• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The political prosecutions are beginning. Shumer first target

The "86" thing is like the "woke" thing.
Change the meaning to suit your agenda.
 
I'm glad they indicted Comey on the seashells, because unless I'm totally naive about judges and juries, even after 10 years of the Trump Distorto-Rama, this one will flop faster and with more scathing denunciation than their first attempt. And it will be Exhibit One for every subsequent defense, showing that this DOJ is entirely corrupt.
When the Trump-signed currency starts appearing this summer, I hope everyone writes 86 47 under his signature.
 
thebeave said:
Axulus said:
Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been quietly pushing to present evidence against Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to a federal grand jury over comments he made about Supreme Court justices in 2020, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
Mr. Martin has made clear his hopes of investigating whether the remarks made five years ago by Mr. Schumer amounted to threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Mr. Schumer said at the rally, addressing his remarks to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
Click to expand...
www.nytimes.com

U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry Into Schumer (Published 2025)

Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

The party of free speech is ramping up its efforts to send government goons after enemies on the pretext of speech they don't like.
Click to expand...
The article is behind a paywall, so I can't see all the details. Specifically, did Trump initiate this investigation as suggested? Secondly, its not clear that what Schumer said is protected by the 1A. They do sound a bit like "fighting words". I don't find it implausible that a particularly passionate person could take Schumer's words to heart and do something violent and tragic. Does "pay the price" mean violence or is he just somehow going to force a justice to resign? Or maybe harrass his family? There have been a few cases of judges getting murdered by people who didn't like their rulings, so killing a judge is not unheard of.

Does the First Amendment Protect Threats and Hate Speech?

Fighting Words​

In 1942, the Court unanimously decided in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that the First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. The Chaplinsky Court reviewed a conviction under state law. that criminalized the use of “fighting words.” The law defined fighting words as speech “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”

The Court upheld the conviction and the statute, which it found to be sufficiently narrowly tailored. The opinion explains that the law defined and prohibited specific acts likely to disrupt the peace in public places. This was well within the state’s power.

The Court explained that fighting words aren’t protected because they play no crucial role in the free exchange of ideas and have minimal social value. As such, the public interest in maintaining order and morality far outweighs any benefit derived from their utterance.

Chaplinsky remains the prevailing standard, and the Court consistently cites 'fighting words' as a type of speech not protected. Yet, it has not affirmed any state action grounded in the Chaplinsky doctrine regarding fighting words.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How does that apply to Trump’s words threatening at least 2 dozen lawmakers during Biden’s term?
 
Toni said:
thebeave said:
Axulus said:
Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been quietly pushing to present evidence against Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to a federal grand jury over comments he made about Supreme Court justices in 2020, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
Mr. Martin has made clear his hopes of investigating whether the remarks made five years ago by Mr. Schumer amounted to threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Mr. Schumer said at the rally, addressing his remarks to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
Click to expand...
www.nytimes.com

U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry Into Schumer (Published 2025)

Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

The party of free speech is ramping up its efforts to send government goons after enemies on the pretext of speech they don't like.
Click to expand...
The article is behind a paywall, so I can't see all the details. Specifically, did Trump initiate this investigation as suggested? Secondly, its not clear that what Schumer said is protected by the 1A. They do sound a bit like "fighting words". I don't find it implausible that a particularly passionate person could take Schumer's words to heart and do something violent and tragic. Does "pay the price" mean violence or is he just somehow going to force a justice to resign? Or maybe harrass his family? There have been a few cases of judges getting murdered by people who didn't like their rulings, so killing a judge is not unheard of.

Does the First Amendment Protect Threats and Hate Speech?

Fighting Words​

In 1942, the Court unanimously decided in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that the First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. The Chaplinsky Court reviewed a conviction under state law. that criminalized the use of “fighting words.” The law defined fighting words as speech “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”

The Court upheld the conviction and the statute, which it found to be sufficiently narrowly tailored. The opinion explains that the law defined and prohibited specific acts likely to disrupt the peace in public places. This was well within the state’s power.

The Court explained that fighting words aren’t protected because they play no crucial role in the free exchange of ideas and have minimal social value. As such, the public interest in maintaining order and morality far outweighs any benefit derived from their utterance.

Chaplinsky remains the prevailing standard, and the Court consistently cites 'fighting words' as a type of speech not protected. Yet, it has not affirmed any state action grounded in the Chaplinsky doctrine regarding fighting words.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How does that apply to Trump’s words threatening at least 2 dozen lawmakers during Biden’s term?
Click to expand...

The stuff Trump has said is far worse than any possible problem with what Comey posted.

And a big difference when Trump posts threatening stuff about others is that it's realistic to believe that one or many of his cult followers will try to act on it.

The other key point here is that the Comey prosecution standard would seem to be a troubling one for Trump himself.


Trump, after all, has frequently said and posted vaguely threatening-sounding things.



This is only a small portion of Trump’s violent rhetoric, focused on things that could plausibly be argued were threatening to specific people — particularly if you’re using the newfound Comey standard.
Click to expand...

 
I’d guess the investigation took a week. It took this long to find someone shameless enough to put this disaster of a case together and then assemble a sufficient number of morons into a grand jury.
 
Seen elsewhere:

Trump might have damaged the case against Comey even more...

From: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...mp-just-handed-comey-an-acquittal/ar-AA226qrA
“The Source” host Kaitlan Collins followed up by asking the president if he really thought his life was in danger. “Probably, I don’t know,” Trump responded....“Right there. That’s an acquittal,” Honig said on Collins’ show later on Wednesday. “Because prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim believed that his life was in jeopardy, and if the jury comes back at ‘probably, I don’t know,’ that’s a not guilty right there.
 
I keep waiting for people whose address is 8647 Olive Blvd, St Louis Mo, or
8647 Hume Ave, St Louis or any address with 8647 to post pictures.
 
laughing dog said:
I’d guess the investigation took a week. It took this long to find someone shameless enough to put this disaster of a case together and then assemble a sufficient number of morons into a grand jury.
Click to expand...
Has it been reported what government lawyer has their name on this indictment?
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
FBI raid VA State Senator's office, who was very vocal and leading the Virginia redistricting effort.

Apparently getting a warrant is like ordering pizza these days.
Click to expand...

Given the behavior of the FBI and DoJ under the Trump administration I don't think that it's a coincidence that:

Lucas, 82, has long been an outspoken figure in state politics and gained national attention in recent months for helping lead the effort to redraw the state’s congressional maps, which could help Democrats gain four additional seats in the coming midterm elections. She routinely took shots at President Donald Trump and statewide Republicans with bombastic posts on social media throughout the process.
Click to expand...
 
crazyfingers said:
Patooka said:
That was a fucking year ago. They really do believe in the "find the person and I'll give you the crime" philosophy.
Click to expand...

They are breast feeding sycophants doing the bidding of the corrupt, lawless, evil, fascist piece-of-shit who occupies the White House
Click to expand...
Do not denigrate breastfeeding like that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom