing on citizens. It was never for government to grant you shit. People that believe the shit liberal judges spew out are fucking morons and deserve everything that comes their way. The dumbing down of this country is nearly complete.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by Lov2fish

Everyone's first amendment rights are absolute. The constitution is absolute, period. The document was created to restrain government from infringing on citizens. It was never for government to grant you shit. People that believe the shit liberal judges spew out are fucking morons and deserve everything that comes their way. The dumbing down of this country is nearly complete.

No, its not. Lying to govt officials is NOT covered by the first amendment. Lying to cover a crime is not covered by the 1st Amendment.

If you get together with several associates and agree to repeat the same lie to officials to cover crime, is a conspiracy and is not covered by the first amendment. It’s really not that hard. If you really don’t understand how the government works or how the legal system works, you shouldn’t pretend to be a lawyer.

[JAFF]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...-23/index.html

In a hearing Friday, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan set the tone for how she will preside over the 2020 election subversion case against former President Donald Trump.

Chutkan kicked off the hearing – the first in the case before her and one that took place in her courtroom at DC federal courthouse – noting that while Trump’s rights as a criminal defendant would be protected, his First Amendment right to free speech was “not absolute.”

The hearing focused on what limits would be placed on how the former president can handle the evidence prosecutors will be turning over to him.

“In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules,” she said.
The judge closed the hearing with a promise that the case would advance like any normal proceeding in the criminal justice system, but warned that the more “inflammatory” statements were made by a party, the quicker she would need to move toward a trial to preserve a fair jury.

“It is a bedrock principle of the judicial process in this country,” she said, while quoting precedent, “that legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting hall, the radio and the newspaper.”

“This case is no exception,” she said.

Over the course of the proceedings, she expressed some skepticism to the arguments made by the office of special counsel Jack Smith, siding with Trump on at least a few matters related to the protective order over evidence that was the subject of Friday’s hearing. Addressing a submission from the government that she refused to let be filed under seal, she also emphasized a need for public transparency into the docket.

The hearing, roughly an hour and 40 minutes long, was the first in the case before Chutkan. She has already shown a habit of responding quickly and tersely on the docket to debates between the parties over scheduling. An Obama appointee and former public defender who has overseen several cases regarding the events of January 6, 2021, Chutkan has been outspoken about the harm the US Capitol attack caused to American democracy.

Chutkan later issued a protective order barring Trump from publicly disclosing sensitive information in the case.

Trump pleaded not guilty to four criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election last week, and the judge cautioned lawyers for Trump, who did not attend the hearing, about any public statements by their client that could possibly intimidate of witnesses.

That is why a judge can limit someones speech.

[Lov2fish]

Originally Posted by JAFF

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...-23/index.html



That is why a judge can limit someones speech.

Just cause the fucker says it doesn't make it so.

[omahacolt]

Originally Posted by Lov2fish

Everyone's first amendment rights are absolute. The constitution is absolute, period. The document was created to restrain government from infringing on citizens. It was never for government to grant you shit. People that believe the shit liberal judges spew out are fucking morons and deserve everything that comes their way. The dumbing down of this country is nearly complete.

you have the right to free speech. but there are consequences to what you say.
legally, there are things you aren't allowed to say. you know this. i don't know why this is so hard.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by omahacolt

you have the right to free speech. but there are consequences to what you say.
legally, there are things you aren't allowed to say. you know this. i don't know why this is so hard.

He is not interested in facts and the law.

[Lov2fish]

Originally Posted by JAFF

He is not interested in facts and the law.

I know more about law than you ever will, shut up and sit down.

Unless the judge ordered an official gag order (I am not following the case cause I don't give a shit) so not sure if he did or didn't

(. If no gag order is issued than yes he is violating his 1st. amendment rights, like it or not.

(. If a gag order was officially ordered than fuck Trump, let him deal with the fuckup he created.

[bigalbert]

So you would agree then that all those Dem congressmen and senators should be charged and muzzled for spewing the hatred against Trump and be held responsible for burning down the cities neighborhoods


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by bigalbert

So you would agree then that all those Dem congressmen and senators should be charged and muzzled for spewing the hatred against Trump and be held responsible for burning down the cities neighborhoods


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you miss the part where Trump started a riot to overturn the election?

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639...eachment-trial

Trump is the only person who has called for violence.

[bigalbert]

Originally Posted by JAFF

Did you miss the part where Trump started a riot to overturn the election?

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639...eachment-trial

Trump is the only person who has called for violence.

Goodness you live in a bubble. I’ve seen the videos. Do a little googling on Twitter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk