Dog 2.0
Super Anarchist
- 4,822
- 765
As if an agents in executive can't be politicized against the sitting president.
Finally, Trump is getting close to justice
- Thread starter badlatitude
- Start date
veni vidi vici
Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
- 8,705
- 2,064
lol… it’s all chum and a dog and pony show for the loinfomofo peasants outside the castle walls … Medieval
Marty Gingras
Mid-range Anarchist
I didn't say Trump made the request I said the Trump administration did. And they did.
Capitol Police Rejected Federal Help Days Ahead Of Insurrection Attack
With warnings of potential violence at the pro-Trump rally, the National Guard and FBI offered manpower and resources. The police turned them down.www.huffpost.com
Well parsed.
...and Trump sat on his ass the day of...
veni vidi vici
Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
- 8,705
- 2,064
Actually he said go to the Capital and peacefully make their voices heard
oh, yes it will:
Voyageur
Super Anarchist
if donald is ever arrested, his secret service agents go with him. poor bastards.
Sol Rosenberg
Girthy Member
Is that a “blooper?”
Last edited:
Dog 2.0
Super Anarchist
- 4,822
- 765
A person working in the executive branch.
Dog 2.0
Super Anarchist
- 4,822
- 765
Much of it yes. But he did tell his people to be peaceful and he did Tweet telling them to go home. Not as early as he should have, he is a bit of an arrogant asshole. However, there is no crime there that I can see.
veni vidi vici
Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
- 8,705
- 2,064
Cal20sailor
Super Anarchist
One comment from his speech:
"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,"
Another comment was:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
One was incitement, the other a CYA. He knew the mob was armed and ready for action. Which comment resonated with the crowd? Why did many claim at their trials that they felt they were following his orders?
badlatitude
Soros-backed
- 33,395
- 7,149
- Thread starter
- #474
You must be one of the loinfomofo peasants.
Dear
@Jim_Jordan
: Local prosecutors, including DA Bragg, owe you nothing. In fact, it is illegal for you and
@JudiciaryGOP
to interfere in an ongoing criminal investigation, or a criminal trial (if there is one).
Dog 2.0
Super Anarchist
- 4,822
- 765
Virtually all politicians call on their supporters to fight like hell. That's not incitement.
Happy
Super Anarchist
That's virtually all USA politicians.
In the civilized world, most politicians call on their supporters to vote.
Of course, all politicians call on their supporters to give them money.....
shaggybaxter
Super Anarchist
The joys of compulsory voting. Never once seen a politician ask for money.
Sol Rosenberg
Girthy Member
Danger: do NOT discuss Ms. Hutchinson’s sworn testimony about 1/6 and what actually happened (and was said).
And definitely avoid talking about indictment or the imminent revival of the Dog Plame standard.
And definitely avoid talking about indictment or the imminent revival of the Dog Plame standard.
badlatitude
Soros-backed
- 33,395
- 7,149
- Thread starter
- #480
Princeton University Legal Journal disagrees:
Making the Case for Trump’s January 6th Speech as Incitement
by Beck ReifersonOn January 12th, Alan Dershowitz, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School and one of the nation’s most prominent attorneys, published an op-ed in the publication Newsweek in which he argued against the second impeachment of President Donald Trump on constitutional grounds. He reasoned that Trump’s false statements about the legitimacy of the 2020 election, though “deeply upsetting,” did not meet the standard the Supreme Court set for “incitement” in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). He wrote that instead of constituting incitement, Trump’s “volatile words fell plainly on the side of political ‘advocacy,’ which is protected speech.” Dershowitz then claimed that since Trump’s statements were constitutionally protected, they could not be sufficient grounds for impeachment, since First Amendment-protected speech does not constitute “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”—the grounds for impeachment enumerated in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution. I will argue that, though Dershowitz is right about constitutionally permissible speech being insufficient grounds for impeachment, Trump’s statements on the morning of January 6th do meet the standard for incitement as laid out in Brandenburg.
In Brandenburg, the Supreme Court held that “freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” As the word “imminent” indicates, the only statements Trump made that could potentially constitute incitement of the insurrection at the Capitol are those he made in a speech on January 6th, just before some of his followers stormed the building. The claims he repeated for months about widespread election fraud are irrelevant to the current discussion. Reformulating the Court’s words in Brandenburg makes clear what criteria Trump’s statements in this speech must meet in order to rise to incitement: they must have advocated for people to break the law, they must have been likely to cause illegal action, and Trump’s goal in uttering them must have been to provoke this illegal action. Let us examine each of these criteria in turn.
Though it is true that Trump did not explicitly ask his followers to raid the Capitol in his January 6th speech, that does not preclude the possibility that he still advocated for the use of force; indeed, a close examination of his speech reveals several instances in which he employed coded, implicit appeals for those in the audience to take matters into their own hands to reverse the results of the election. He asserted, for example, that “We will never give up, we will never concede… You don’t concede when there’s theft involved,” implying that taking “no” for an answer was out of the question. He also thanked the audience after they broke out into the chant, “Fight for Trump!” and then immediately brought up the military and the Secret Service—two organizations closely connected with the use of force. Taken in conjunction with one another, these statements, along with many other similar ones that pervade the rest of the speech, express the sentiment that the ends of delivering the election victory to its ‘rightful’ winner justify whatever means are necessary to secure that end.
Next we turn to whether or not Trump’s rhetoric was “likely to incite or produce such [illegal] action.” A consideration of the makeup of the crowd in attendance and the contents of Trump’s speech points to a clear affirmative response to this question. Those in attendance in Washington D.C. on January 6th had traveled from all across the country in order to protest the certification of the Electoral College; just by virtue of having arrived in the capital, they had already demonstrated a profound willingness to—and even a commitment to—engage in extreme action in order to keep Trump in office for another four years. Their presence in Washington D.C. indicates that they felt deeply aggrieved by false claims of election fraud and that they strongly believed in the righteousness of their cause. They were, put simply, the individuals most likely to resort to violence to achieve their desired ends. So when Trump set out to “lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election,” he lit a rhetorical match before the most flammable of audiences. And when he urged those in attendance to “fight like hell, [since if you don’t] you’re not going to have a country anymore,” framing the consequences of inaction as destroying “the integrity of our glorious republic,” he further convinced an already aggrieved crowd of the necessity of taking up extreme measures in order to prevent the certification of the Electoral College. He gave those listening an ultimatum: do whatever you can to keep me in power or live in an undemocratic country with an illegitimate leader who will do profound damage to many things you hold dear. By emphasizing to those most inclined to violence the importance of fighting the certification, Trump increased the likelihood of violence occurring.
Lastly, we must determine if Trump’s words were “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action”—that is, if incitement to violence was his goal. Questions of intent are always difficult to answer, and that is especially the case here given the absence of explicit calls to violence. There still, however, exists evidence that Trump wanted January 6th to unfold along the lines that it did. First, in an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, Republican Senator Ben Sasse said multiple White House officials had told him that “as this [the storming of the Capitol] was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was… He was delighted.” If it is true that Trump was happy with the insurrection, this suggests that that was his desired outcome from the outset; it seems unlikely that he went from being opposed to violent insurrection in the morning then delighted by violent insurrection later in the afternoon. Trump hoping for violence all along would also explain his initial inaction when his followers broke into the Capitol: hoursafter the protests had devolved into violence, Trump still had not condemned his followers, instead doubling down and further encouraging the mob by tweeting that Mike Pence had “failed to protect our Country and our Constitution.” Such language demonstrates a lack of displeasure with the events that were transpiring.
It may thus plausibly be argued that Trump’s speech on the morning of January 6th meets the high standard for incitement that the Supreme Court set in Brandenburg. This renders moot Dershowitz’s point about constitutionally permissible speech being insufficient grounds for impeachment.
Making the Case for Trump’s January 6th Speech as Incitement - Princeton Legal Journal
by Beck Reiferson On January 12th, Alan Dershowitz, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School and one of the nation’s most prominent attorneys, published an op-ed in the publication Newsweek in which he argued against the second impeachment of President Donald Trump on constitutional grounds. He...
legaljournal.princeton.edu
