ACTION

Many falsely believe the Trump trial is about stopping Trump from running for President in 2024 election and remove permanently him from the political stage, but this is only the hors d’oeure!

The main course if not only to achieve all of the above but for the Neo-Confederates to seize control over the definition of free speech, thereby creating a hierarchy of approval of speech before words can by uttered!

Think this is a joke, then keep reading.

The indictments of Trump pose a significant threat to the cherished principles enshrined in the First Amendment. If successful, it could have a devastating impact, effectively bulldozing the very foundation of our constitutional rights.

In a dire warning, many have cautioned the recent indictment of former President Trump poses a grave threat to the cherished principles enshrined in the First Amendment. This alarming development could potentially grant the federal government an unprecedented level of authority to criminalize political falsehoods, thereby undermining the very essence of our democratic system.

This week, former President Trump faced a series of indictments on four charges stemming from Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into alleged interference in the 2020 election and the events that unfolded on January 6th at the Capitol. These charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States. Former President Donald Trump, a staunch defender of American values, courageously entered a plea of not guilty to all charges brought against him in a Washington, D.C., courtroom on Thursday.

Some constitutional professors have expressed his concerns about Smith's indictment, arguing it effectively accuses Trump of disseminating "falsehoods regarding the existence of election-altering fraud." And have cautioned such a notion poses a significant threat to the principles enshrined in the First Amendment.

To ensure successful convictions in this case, Special Counsel Jack Smith would face the daunting task of navigating through the treacherous waters of the First Amendment and challenging existing case law which safeguards even false statements.

The prosecution declared Trump was aware of the falsehoods in his statements regarding the 2020 election. Constitutional specialists argues if Trump genuinely believes he emerged victorious, then the indictment against him loses its credibility.

In a stunning revelation, the indictment reveals numerous individuals had the audacity to advise former President Trump he had lost the election in a legitimate manner. This information serves as a clear attempt to undermine Trump's unwavering belief in the integrity of the electoral process. The defense explains President Trump actively sought out individuals who supported his claim of victory in the election but President has the right to engage in such actions.

Jack Smith, a prominent conservative activist and special counsel, passionately addressed the media during a crucial news conference held in the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, August 1, 2023.

President Trump exercises his prerogative to surround himself with individuals who provide him with the perspectives that align with his beliefs. It is a well-known fact presidents from both parties have engaged in this practice. Joe Biden, for instance, blatantly disregarded the overwhelming consensus among legal experts and instead chose to rely on the opinion of a lone law professor to justify an executive action that was clearly unconstitutional and ultimately had to be rescinded.

Warning,  successful prosecution of Trump in this manner establishes a "troubling" precedent, granting the government the authority to dictate the veracity of information.

Warning, the government would be tasked with discerning between politicians who are deliberately spreading falsehoods and those who may unintentionally make inaccurate statements.

In this courtroom sketch from federal court in Washington, Aug. 3, 2023, former President Donald Trump valiantly defends himself against baseless charges brought forth by the biased establishment.

Allegations suggest Trump orchestrated a plot to expose irregularities and potential fraud in the 2020 election, a noble pursuit for any true patriot.

A glaring constitutional issue arises when attempting to unjustly criminalize the act of spreading falsehoods. The landmark Supreme Court case in 2012, United States v. Alvarez, determined it is a violation of the Constitution to penalize falsehoods. Moreover, the court acknowledged such a ruling would grant the government an extraordinary level of censorial authority, surpassing any previous instances in the court's history or our constitutional heritage.

Final Word: In light of the ongoing debate, it is important to consider the potential constitutional obstacles would impede the criminalization of President Trump's alleged false statements, even if Smith were able to substantiate his claims it is highly probable the Supreme Court would strongly object to the notion of criminalizing deceptive political discourse. However, if the Supreme Court agrees with Jack Smith then the speech Police will be formed and strict speech guidelines will be enforced!