Supreme Court Rules in Favor of J6 Protester

[Diogenes]

That says it all in a nutshell. Instead of saying "inciting a riot" - something I could actually agree with - you say "inciting an insurrection", which is ridiculous on the face of it.

I wouldn't say Trump incited the riot even at that. He may have been ambivalent about the riot due to the apparent results of the election, but that's not incitement.

[Ronson]

I wouldn't say Trump incited the riot even at that. He may have been ambivalent about the riot due to the apparent results of the election, but that's not incitement.

As I said elsewhere, Trump was raging on Twitter about a stolen election in the months leading up to J6. I don't believe he meant to incite a riot, but that's because he doesn't always think very deeply. I compare his reckless comments to that of Tom Bradley in 1992.

[Mountain Man]

I take into account all of Trump's public comments leading up to that day. The rioters showed up before J6, before Trump said anything on J6. They were fired up ahead of time.

Does that really count as "inciting a riot", though? I always took that to mean something more immediate, like whipping a crowd into a frenzy and not making comments over a long period of time.

[Ronson]

Does that really count as "inciting a riot", though? I always took that to mean something more immediate, like whipping a crowd into a frenzy and not making comments over a long period of time.

Oh, I don't think there's time limit. Why would there be?

Tom Bradley caused the 1992 L.A. riots due to his inflamed rhetoric. He even later admitted it. IIRC, the riot started about 1-to-2 hours after his speech.

People didn't show up at the Capitol on J6 on a whim. They were angry. Trump was insisting the election was stolen and many of the rioters believe/believed that and they were incensed. If Trump believes the election was stolen from him, that's his right. It's his right to express that. Hillary thinks the same thing about 2016. But his angry tweets and comments before J6 is what fired up the rioters, and I think he should take responsibility for at least some of that result. But he won't.

I'm OK with it because I know Trump is not going to get a brownie badge for admitting faults. The Leftist media will jump all over him if he acknowledged any responsibility. Public figures can be reckless in their rhetoric and can cause violence. They need to be more careful than they are.

[rogue06]

That says it all in a nutshell. Instead of saying "inciting a riot" - something I could actually agree with - you say "inciting an insurrection", which is ridiculous on the face of it.

And it seems that much if not most of the MSM is abandoning the hoax and are now saying "riot" and "rioters" rather than "insurrection" and insurrectionists." At least with respect to this case.

[Mountain Man]

Oh, I don't think there's time limit. Why would there be?

Tom Bradley caused the 1992 L.A. riots due to his inflamed rhetoric. He even later admitted it. IIRC, the riot started about 1-to-2 hours after his speech.

People didn't show up at the Capitol on J6 on a whim. They were angry. Trump was insisting the election was stolen and many of the rioters believe/believed that and they were incensed. If Trump believes the election was stolen from him, that's his right. It's his right to express that. Hillary thinks the same thing about 2016. But his angry tweets and comments before J6 is what fired up the rioters, and I think he should take responsibility for at least some of that result. But he won't.

I'm OK with it because I know Trump is not going to get a brownie badge for admitting faults. The Leftist media will jump all over him if he acknowledged any responsibility. Public figures can be reckless in their rhetoric and can cause violence. They need to be more careful than they are.

A riot breaking out one to two hours after a speech where the crowd was whipped up I think reasonably qualifies as "immediate" as there is a clear cause and effect. Not being familiar with the Bradley case, I don't know what he actually said. Did he encourage the crowd to become violent? In Trump's case, I don't think he ever called on his supporters to do anything like what happened on January 6, so, in my opinion, it's harder to prove cause and effect.

[NorrinRadd]

Does that really count as "inciting a riot", though? I always took that to mean something more immediate, like whipping a crowd into a frenzy and not making comments over a long period of time.

My friends who attended just the rally portion had no clue any violence was in the offing. Nothing they'd heard that inspired them to attend, and nothing they heard or encountered while there, seemed to be "inciting."

[Ronson]

A riot breaking out one to two hours after a speech where the crowd was whipped up I think reasonably qualifies as "immediate" as there is a clear cause and effect. Not being familiar with the Bradley case, I don't know what he actually said. Did he encourage the crowd to become violent?

I considered it ominous, and most everyone I knew back then agreed. What Bradley said and how he expressed it appeared to be a thinly-veiled green light for residents to riot. I felt chilled - and I knew something was going to happen. Police Chief Bill Gates also considered that to be the case as he ordered officers to back away from the riot areas of the city and allowed Bradley to own it. No, Bradley didn't call for violence, but his demeanor was almost sarcastic. The riot might have happened anyway because the King verdict was disgraceful, but no one expected the mayor of Los Angeles to react that way.

In Trump's case, I don't think he ever called on his supporters to do anything like what happened on January 6, so, in my opinion, it's harder to prove cause and effect.

Why else would people wearing MAGA hats and waving American flags start wreaking havoc? (I mean, aside from the FBI plants.) Trump liked/likes to throw temper tantrums in public and people who are slightly unhinged might respond to that. I think that's why many of them were there that day, to riot.

[Ronson]

My friends who attended just the rally portion had no clue any violence was in the offing. Nothing they'd heard that inspired them to attend, and nothing they heard or encountered while there, seemed to be "inciting."

I try to be objective and non partisan about the whole thing. I support Trump and I'm going to vote for him because I think his policies are good for the country, where Democrats have been destroying it. But Trump is an egomaniac with a loose cannon for a mouth. He's been getting a little better in recent years, but his tirades and childish taunts are legend and have always been an embarrassment.

I can support Trump without being a fan of his. He's flawed.

[Sparko]

Supreme Court rules on Trump Immunity case:

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/trump-immunity-supreme-court-ruling-live-updates-rcna159539

"This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office," Roberts wrote.

© Copyright Original Source

Just released, being updated live.

[Sparko]

Supreme Court rules on Trump Immunity case:

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/trump-immunity-supreme-court-ruling-live-updates-rcna159539

"This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office," Roberts wrote.

© Copyright Original Source

Just released, being updated live.

more:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ter-rcna149135
Supreme Court rules Trump has some immunity in federal election interference case, further delaying trial


The legal question on whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for official acts had never come before the court.


By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Donald Trump has immunity for some of his alleged conduct as president in his federal election interference case, but maybe not for other actions, adding another obstacle to a trial taking place.
In a novel and potentially consequential case on the limits of presidential power, the justices on a 6-3 vote on ideological lines rejected Trump’s broad claim of immunity, meaning the charges will not be dismissed, but said some actions closely related to his core duties as president are off-limits to prosecutors.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that further proceedings are needed in lower courts are needed to determine what conduct he can be prosecuted for.
What that means for the case going forward remains to be seen. Trump’s lawyer conceded in the oral argument in April that at least some of the allegations in the indictment concern private conduct that would not be protected by any immunity defense. Likewise, the Justice Department lawyer arguing the case for special counsel Jack Smith said the prosecution could go ahead even if some official acts were protected.
At a minimum, there will be further proceedings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine what, if any, of the other conduct alleged in the indictment is protected.
Even if the new proceedings do not take much time, there is little chance for the trial to conclude before Election Day. It had previously been suggested that a trial would not start until at least three months after the Supreme Court ruling, which would mean it would potentially not start until early October at the earliest. The trial itself could last up to 12 weeks.
The case put the national spotlight on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three justices Trump appointed. The court handed Trump an election-year boost when it ruled in March that Colorado could not kick him off the ballot.
The justices were also criticized for their delay in taking up Trump’s appeal, which some view in itself as a victory for him as it meant the trial could not take place in March as originally planned.
Legally speaking, the case was unprecedented, as no president has ever been prosecuted after leaving office. Therefore, the court was wrestling with a legal question that had never come before it: whether a president has some form of immunity for his core duties derived from the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which delineates the powers of the presidency in relation to other branches of government.
The legal argument focused on Trump’s official acts, with both sides agreeing that a former president does not have immunity for personal conduct.