Impeachment proceedings against Trump

It just occurred to me that since Trump is now a private citizen, he could be compelled to testify at his impeachment trial.

koobookie wrote: It just occurred to me that since Trump is now a private citizen, he could be compelled to testify at his impeachment trial.

AND WOULDN'T THAT BE GREAT. Kinda odd though that you want to compel his speech at the same time you are suppressing it.
Thanks for the laugh though..

koobookie wrote: It just occurred to me that since Trump is now a private citizen, he could be compelled to testify at his impeachment trial.

5th Amendment?

Blazer Bob wrote:

koobookie wrote: It just occurred to me that since Trump is now a private citizen, he could be compelled to testify at his impeachment trial.

AND WOULDN'T THAT BE GREAT. Kinda odd though that you want to compel his speech at the same time you are suppressing it.
Thanks for the laugh though..

But of course, as we all know, he is not having his speech suppressed. He has the same rights as any other citizen and can speak in public. But it's fun to say that his free speech is being taken away. Poor poor Donald.

FredHayek wrote:

koobookie wrote: It just occurred to me that since Trump is now a private citizen, he could be compelled to testify at his impeachment trial.

5th Amendment?

Like Donald would ever take the 5th.

koobookie wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote:

koobookie wrote: It just occurred to me that since Trump is now a private citizen, he could be compelled to testify at his impeachment trial.

AND WOULDN'T THAT BE GREAT. Kinda odd though that you want to compel his speech at the same time you are suppressing it.
Thanks for the laugh though..

But of course, as we all know, he is not having his speech suppressed. .

There are not enough ROTFLMAO in the world to react to that.

Blazer Bob wrote:

koobookie wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote:

koobookie wrote: It just occurred to me that since Trump is now a private citizen, he could be compelled to testify at his impeachment trial.

AND WOULDN'T THAT BE GREAT. Kinda odd though that you want to compel his speech at the same time you are suppressing it.
Thanks for the laugh though..

But of course, as we all know, he is not having his speech suppressed. .

There are not enough ROTFLMAO in the world to react to that.

Exactly how is his freedom of speech being suppressed? Please, do explain.

He is banned off Twitter while Iranian despots who promise death to Israel still have their accounts. Jack Dorsey is more sympathetic to worldwide exporters of terrorism and religious autocrats that an elected leader who received 74 million votes in November. Same with Zuckerberg and Facebook.

FredHayek wrote: He is banned off Twitter while Iranian despots who promise death to Israel still have their accounts. Jack Dorsey is more sympathetic to worldwide exporters of terrorism and religious autocrats that an elected leader who received 74 million votes in November. Same with Zuckerberg and Facebook.

How is that restricting his free speech? Twitter is a private company that is under no obligation to provide a platform for anyone.

Again, Trump can call a press conference, he can release a statement to the media, he can give a speech, he can give an interview, he can write a book, he can stand on a street corner and yell into the wind. His free speech has not been suppressed.

koobookie wrote:

FredHayek wrote: He is banned off Twitter while Iranian despots who promise death to Israel still have their accounts. Jack Dorsey is more sympathetic to worldwide exporters of terrorism and religious autocrats that an elected leader who received 74 million votes in November. Same with Zuckerberg and Facebook.

How is that restricting his free speech? Twitter is a private company that is under no obligation to provide a platform for anyone.

Again, Trump can call a press conference, he can release a statement to the media, he can give a speech, he can give an interview, he can write a book, he can stand on a street corner and yell into the wind. His free speech has not been suppressed.

Twitter is a private company but under the Section 230 agreement they are supposed to comply with to avoid lawsuits, they are not supposed to discriminate against anyone. Why do you think it is that they are using propaganda terms like domestic terrorism, insurrection, cult, etc.?