All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 6, 2023 - Lionel Nation
15:54
The Latest Trump Indictment Destroys the Very Foundation and Protection of the First Amendment
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin, dirty man safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your Dirty Man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man underground safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man Safe, because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
One of the most difficult things to explain to some people regarding Trump's latest indictment deals with the fact that his Right to free speech and our right to free speech and expression and the First Amendment come under attack when you criminalize and prosecute lies.
I'm doing a lot of air quotes here.
Lies.
Misrepresentations.
Not libel, not slander, not defamation, not treason, not the revelation of trade secrets, but when I come after you for Lying.
And what they're suggesting is that President Trump lied.
He fibbed.
He prevaricated.
He titrated the truth.
And irrespective of whether he believes what he said, believes that he had a valid means and a platform by which to contest the results of 2020 which he did and which he does and which every American does including Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams and this poses a threat that has been absolutely positively clarified
by the Supreme Court in the case Called Alvarez in 2012.
Let me explain this to you.
But first, let me ask you to always like this video.
We thank you for that.
Please subscribe to the channel.
Please hit that bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos and the like.
And more importantly, what I'd like you to do right now is listen very, very carefully to the sagacity, to the wisdom of our sponsor.
The U.S. dollar has lost 85% of its value since the 70s when the dollar decoupled from gold.
And the government seems bent on continuing the tradition.
From now until after the next elections, the government can print as much money as they want.
And the last time they did that, inflation went up 9%.
This means one thing.
The security of your future and your family's future is all in your hands.
Make sure you freeze the value of your wealth that you are holding.
Invest in gold with Noble Gold Investments.
Gold is the one asset that has proven to withstand recession, inflation, and just about all economic threats.
Noble Gold Investments is here to help you.
If you want to invest in gold, you will also get a 24-carat, quarter-ounce gold standard coin for free.
So go to NobleGoldInvestments.com right now.
NobleGoldInvestments.com.
Tell them Lionel sends you.
This is the only gold company I trust.
And remember, there's always a risk of investment, and there's no guarantee of any kind.
Sorry, my friend.
Let's go back to a couple of things here.
What is a lie?
What is a lie?
What does it mean to lie?
To lie?
One of the best definitions I ever came across was, I think it was the second DCA case in Florida, which said that a lie...
Is a misrepresentation of fact with the intent to deceive?
I would go a step further because I can misrepresent facts with the intent to deceive in a good way by making you, let's say, feel good about yourself or maybe lying about your hairstyle or whatever.
That's a fib, it's a white lie, but nonetheless, nonetheless, a lie is a misrepresentation of fact.
With the intent to deceive, and there must inherently be something a little bit negative, something pernicious, something malevolent, something that causes a problem.
Not just your misplaced sense of beauteousness or the like.
There was a case that came out in 2012.
There was a case called Alvarez.
United States against Alvarez.
And it was interesting.
Xavier Alvarez was a member of a water district board, and he attended a meeting with some various board members.
And he was invited to speak about his background, and he stated, quote, I'm a retired Marine of 25 years.
I retired in the year 2001.
Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
In fact, he had not received the Congressional Medal of Honor nor any other military medal or decoration or ribbon or anything.
He also had never served in the United States Armed Forces.
Now, at the time, there was something called the Stolen Valor Act, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, and it made it a crime to falsely and incorrectly claim that you received Military decorations or medals and the like.
I mean, stolen valor, we see this all the time.
Now, in September of 2007, Alvarez was charged in California with two counts of falsely representing that he had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in violation of the Stolen Valor Act.
Now, it sounds pretty straightforward to me, doesn't it?
Did you receive the Medal of Honor?
No.
You never say when, by the way.
Did you receive it?
No.
Well, you lie.
And Alvarez moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the statute violated his First Amendment right to free speech, to basically BS, lie, prevaricate, extrapolate the truth, etc., etc.
The court denied his motion to dismiss, and he pled guilty for the right.
Reserving the right to appeal.
Now, he appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the court reversed and remanded the case.
And it reasoned that the Supreme Court had never ever held or established that the United States government or anybody may prohibit speech merely because it's a lie.
Or that it was knowingly made as a lie, or knowingly false, or deliberately false.
And that some knowingly false speech, some lies, could have affirmative value, constitutional value.
Might be worthy of something.
So we went to the Supreme Court.
And the issue was...
What's the Stolen Valor Act?
Think about it.
It's very, very simple.
Were you or were you not the recipient of a medal?
No, I wasn't.
Okay.
Sounds pretty good to me.
That's a lie.
But does the Stolen Valor Act then violate the First Amendment?
Well, the court said yes in the 63 majority.
And it was, I think, Anthony Kennedy at the time who basically...
And they said that content-based restrictions or limitations on speech are subject and require a strict scrutiny and are almost always invalid, except in rare cases.
Content-based restrictions.
And the court said that while there may be categories or areas of speech such as defamation, actual real threats that are made, that they present a real and grave and imminent threat.
False statements alone, false statements by themselves, lies, don't present such a grave and imminent threat.
They further said that Congress drafted the Stolen Valor Act in a way that was too broad, and it attempted to limit speech that could cause no harm.
Now, this goes on, and we can talk about this, and you can say, wait, wait, wait a minute, hold it, hold it.
You're telling me that you can lie?
Well, not that you can lie, but the question is...
When is a lie, when is a prevarication, when is the extravagance of truth, when is the stretching of the lie, the mendacity, the misrepresentation of fact with the intent to deceive, when does that become actionable?
And the court said, lying is okay!
I mean, that's a bit broad.
But here's something different!
Jack Smith and others are charging President Trump with lying about being screwed out of the 2020 election when President Trump believed it.
And one of the elements of a lie is that you have to kind of believe, you have to believe or you can't believe.
Let me give you an example.
Let's assume there was a woman who falsely received news that she was pregnant.
She had a...
Let's say a home pregnancy test.
And why you would want to find out if your home's pregnant, I have no idea.
But let's assume she had that, and it was positive.
And it was wrong.
And she basically won on maternity leave, and she secured all kinds of paperwork to take time off because of this belief.
Wrong!
Wrong!
But she believed it!
Well, was it a misrepresentation of fact?
Well, yeah, but not a fact that she knew to be factual.
And in Donald Trump's case, look, you may hate him, you may despise him, you may whatever, but he has the absolute right to pursue the validation of what he believes to be the fact that he was hosed,
that he was stolen, that this was stolen, that his His actual, his election was stolen or that there existed means by which he could use,
he could employ to prevent or to rather address and to remedy and to try to correct what he truly believed to be something that was directed against him.
That simple.
That simple.
Period.
End of discussion.
And you may not like, when I say you, I mean you, the collective you, they may not like the fact that he is so obstinate, that his obstinacy, his inability, his refusal to appreciate the fact that he had indeed been the Recipient of some bad whatever.
Either way, either way, either way, either way, either way, either way.
Hillary Clinton did the same thing.
Jimmy Raskin did the same thing.
There has been time after time after time where Democrats have done exactly the same thing that President Trump did.
And they didn't even make a connection between his statements and January 6th.
Which was a trespass, which was a stupid, boorish, I would have never been a part of that, but in some cases there were some folks who were just standing there just protesting, who were charged, others who entered the Capitol, and it gets really weird, and others who entered the Capitol at the request and the behest and the invitation of Capitol officials, and all of that could have been stopped.
Had somebody listen to President Trump who basically wanted to have National Guard and military there to prevent what he feared would happen.
That notwithstanding, if this is allowed to go forward, if President Trump is allowed, if you're saying that a person who believes that his right under the Constitution to run for office under the First Amendment to petition for redress and grievances to actually enjoy The franchise, the vote.
If he is being prosecuted because what he claims is a lie, then Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted for claiming that there was Russian collusion when everybody knows there was a Russian collusion, including the 21 or 51 or whatever it was intelligence officials who basically said the same thing.
It's good for the goose, baby.
It's that simple.
What they're doing To our freedom of speech, to our Constitution, to our rights, vis-a-vis this demented desire to get Trump is unconscionable, unconstitutional, and illegal.
Now let me ask you again to please like this video, subscribe to the channel, hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos, and please, please always, always support and listen to Our sponsors with all of the links that are recorded there too so you can enjoy the wonderful products and the services that they provide.
They're so good to us.
▲
Export Selection