Home Home Jack Smith Denied President Trump Free Speech

Jack Smith Denied President Trump Free Speech

7
195

Does a candidate have the right to speak out about election fraud? Apparently, only to a point as decided by Jack Smith. He claims that Donald Trump lied and, in doing so, he violated federal law.

Smith claimed that Trump could not use what he describes as “knowingly false statements” to “target a lawful government function.” He said it is fraud.

Interviewer: “But the President’s statements that he believed the election was rife with fraud. Those certainly are statements that are protected by the First Amendment, correct?”

Jack Smith: “Absolutely not if they are made to target a lawful government function, and they are made with known falsity. No, they’re not that.”

I never read that in the Bill of Rights. Additionally, President Trump believed strongly that his statements were true.

Interviewer: “And there’s a long history of candidates speaking out about what they believe, there’s been fraud. There’s been other, other, you know, problems with the integrity of the election process. And I think you would agree that those types of statements are sort of at the core of the First Amendment rights of a presidential candidate, right?”

Jack Smith: “There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case. As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowing, knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do, and that differentiates this case from any past history.”

Previous articleCommunist Islamist Zohran Sworn In as Ugandan Mayor of NYC
Next articleCBS “Reporter” Missed This Minnesota Daycare Corruption
5 1 vote
Article Rating
7 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tim Kuehl
Tim Kuehl
19 days ago

The truth is only what the left says it is. Anything to the contrary is hate speech.

RametinDallas
RametinDallas
20 days ago

Jack Smith’s surity in his assertions would make him a good judge if they ever bring back the Spanish Inquisition.

Tom
Tom
20 days ago

With the judiciary unwilling to even listen to those of us that wished to sue for problems with the 2020 presidential election, Joe was rammed down our throats. Accepted as “the most secure election” in America’s history was a train load of complete unadulterated horse shit. Now we are finding out that it was nowhere near as secure as the… Read more »

MicahStone
MicahStone
20 days ago

A LAWYER SPEAKS: “ANYONE I HATE AND DISAGREE WITH IS NOT ENTITLE TO FREE SPEECH”
— ~435 YEARS AGO, WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE OFFERED THE PREFECT SOLUTION TO THE “LAWYER PROBLEM”. TODAY, THE “LAWYER PROBLEM” IS A BILLION-BILLION TIMES WORSE…AND THAT SOLUTION IS NEEDED NOW MORE THEN EVER BEFORE >>>
(CLICK ON GRAPHIC FOR FULL SIZE)

Peter B. Prange,
Peter B. Prange,
20 days ago

Smith claimed that Trump could not use what he describes as “knowingly false statements.” The problem is that with Smith there is no absolute truth, just his subjective truth and since he is at heart a little ‘god’ he knows exactly what you think. Jack Smith at heart is a totalitarian censor. He would do well in the EU.

Canadian Friend
Canadian Friend
20 days ago

But there was voting fraud.

315,000 non certified votes in Georgia is only the tip of the Iceberg.

Saltherring
Saltherring
20 days ago

And that is only the beginning of the election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Hundreds of witnesses to blatant election fraud gave sworn depositions to election officials and to DOJ. But as is typical with crimes by Democrats, no action was taken. How long does this go on, as leftists are never forced to answer for their ongoing assault… Read more »

Last edited 20 days ago by Saltherring