Criminal charges against President Donald J. Trump are the administrative State’s utopian dream come true and the sole goal of the unlawful US House Committee on January 6, 2021; nevertheless, there may be a flaw in their nefarious plans to crucify Trump and keep him out of politics.

US politics have devolved into a third-world system, which is precisely what the administrative state desires because, in a third-world system, they get to scoop up a lot of money and power from the tax base, while everyone else is forced to live under oppressive government policies and pressure, with bread and circuses and political theater playing out on all levels.

Enter the investigations on January 6th. Approximately one thousand Americans have been criminally punished for their involvement on that date. Some have become political prisoners, awaiting trial for their charges while incarcerated.

Over one million people traveled to Washington, D.C. on January 6 to protest these concerns, but little did they know that the entire day was really a ploy to set the tone for the following two years by demonizing concerned individuals.

Since almost seven years, Trump has been the focus of an out-of-control political body, and a House committee has ridiculed him.

Trump has been steadfast in his assertion that he has never incited violence, and according to media sources, “that defense might carry him through if criminal charges are filed against him.”

This week, the left-dominated January 6 House Select Committee announced four criminal referrals against Trump, concluding their year-long assault on the American people over their accusations that Trump was responsible for the police violence and attacks that day in the nation’s capitol.

“The referrals were for obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to make a false statement and to “incite,” “assist,” or “aid or comfort” an insurrection. Trump’s legal team could use the First Amendment’s free speech protection as a defense if charges are brought,” Newsweek reported, adding:

“Free speech has been protected by the U.S. Supreme Court for decades, and there are limitations on when it can be criminalized. From the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court follows a two-fold rule when dealing with speech. The case determined that in order to be considered criminal, speech must be intended to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speech also must be likely to do so.”

Jim Gardner, a law professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law, warned Newsweek that the current Supreme Court has been “controlled by the Republican Party” and may not adhere to the Brandenburg rule.

“[This court] has revealed itself to be quite willing to throw out long-standing precedent, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they came up with some other rule that was more speech friendly,” he said.

On January 6, following Trump’s address at a Save America rally, protesters poured against the United States Capitol. Trump urged his supporters to “fight” and alluded to the illegitimate election. Trump maintains that his remarks on that day were protected by the First Amendment.

The Weekly News magazine continued: According to legal experts, the defense is not solid. The Atlantic released a story on Tuesday stating that in order for the prosecution to overcome the First Amendment argument, they must examine Trump’s behavior that day rather than his remarks at the rally.

More on this story via The Republic Brief:

The article said Trump’s defense could continue to argue protection by the First Amendment. Although he called for his supporters to “fight” many times in his speech, it could be argued that the word was purely metaphorical as Trump didn’t specifically demand his supporters partake in violence. Trump urged his supporters to avoid violence and to march “peacefully and patriotically,” making it a difficult argument that he explicitly requested lawless action.

Gardner said when it comes to speech, context is important as even if a phrase or word isn’t explicitly said, it could be implied to a specific group of people, such as the mob that rioted at the Capitol. CONTINUE READING…