Not comparing the two cases at all, but the 1st amendment defense of the sheik who was the "mastermind" of the first bombing of the World Trade Center was rejected by the jury, prosecution, and judge in the Federal case. The defense claimed he was never involved, but admitted that he did say "the only way to attack the USA was to attack their idols, monuments, and centers of finance", he himself "preached" this, but they had no physical evidence that he was part of anything. I think the lawyer said something like, "if someone yells 'kill the umpire' during a game, and then someone actually does kill the umpire, they cannot be held for murder". So, there was precedent set in a federal court. The sheik was sent away for life in a Federal prison.
I don't quite understand what your point is here. Could you help me out a bit?
And could you tell me which of the defendants of the 1993 WTC bombing case you're speaking about? Maybe if I read about the case it would give me a better understanding of what you're trying to say.
In the federal case US vs Rahman, the sheik was convicted of seditious conspiracy , He was impicated as the mastermind of the 1st world trade center bombing, due to the fact the US was able to prove that he had issues a "fatwa" to destroy government buildings. He was also the enemy of the Mubarek regime in Egypt. The defense claimed that his "fatwa" was based on religious speech, which was protected under the 1st amendment. What I am saying is, that President Trumps lawyers seem to be using the 1st amendment right in this case that Jack Smith has brought against the President, and that, that the US Federal Court has set a precedent in defeating that case, in US vs Rahman. So, since the precedent has already been set, it may not be a solid win for Trumps defense. Just research US vs Rahman, there is lots of info on it. When i read that Trumps lawyers are going to use that defense, it reminded me of this old case.
Ok, I understand better now. We're talking about two separate things right now, both involving free speech.
What this post is about (oversimplifying here a bit) is the judge in the case saying Trump can't talk about the case in public, and Trump saying this violates his free speech rights.
What you seem to be talking about is completely different, Trump perhaps planning to use his rights to free speech as a defense during his trial.
Not comparing the two cases at all, but the 1st amendment defense of the sheik who was the "mastermind" of the first bombing of the World Trade Center was rejected by the jury, prosecution, and judge in the Federal case. The defense claimed he was never involved, but admitted that he did say "the only way to attack the USA was to attack their idols, monuments, and centers of finance", he himself "preached" this, but they had no physical evidence that he was part of anything. I think the lawyer said something like, "if someone yells 'kill the umpire' during a game, and then someone actually does kill the umpire, they cannot be held for murder". So, there was precedent set in a federal court. The sheik was sent away for life in a Federal prison.
I don't quite understand what your point is here. Could you help me out a bit?
And could you tell me which of the defendants of the 1993 WTC bombing case you're speaking about? Maybe if I read about the case it would give me a better understanding of what you're trying to say.
Thanks.
In the federal case US vs Rahman, the sheik was convicted of seditious conspiracy , He was impicated as the mastermind of the 1st world trade center bombing, due to the fact the US was able to prove that he had issues a "fatwa" to destroy government buildings. He was also the enemy of the Mubarek regime in Egypt. The defense claimed that his "fatwa" was based on religious speech, which was protected under the 1st amendment. What I am saying is, that President Trumps lawyers seem to be using the 1st amendment right in this case that Jack Smith has brought against the President, and that, that the US Federal Court has set a precedent in defeating that case, in US vs Rahman. So, since the precedent has already been set, it may not be a solid win for Trumps defense. Just research US vs Rahman, there is lots of info on it. When i read that Trumps lawyers are going to use that defense, it reminded me of this old case.
Ok, I understand better now. We're talking about two separate things right now, both involving free speech.
What this post is about (oversimplifying here a bit) is the judge in the case saying Trump can't talk about the case in public, and Trump saying this violates his free speech rights.
What you seem to be talking about is completely different, Trump perhaps planning to use his rights to free speech as a defense during his trial.
oh, okay, I jumped the gun, in that case, did not mean to, so much to keep track of, sometimes my head spins.