The FBI director kept quiet Thursday on whether federal authorities were investigating former President Donald Trump for his role inciting the attack on Congress on Jan. 6.
Lock him up.
They fucking better.
Won’t say = YES
Parsing Wray’s words, I’d discern that there is a high probability that there is an investigation concerning DJT. Confessing that publicly would be inflammatory and possibly damaging to an investigation, given DJT’s potential destruction of evidence if he knew positively he was a target. I say all of this with a “dammned well better be” attached to my sentiments.
I did a quick Google but couldn’t find a history of indictments or convictions. Any legal eagles here have that info? How often has this been tried in a court?
If there isn’t a recent precedent, then it might just be incitement to riot vs. free speech, and I’m not sure of the chances of a conviction in that case.
I’ve been harassing Dish to remove AMVO from their line up.
In the general, a FBI director does not discuss on-going cases or even cases that are dismissed.
He is there to discuss policy.
Came here to say exactly that…
We are dreaming if we think the feds will indict Trump. It’s a nice dream to have, but it will never happen.
@teenlaqueefa TFB also. “Liberty and justice for all.” Or is that fiction?
The quotation marks say a lot. Like, NO, definitely NOT for all.
Ah yes, the example that proved the utility to the general rule.
Trump walks. On everything.
Mark it.
OT, but Biden on live from England. Looking good, no cicadas.
Pretty much.
Angela Merkel isn’t going to know how to act without Biden whispering in her ear she’s a stupid horse face hag.
In regard to “incitement to riot vs. free speech”, there is the Brandenburg test.
From the “Legal Information Institute”.
The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. In the case, a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that “it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken.” The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Hess, an Indiana University protester said, “We’ll take the fucking street again” (or “later.”) The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court concluded that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”
In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co .(1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied Brandenburg and found that the speech was protected: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”
