Let's discuss:
Former President Donald Trump’s legal team defended him against the Justice Department’s Tuesday indictment accusing him of attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election by claiming Trump’s false allegations of widespread election fraud were protected speech under the First Amendment and pinning the blame on his lawyers for advising him of ways he could stay in power after losing the contest to President Joe Biden.
SC Smith deals with this in paragraph 3 and 4, Page 2 of the Indictments.
3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.
4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.
These unlawful attempts to subvert the vote were a fraud upon the United States. Free speech is such that we can all say whatever we like, but we then have to accept the consequences of what we say.
A person can instruct someone to murder another which is protected speech. This gets sticky when that other person acts on our speech and commits a crime. The speech is protected but not the act.
Former President Donald Trump’s legal team defended him against the Justice Department’s Tuesday indictment accusing him of attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election by claiming Trump’s false allegations of widespread election fraud were protected speech under the First Amendment and pinning the blame on his lawyers for advising him of ways he could stay in power after losing the contest to President Joe Biden.
SC Smith deals with this in paragraph 3 and 4, Page 2 of the Indictments.
3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.
4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.
These unlawful attempts to subvert the vote were a fraud upon the United States. Free speech is such that we can all say whatever we like, but we then have to accept the consequences of what we say.
A person can instruct someone to murder another which is protected speech. This gets sticky when that other person acts on our speech and commits a crime. The speech is protected but not the act.
Last edited:
