Paradoxical wrote:
johnny99 wrote:
(1) Understand that "this viewpoint" is the viewpoint of a conservative Congressman who has consistently backed Trump, right up until last Wednesday. And that Congressman voted to impeach. His explanation for why he voted to impeach is going to be about the most conservative view on this you can get.
(2) You're wrong when you say there is no evidence. You can scroll back in this thread a few pages and find my post from a few hours ago - I laid out all of Trump's statements that are evidence of incitement. You're free to argue that it's weak evidence, and that a criminal jury wouldn't convict Trump based on those statements. But when you say there's no evidence, perhaps you're being a bit blind to reality here. Right now, we may not know of any statements from Trump where he directly told the traitors to storm the Capitol, but he comes pretty close and in a courtroom, circumstantial evidence is permissible and juries can use their common sense. So yes, there is evidence that Trump incited the riot.
(3) I don't know your background, so I don't know how qualified you are to say that "people in the media, our government and the general public are making claims of 'incitement' with no evidence and no real understanding of what incitement means." I'm not sure if you know what 'incitement' means, and what the standard is for proving incitement in either a criminal trial or an impeachment. But you can take a look at the CNN article from former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, who argues that criminal prosecution of Trump based on the publicly known statements made by him is not out of the question. I'm sure he knows what incitement is. Yo can dismiss him as a fake news Trump hater if you want, but I'm not sure why anyone should accept your view of the standard for showing insurrection over the view of a former federal prosecutor.
(4) You're wrong when you say they (who is 'they', anyhow?) are claiming that Trump's election fraud lies are what incited the riot. It's a lot more than that, and you should know that if you've been paying attention. Again, look at my post from earlier today; I've laid out all of Trump's statements that, arguably at least, incited the riot.
Buddy, I'm not making this sh!t up, this is what people are saying, that Trump's election fraud claims (but those alone) are what incited the riot, which is impossible based on the legal standards of what constitutes incitement.
Read:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437and
https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-effort-live-updates/2021/01/11/955631105/impeachment-resolution-cites-trumps-incitement-of-capitol-insurrectionand
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-capitol-mob-attack-origins/2021/01/09/0cb2cf5e-51d4-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.htmlI don't claim to be a legal expert but I do have a degree in Communications which required I learn the basic of Comm law, which includes laws involving incitement. In order for speech to be considered incitement, it has to pass the Brandenburg test, which requires speech that:
1. is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
2. is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
It really is that simple, and that alone will immediately rule out anything about election fraud being considered incitement. I bolded imminent because that is the key word in incitement cases and I will get to why. So I read your earlier post where you listed what could be considered as incitement, and what I think this case is going to come down to is one quote: "If you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more."
There is a case that that could be legally considered "incitement" but I don't think it will because "fight" could mean different things and is not specific enough to the riot nor directed at anyone in particular, Politicians use the word "fight" all the time in speeches (even Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2IulaU8Qg0&list=ULjQhzwIerCIg&index=815&ab_channel=BarackObamadotcom), so it is not clear that those words were advocating for imminent lawless action. We will have to see how this plays out, but for those advocating for conviction it's not looking good.
Read up on the Hess v. Indiana case if you're interested because I think it is relevant here.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/461/hess-v-indiana
