The assertion that Trump acted swiftly and out of genuine horror as his supporters ransacked the Capitol is largely a side note to his lawyers’ defense. In their 78-page brief, they focused on two legal arguments: that the Constitution does not allow for the conviction of an impeached former officeholder and that Trump’s speech to the crowd on Jan. 6 was political rhetoric protected by the First Amendment.
I really don't understand this last argument. Yes, US citizens have freedom of speech. I'm free to go to my local police station and say, freely, that I just killed John Doe at 123 Main Street, but a lawyer won't be able to use the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause in my defense in the courtroom.
Speech has consequences. If it didn't there'd be no point in having it or using it. This seems like a very desperate defense if you ask me.
Speech has consequences. If it didn't there'd be no point in having it or using it. This seems like a very desperate defense if you ask me.
1 comment:
Similar to the defense of Marjorie Taylor Greene: "What happened to Freedom of Speech?"
Well, you do have freedom of speech, but generally (although not in this case), when you threaten your colleagues with execution and 'a bullet to the head", you lose your job.
Post a Comment