New impeachment defense

[struggle4progress]

By MERIDITH MCGRAW and DANIEL LIPPMAN
01/08/2021 05:24 PM EST

... Alan Dershowitz .. argued that Trump’s encouragement of this week’s Capitol riots was “constitutionally protected” speech. He said it would be his “honor and privilege” to take on the legal defense ...

“Unlike the last time, where they didn't even charge a crime, I could imagine that you could draft an article of impeachment that would actually make a legal argument that the president aided or abetted or actually elicited a riot,” said Robert Ray, a member of the president’s defense team during the last impeachment ...

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/08/alan-dershowitz-trump-impeachment-456674

[servermsh]

1. These idiots don't understand there will be *more* evidence

There is already evidence of Trump cheering on the insurrection, *after* it breached Congress. Evidence of him calling a Senator after the breach and asking for more delays. Evidence of the National Guard being delayed.

It *isn't* just what he said publicly, even though that is enough.

[lapfog_1]

2. I wish someone would release the Epstein tapes

that would put Dershowitz in prison

[KY_EnviroGuy]

3. Sworn statements from a few dozen MAGAts that they were following orders...

from dear leader Donny might shut Dershowitz up.

With federal charges hanging over their heads, they may just cooperate.......

[dixiechiken1]

4. He yelled "fire" in a crowded theater.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). [1] [emphasis mine]

The paraphrasing differs from Holmes's original wording in that it typically does not include the word falsely, while also adding the word "crowded" to describe the theatre.[2] The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ( "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" ) highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

I'm not an attorney but it seems pretty clear to me that what tRump said was NOT "constitutionally protected" speech.

[Clearly fogged in]

5. In other words

Mob attacks lawmakers in quest to force them to write different laws, but more for them this time. And simple answers. Don't forget, no long answers either.