You can't use the constitution to protect you from an assault on the constitution!

[Under The Radar]

For all of the organizers and instigators that led to this insurgency on the Capitol and assault on a constitutional process to prevent a change in the certification of a Presidential election, hiding behind the 1st amendment as “freedom of speech” ain’t going to work.
Not just Trump and his staff, but every person that is defending Trump now is suspect. We know that there is about 100 in congress defending the whole thing even today. They too are suspect.
How do people get charged for making threatening comments online about public officials but Trump can direct an attack on the legislature, at the US Capitol, ON TELEVISION, but is still protected by the 1st amendment?

[C_U_L8R]

1. Speech is standing on a soapbox, not violently storming government

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Insurrectionists would be rational to attack IF & ONLY IF their facts are true. Their facts hardly b

Their facts could hardly be more wrong.

The election was certified by 50 states plus DC and other jurisdictions.

Their "evidence" falls apart under basic scrutiny and even a modest application of real logic. They have been suckered by the personal ambitions of the cult leader they worship. They have been hoodwinked by skilful propaganda. Their emotions have been played so that they are unable to reason effectively. This is the result of years of such propaganda.

Yes, a stolen election is unconstitutional and should be fought tooth and nail. This is not a stolen election (as you know). This election is constitutional.

The seditionists have nothing. They must be punished hard all the way to the top.

[Nevilledog]

3. Absofuckinglutely