News Focus
News Focus
icon url

SoxFan

07/05/22 10:14 PM

#82399 RE: janice shell #82398

Actually she wasn't told by Bobby Engel but by Tony Ornardo when Bobby Engel was in the room. Hence hearsay. If Bobby told her it would not be hearsay as it was said by a party/opponent who was in the car.
icon url

fuagf

07/06/22 1:21 AM

#82453 RE: janice shell #82398

Lawfare is a good site.

In other words, Trump’s order to “take the fucking mags away,” whether or not the Secret Service obeyed it, was not constitutionally protected political speech but, rather, an overt act, sandwiched between sentences reflecting awareness and intent, that would have made the threat of lawflessness far more “imminent” (in the language of Brandenburg). Trump’s actions transformed his words “Fight like hell” from a political metaphor to a consciously literal and imminent danger.

Using Trump’s order as a key element in his criminal prosecution thus offers a safeguard to prevent the case against Trump from being used as a precedent to criminalize loose political talk. A leader or an activist who simply called on a crowd to “fight like hell” and “march to the Capitol” would not be liable to prosecution for incitement under the above logic. By contrast, a leader or an activist who distributed weapons, knives, spears, bear spray, and body armor to a mob of activists, and then immediately fired them up about an imminent government conspiracy, and called on them to “fight like hell” and “march to the Capitol” would—and we think should—be subject to prosecution for incitement. By ordering the removal of the magnetometers, Trump acted in a way that would have increased the dangerousness of the crowd, and so he too should be held accountable for incitement.

Obstruction of Congress

Your - https://www.lawfareblog.com/cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony-changed-our-minds-about-indicting-donald-trump

Should have been back there before now. Thanks for the reminder.