Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

🚨 This Should Terrify Every American Jack Smith’s newly released deposition isn’t just about Trump—it’s about you. He openly says calling the 2020 election fraudulent isn’t protected by the First Amendment. He labels political speech about an election as “fraud,” not free speech. That’s not law enforcement. That’s thought-policing....

RenzTom's profile picture

Tom Renz

356,229 subscribers

51,703 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

ЮморНовости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

VIOLENCE IS NOT FREE SPEECH Laura: "Violence isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Democrats better dial this back—this isn’t the Biden administration. Trump won’t stand by while citizens are terrorized or property destroyed."
8:40

VIOLENCE IS NOT FREE SPEECH Laura: "Violence isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Democrats better dial this back—this isn’t the Biden administration. Trump won’t stand by while citizens are terrorized or property destroyed."

Laura Ingraham

131,101 просмотров • 1 год назад

BREAKING: Jack Smith just eviscerated the Republican talking point that Trump was protected by the First Amendment when he attempted to defraud the American people. “The First Amendment does not protect speech that facilitates a crime. Speech that is used to facilitate a crime — a fraud crime in particular — is not protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court precedent on that is clear.”
0:26

BREAKING: Jack Smith just eviscerated the Republican talking point that Trump was protected by the First Amendment when he attempted to defraud the American people. “The First Amendment does not protect speech that facilitates a crime. Speech that is used to facilitate a crime — a fraud crime in particular — is not protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court precedent on that is clear.”

Ed Krassenstein

307,492 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Requiring proof of citizenship to vote isn’t racist. It’s common sense. The real insult is claiming certain Americans are incapable of meeting the same basic standard as everyone else. Election integrity isn’t about race. It’s about ensuring only American citizens vote in American elections. That’s exactly what the SAVE America Act does, and that’s why it should become law.
1:06

Requiring proof of citizenship to vote isn’t racist. It’s common sense. The real insult is claiming certain Americans are incapable of meeting the same basic standard as everyone else. Election integrity isn’t about race. It’s about ensuring only American citizens vote in American elections. That’s exactly what the SAVE America Act does, and that’s why it should become law.

Wesley Hunt

37,972 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Fani Willis has weaponized her office against President Trump for exercising his freedom of speech about the 2020 election. But that’s not what this is really about. This is about Democrats using their power to take down Joe Biden’s top political opponent.
2:24

Fani Willis has weaponized her office against President Trump for exercising his freedom of speech about the 2020 election. But that’s not what this is really about. This is about Democrats using their power to take down Joe Biden’s top political opponent.

Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸

447,508 просмотров • 3 лет назад

Jack Smith on if Trump's statements were free speech: 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 knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do.
0:48

Jack Smith on if Trump's statements were free speech: 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 knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do.

Blue Georgia

313,012 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explains why burning the American flag is protected free speech under the First Amendment: “If I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment…”
1:24

Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explains why burning the American flag is protected free speech under the First Amendment: “If I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment…”

Republicans against Trump

355,521 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Leftists storming churches in Minnesota and disrupting services is not the First Amendment. Churches are private property. Worship isn’t a protest zone. This isn’t speech, it’s trespassing and harassment.
2:58

Leftists storming churches in Minnesota and disrupting services is not the First Amendment. Churches are private property. Worship isn’t a protest zone. This isn’t speech, it’s trespassing and harassment.

Jeffery Mead

200,002 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

🚨Jonathan Turley unloads on Jack Smith’s theory of the case: “He’s walking through life like Jacob Marley’s ghost, carrying a chain of broken cases.” “When he was confronted on his view of free speech… he said, ‘this isn’t protected, because what Trump was saying was false.’ He equates something he views as false with fraud — and ‘that’s not the legal standard.’”
1:58

🚨Jonathan Turley unloads on Jack Smith’s theory of the case: “He’s walking through life like Jacob Marley’s ghost, carrying a chain of broken cases.” “When he was confronted on his view of free speech… he said, ‘this isn’t protected, because what Trump was saying was false.’ He equates something he views as false with fraud — and ‘that’s not the legal standard.’”

Laura Ingraham

169,005 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Keith Ellison just tipped his hand — and exposed the whole game. Ellison claims the Pam Bondi letter proves this “isn’t about fraud,” “isn’t about immigration,” and “isn’t about law enforcement.” Translation: They’re PANICKING. Because it is about fraud. It is about immigration. And it absolutely is about law enforcement. When billions go missing, criminals are protected, and elections are shielded from transparency, the last thing Democrats want is federal oversight. Ellison isn’t defending Minnesotans. He’s defending a system that doesn’t want to be audited. If there’s nothing to hide — why fight this so hard?
1:04

Keith Ellison just tipped his hand — and exposed the whole game. Ellison claims the Pam Bondi letter proves this “isn’t about fraud,” “isn’t about immigration,” and “isn’t about law enforcement.” Translation: They’re PANICKING. Because it is about fraud. It is about immigration. And it absolutely is about law enforcement. When billions go missing, criminals are protected, and elections are shielded from transparency, the last thing Democrats want is federal oversight. Ellison isn’t defending Minnesotans. He’s defending a system that doesn’t want to be audited. If there’s nothing to hide — why fight this so hard?

ⁿᵉʷˢ Barron Trump 🇺🇸

280,631 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

What was this chaotic and undemocratic speech really about? Not saving us money, that’s for sure. The leak probably wasn’t accidental nor is the corruption. They’re panicking. This is political. This is letting the world burn for a few votes. Give us an election, you shits.
6:38

What was this chaotic and undemocratic speech really about? Not saving us money, that’s for sure. The leak probably wasn’t accidental nor is the corruption. They’re panicking. This is political. This is letting the world burn for a few votes. Give us an election, you shits.

Supertanskiii

145,385 просмотров • 2 лет назад

WEAPONIZATION: Jack Smith told Congress that Trump’s election speech wasn’t protected by the First Amendment. DOJ relied on the assumption that Trump knew the election was secure & criminalized questioning mail in voting. That’s the precedent. In sworn testimony, Jack Smith said DOJ’s case against Trump depended on treating election skepticism as criminal conduct. Smith explained prosecutors operated on the premise Trump privately believed the 2020 election was legitimate. By that logic, public claims of fraud were framed as an attempt to obstruct certification. Smith acknowledged this theory required treating challenges to mail in voting integrity as outside constitutional protection.
2:25

WEAPONIZATION: Jack Smith told Congress that Trump’s election speech wasn’t protected by the First Amendment. DOJ relied on the assumption that Trump knew the election was secure & criminalized questioning mail in voting. That’s the precedent. In sworn testimony, Jack Smith said DOJ’s case against Trump depended on treating election skepticism as criminal conduct. Smith explained prosecutors operated on the premise Trump privately believed the 2020 election was legitimate. By that logic, public claims of fraud were framed as an attempt to obstruct certification. Smith acknowledged this theory required treating challenges to mail in voting integrity as outside constitutional protection.

@amuse

110,311 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

🚨 Thought Crime: This should terrify anyone who thinks thoughts are still private. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just ruled Google search history is NOT protected by the Fourth Amendment. Why? Because you “share” searches with Google — so the court says you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. That means police can use reverse keyword warrants to pull search data without naming a suspect. Your medical questions. Your political doubts. Your late-night curiosity. All fair game. This isn’t about criminals. It’s about whether thinking out loud online is now searchable by the state. If courts say curiosity isn’t private anymore, freedom quietly dies first. Do you still believe your searches are yours? 👇 #FourthAmendment #PrivacyRights #DigitalSurveillance
4:46

🚨 Thought Crime: This should terrify anyone who thinks thoughts are still private. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just ruled Google search history is NOT protected by the Fourth Amendment. Why? Because you “share” searches with Google — so the court says you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. That means police can use reverse keyword warrants to pull search data without naming a suspect. Your medical questions. Your political doubts. Your late-night curiosity. All fair game. This isn’t about criminals. It’s about whether thinking out loud online is now searchable by the state. If courts say curiosity isn’t private anymore, freedom quietly dies first. Do you still believe your searches are yours? 👇 #FourthAmendment #PrivacyRights #DigitalSurveillance

Jake

82,758 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Elon Musk: “Free speech is the bedrock of Democracy, and if people don’t know what’s going on, if they don’t know the truth, how can they make an informed vote? You must have free speech in order to have Democracy. That’s why it’s the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment is there to ensure that we have the First Amendment… President Trump must win to preserve the Constitution. He must win to preserve democracy in America”
0:44

Elon Musk: “Free speech is the bedrock of Democracy, and if people don’t know what’s going on, if they don’t know the truth, how can they make an informed vote? You must have free speech in order to have Democracy. That’s why it’s the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment is there to ensure that we have the First Amendment… President Trump must win to preserve the Constitution. He must win to preserve democracy in America”

America

597,770 просмотров • 1 год назад

Tommy Robinson’s case isn’t about liking him or not. It’s about what happens when the state starts using terror laws to target people for their political opinions. He was detained, questioned about his views, and charged for refusing to hand over his phone PIN. That’s not counter-terrorism — that’s political policing. If this can happen to him, it can happen to anyone. Freedom isn’t a gift from government — it’s a right. And it’s being quietly taken away. #TommyRobinson #FreeSpeech #CivilLiberties #Authoritarianism #UKPolitics #StateOverreach #BruceUnfiltered
2:37

Tommy Robinson’s case isn’t about liking him or not. It’s about what happens when the state starts using terror laws to target people for their political opinions. He was detained, questioned about his views, and charged for refusing to hand over his phone PIN. That’s not counter-terrorism — that’s political policing. If this can happen to him, it can happen to anyone. Freedom isn’t a gift from government — it’s a right. And it’s being quietly taken away. #TommyRobinson #FreeSpeech #CivilLiberties #Authoritarianism #UKPolitics #StateOverreach #BruceUnfiltered

BruceUnfiltered

184,103 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

🚨 TRUMP JUST NAMED OBAMA. “The leader of the gang was Barack Hussein Obama.” This isn’t rhetoric — it’s an accusation of treason from a former U.S. President. Trump says Obama and Clinton orchestrated the election interference, weaponized intelligence, and covered it all up with help from a complicit press. Thousands of documents are reportedly about to surface. If true, this is the biggest political scandal in American history. The question now isn’t if they did it — it’s what happens next.
1:12

🚨 TRUMP JUST NAMED OBAMA. “The leader of the gang was Barack Hussein Obama.” This isn’t rhetoric — it’s an accusation of treason from a former U.S. President. Trump says Obama and Clinton orchestrated the election interference, weaponized intelligence, and covered it all up with help from a complicit press. Thousands of documents are reportedly about to surface. If true, this is the biggest political scandal in American history. The question now isn’t if they did it — it’s what happens next.

Jim Ferguson

4,847,479 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

PabloReports: Trump is scheduled to give another one of his deranged rants about elections and election fraud. Should networks run it? Magaziner: If they run it, they should immediately point out that it’s a lie. It’s desperation. He knows that he’s lost the American people. The American people are angry about the war, about the high cost of living, about ICE continuing to kill innocent people in the streets. So this is the last desperate gasp of the Trump election denial machine, and they should call it out for what it is. Any news outlet that repeats what Donald Trump says about the 2020 election without saying it is false is complicit.
0:53

PabloReports: Trump is scheduled to give another one of his deranged rants about elections and election fraud. Should networks run it? Magaziner: If they run it, they should immediately point out that it’s a lie. It’s desperation. He knows that he’s lost the American people. The American people are angry about the war, about the high cost of living, about ICE continuing to kill innocent people in the streets. So this is the last desperate gasp of the Trump election denial machine, and they should call it out for what it is. Any news outlet that repeats what Donald Trump says about the 2020 election without saying it is false is complicit.

Acyn

158,290 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

What are the real limits of free speech under the First Amendment? In this clip, I walk through the legal standard set by Brandenburg v. Ohio and explain how the Supreme Court shifted away from the old “clear and present danger” test to the much narrower standard of “imminent lawless action.” What kind of speech is protected—and what crosses the line. I also connect this legal framework to today’s political and media climate, where rhetoric is more heated than ever. The question isn’t just what people are saying—it’s whether that speech is intended to incite immediate harm, and whether it’s likely to produce it. That’s a high bar—and one that has massive consequences for how speech is regulated, debated, and understood. If we’re going to have serious conversations about free speech, accountability, and the Constitution, we need to understand the actual legal standards—not just the slogans. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:
6:11

What are the real limits of free speech under the First Amendment? In this clip, I walk through the legal standard set by Brandenburg v. Ohio and explain how the Supreme Court shifted away from the old “clear and present danger” test to the much narrower standard of “imminent lawless action.” What kind of speech is protected—and what crosses the line. I also connect this legal framework to today’s political and media climate, where rhetoric is more heated than ever. The question isn’t just what people are saying—it’s whether that speech is intended to incite immediate harm, and whether it’s likely to produce it. That’s a high bar—and one that has massive consequences for how speech is regulated, debated, and understood. If we’re going to have serious conversations about free speech, accountability, and the Constitution, we need to understand the actual legal standards—not just the slogans. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:

Mark R. Levin

24,606 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад