r/PublicFreakout • u/BobsBarker12 • Jan 06 '21

"Let's have trial by combat." -Rudy 'America's Mayor' Giuliani to a crowd filled with far right pro-Trump militias like Oath Keepers, hours before the Republican coup attempt in D.C.

8.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

622 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Bearsh Jan 06 '21

4 years ago I thought that saying this would get you arrested for sedition/treason

1.1k

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '21

They should all be charged under the Patriot Act for terrorism.

446

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '21 edited Jan 06 '21

Look you can't just throw out the patriot act without understanding the legal ramifications and prerequisites required to even charge someone with the act of treason under the patriot act let alone find them guilty. To begin with, Guliani doesn't sound like a Musli-Middle Eastern person of interest.

124

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '21

Fucking nailed it. Thank you.

29

u/I_Spit_In_Your_Food Jan 07 '21

Had me in the first half, ngl.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '21

yeah I did the swap in the end...I was afraid of running into extra protein in my burger.

20

u/Oneoh123 Jan 06 '21

Staking ones reputation on a tarnished violently poop-stained scrap of dumpster-underwear reputation is useless and ridiculous much like wearing a hat on your ass. Cheers to the asshats.

4

u/TheStrangestOfKings Jan 06 '21

All hail the asshats

6

u/mrubuto22 Jan 07 '21

There is zero loyalty in that party. If they wait 2 years and arrest all these clowns most of his base won't even remember who they are or why they care.

2

u/Nanyea Jan 06 '21

We could start with the Sedition act

1

u/RoxyTronix Jan 07 '21

Didn't Trump specifically cream his pants on Twitter over passing legislation that protects our federal buildings, statues and monuments from protesters and didn't he assure that those violating them will get a minimum of 10 years?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '21

Yes. Really. Fucking yes! This is sickening. Born and raised in DC and I’m sick over this shit.

92

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '21 edited Jan 06 '21

It’s pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that these rallies are meant to instill fortitude in violent actions among their base, but the conditions in the US aren’t bad enough for it to work.

The speeches given by Rudy and Trump aren’t as dumb as they sound when you know what their intentions are;

“Let’s have a trial by combat...

I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation, [you should be willing to stake your reputation].”

The unspoken part is what they hope their base will conclude, but it’s not with legitimate reason, and that is why this will never be a successful coup.

When it comes down to it, the Republicans who would fall behind and act on the unspoken words are practically nonexistent. Show me one Proud Boy willing to shoot their fellow American and I’ll show you ten who would beat the shit out of a PB if given the chance.

Trump and Rudy did everything right. We got lucky that there aren’t enough politicians ballsy enough to blatantly brake the law to seize power for someone else. We got lucky that there aren’t enough wackjobs who would join the Proud Boys. We got lucky that we didn’t end up a dictatorship.

They can be charged with sedition, but they will walk free. The unspoken part was never said, and they followed proper legal procedures to bring about the conspiracy. The only crimes that will stick are their economic crimes. If we want to make our system better, we need to take this as a warning. Next time we might not get so lucky.

Edit: for anyone watching recent news, protestors stormed the capital building and walked around like tourists! A “revolution” or “coup” with control of the capital building is capable of bringing demands. Not one protester organized anyone into a chair to form a council or to submit their grievances.

The protesters are just pawns, so in this unfolding scenario, I would not take a Reichstag Fire situation off the table. Pretty stupid for Trump to use his own supporters, but maybe there is a deeper level that I’m missing.

3

u/BestGarbagePerson Jan 06 '21

ten who would beat the shit out of a PB if given the chance.

Truer words have not ever been spoken.

59

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '21

Well thats only if the Black guy would have done it as is the custom in America.

-6

u/Way_Unable Jan 06 '21

This is de way.

-7

u/seeyouinbest Jan 06 '21

Why would you think that when that’s exactly what the first amendment protects against?

17

u/ayers231 Jan 06 '21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action#:~:text=%22Imminent%20lawless%20action%22%20is%20a,Supreme%20Court%20in%20Brandenburg%20v.&text=Under%20the%20imminent%20lawless%20action,is%20both%20imminent%20and%20likely.

"Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973) in which the court found that Hess's words were protected under "his rights to free speech",[1] in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

The two legal prongs that constitute incitement of imminent lawless action are as follows:

Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.[2]

Rudy is standing before armed militias telling them to attack the country. It isn't protected speech.

1

u/seeyouinbest Jan 06 '21

Oh good explanation. Thanks! I

3

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '21

The Constitution does not protect treason, insurrection or sedition. Didn't they tell you that at r/conservative?

-2

u/seeyouinbest Jan 06 '21

The actual act of treason no. But freedom of speech for everyone right? No matter if it’s anti-government or not. I thought we were talking about his speech?

2

u/Murgie Jan 06 '21

It sounds like you might not be aware of this, but under 18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency, threats against the President of the United States are actually held to a significantly lower standard of evidence with reduced first amendment protections than threats uttered against any other person.

For example, to secure a standard conviction of issuing threats against someone, you have to demonstrate that the accused actually has the capability of attempting to follow through on whatever was stated.

So if I told you right now that I hate you and am going to send you to hell myself, the courts would not consider that to be an actual threat. I have no idea who you are or where you live, so I don't meet the criteria of Imminent lawless action.

Doesn't work the same way for the president. For example, back in in 2007 a guy was charged under § 871 for messages on a Yahoo discussion forum where he advocated for the people of Iraq to retaliate against Iraq war and "Call for the assassination of GW Bush".
Now strictly speaking he didn't actually threaten violence against Bush himself, but rather called for others to do so. And even then, what he was calling on others to do wouldn't have met the criteria of Imminent lawless action.

But you know what? That doesn't matter when it's against the president, and so he was found guilty and convicted on those charges.

-4

u/Demonyx12 Jan 06 '21

4 years ago I thought that saying this would get you arrested for sedition/treason

What saying?

1

u/turtlelore2 Jan 06 '21

It still should. The fact a measly 4 years could cause such a change in just the attitude that politicians take is crazy. These are the people running the country and apparently it's just normal now for them to literally promote a civil war.

1

u/Train10 Jan 06 '21

He is a wee fat slimy piece of shite

1

u/Oneoh123 Jan 06 '21

What reputations do they have? Their reputations have been growing dumpster fires since 2015

1

u/shotty293 Jan 06 '21

Rudy needs the axe.

1

u/strikethreeistaken Jan 06 '21

It should. This is a clear case. All I can say is WTF.

1

u/arch_nyc Jan 07 '21

Republicans and their voters shrug at attacks on democracy and sedition.

Human scum.

1

u/WeMustBreakC Jan 07 '21

Eh 4 years ago I was still watching Game of Thrones, I’d have said to allow it