It should be more of a wake up call, rather than a disaster. Answer "how did it come to this?" and then work to remedy that answer so that this does not repeat itself. A disaster would be to not learn from it.

Not at all. If I incite someone, that's a teleological action on my part, irrespective of its consequences. If I inspire someone, that's an interpretation on their part. — Kenosha Kid

I think that's a false representation. There is nothing intrinsic to the concept of "incite", which necessitates that the person who incites must intend the specific action which is incited. If we say that the person who incites must intend some action, in a general sense, by those incited, then Trump is guilty of inciting, because he clearly intended for his followers to take action, in the form of some sort of protestation.

Yes, and I think that'll have to be the crux of the matter: Did Donald do what Donald did in order to set up a violent insurrection by his supporters in the Capitol? And the answer ought to be that this cannot be established, further is unlikely to be the case. — Kenosha Kid

In a criminal trial, it is not necessary to establish that the actual outcome was the one intended by the perpetrator. Therefore it is not necessary to demonstrate that the specific intent of the Donald was violent insurrection. All that is necessary is to show criminal intent. And in some cases this is not even necessary, as ignorance is no excuse. His use of false pretense in an attempt to get what is not rightfully his (the presidency), is criminal intent. And, it is this criminal intent which led to the violent uprising. Therefore the Donald may be held criminally responsible.

Trump thrives on attention and adoration. He lives for it. He's a moron and a narcissist, which 100% explains his actions. He lost an election to a corpse, so he has to rationalise that both for himself and his millions of cult followers. So naturally it was a fraudulent election.

The impeachment is floating a very different version of Trump, one who is blessed with understanding of others and the cunning to use this to deliberately guide his mob into violent insurrection without ever explicitly stating that this is what he wants: Trump as master manipulator, shadowy Bond villain, astute strategist and a man of subtle means. That isn't Trump. He has none of those qualities. And yet if we wish to convict him on the impeachment charges, in the absence of an overt call to arms, we have to pretend that is what Trump is.

Incitement is what Rudy did: "trial by combat". — Kenosha Kid

Neither way that you represent him, ignorant, or knowing, can absolve him from his crimes. Criminal law is designed so that ignorance cannot be used as a defense, because this would allow the criminal who is a proficient liar to walk free, under the pretense of ignorance. We know he's a great pretender, and the chameleon is not necessarily intelligent, so this distinction is just a distraction.

By the way, Rudy was hired by Trump (regardless of whether he pays him), so there's another argument required to separate his actions in this matter, from Trump's responsibility.

So how is Trump calling for a legitimate election result to be overturned, through political pressure, or mob pressure, not an action against the democracy of the United States?
If he sincerely believed that certain states manipulated results against him, as he professes, then he files his legal application, as he has done. However, once those avenues have been exhausted, as they have been, any decent leader would have acknowledged the loss, congratulated the winner while extolling the virtues of the system. By refusing to accept, from multiple sources, the election loss, and the subsequent bad-mouthing of the American Democratic system, Trump has effectively, and fundamentally, attacked American democracy at it's core. The standing American President has essentially publicly announced that he does not believe in American Democracy. He then voiced his opinion loud enough to have his followers/supporters attempt to forcibly change the election result. This is the stuff I expect of forming nations. It is astounding to see it in the US.

I hope it is sorted out with a minimal life loss.

I think that's a false representation. There is nothing intrinsic to the concept of "incite", which necessitates that the person who incites must intend the specific action which is incited. — Metaphysician Undercover

Seems pretty consistent with the dictionary definition to me:

incite
to encourage someone to do or feel something unpleasant or violent:
She incited racial hatred by distributing anti-Semitic leaflets.
[ + to infinitive ] She was expelled for inciting her classmates to rebel against their teachers.
They denied inciting the crowd to violence. — Cambridge

Trump is guilty of inciting, because he clearly intended for his followers to take action, in the form of some sort of protestation. — Metaphysician Undercover

But protest is not insurrection.

All that is necessary is to show criminal intent. — Metaphysician Undercover

Showing criminal intent is showing intent to commit that crime. The crime in question is incitement of insurrection, not whipping up a protest. If you cannot show intent to invite insurrection, you cannot ethically convict.

Criminal law is designed so that ignorance cannot be used as a defense, because this would allow the criminal who is a proficient liar to walk free, under the pretense of ignorance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ignorance of the law is no defense because it is a national's responsibility to know the laws of his or her country. But ignorance that one's actions would lead to someone else being inspired to commit crimes is a perfectly reasonable defense, and the one Trump's people will employ. "How could he know that calling for a march to support the objectors would lead to a violent insurrection?"

Indeed, how could he? Because that was his plan all along? Yeah right. Because he should have thought of it and taken it seriously as a possible consequence? If it can be shown that the outcome was a likely one, maybe. Problem there is if you go down that route you'll have genuine first amendment violations. You shouldn't start protests against racist, murderous police because a riot is a likely consequence.

You are simply ignoring the concept of "criminal negligence".

Seems pretty consistent with the dictionary definition to me: — Kenosha Kid

OED, incite: "urge or stir up". Where is there a mention of the need to intend the specific action resulting from the urging or stirring up?

But protest is not insurrection. — Kenosha Kid

Again, to "incite" does not require that the specific outcome is intended by the one who incites. This is due to the nature of inciting in general. The person inciting cannot be fully aware of the effect that the incitation will have. Inciting is by nature an unpredictable thing to do. But such ignorance of the possible outcome is not an acceptable defense in a criminal trial.

But ignorance that one's actions would lead to someone else being inspired to commit crimes is a perfectly reasonable defense, and the one Trump's people will employ. — Kenosha Kid

If the person's actions are inciteful, and are criminal, as I have demonstrated through the concept of false pretenses, then ignorance of the final outcome is not "a perfectly reasonable defense" against the charge of inciting, regardless of the seriousness of that final outcome.

Indeed, how could he? — Kenosha Kid

You don't seem to understand, that to be guilty of a specific crime, the person need not have intended the particular outcome which is described by the specific charge. This is known as "criminal negligence".

If it can be shown that the outcome was a likely one, maybe. — Kenosha Kid

There is no need to show that the outcome was a likely one. The outcome could be completely accidental, unforeseeable, and even improbable, as is often the case in manslaughter for example. That the consequences were unforeseen, or even unforeseeable, does not absolve one from criminal responsibility for the consequences of one's criminal acts.

The inciteful, or inspirational (however you want to say it) activity was the false pretense of a stolen election. And that had been going on for months, so there was preparations made for the event.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, and I think that'll have to be the crux of the matter: Did Donald do what Donald did in order to set up a violent insurrection by his supporters in the Capitol? And the answer ought to be that this cannot be established, further is unlikely to be the case. — Kenosha Kid

Interesting. If I may add: consider sexual harassment in the workplace - notoriously hard to define. Bob tells a dirty joke at the water cooler and Alice takes offense. I think most folks would agree that Alice needs to get a life. Suppose, however, that Bob frequently and often tells such jokes without apparent regard for Alice. Do we need then to consider Bob's "in order to"?

And there is a notion of the freedom to swing one's fists so long as they don't hit anyone. But there is no such freedom on that standard. Swinging fists even far away can be an assault.

Even if Trump be "acquitted" of direct incitement, he still poisoned the well. And to be sure there are places and times when poisoning is a hanging offense.

So, are you ready to demonstrate either that it was not this claim, made by the president, which incited the violence, or, that the claim was not a false pretense? Until you do, you're just blowing smoke, and the president is obviously guilty of inciting the violence.

Your “false pretense” test for incitement is a made up one.

His words do not rise to the level of incitement in American law, and are in fact completely contrary to the constitution. Therefore he is not guilty of incitement according to any official standard beyond his political opponent’s fantasies. Congress is guilty of violating its oath.

At zero point did he tell rally-goers to commit violence or break the law.

You’re blowing smoke.

You’re blowing smoke. — NOS4A2

Says the guys who's obviously smoking some serious shit.

Now body armour is a reimbursable purchase for Congres members. Last time I remember members of a Parliament having body armour and being armed was just before the Civil War broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

And NOS, perhaps here it would be useful to widen the focus from just one speech to get the picture, if you would (and not stay high on Trump all the time). Just look at the Trump diehards like "QAnon Lauren" among others.

You are simply ignoring the concept of "criminal negligence". — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it came to my mind too, but I just don't think you can negligently incite an insurrection. You can negligently kill someone or damage their property, but the concept of accidentally starting a coup and being held culpable for it is a non-starter.

OED, incite: "urge or stir up". Where is there a mention of the need to intend the specific action resulting from the urging or stirring up? — Metaphysician Undercover

The need is in the impeachment article. Trump definitely stirred up division, paranoia, resentment, a false sense of injustice. Just not an insurrection in particular, at least based on what I know. I think it would be a struggle even to demonstrated that he incited a riot. Caused one, yes, but incitement is active.

The outcome could be completely accidental, unforeseeable, and even improbable, as is often the case in manslaughter for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

And that's the thing: there is nothing to which incitement of insurrection is the equivalent of that manslaughter is to murder.

I also just don't think this is something we would want to generalise. Trump is a special case and it feels like it's worth taking him down if possible. But I can see Trump's conviction, if he is convicted, being used by the right as an excuse to persecute organisers of peaceful protests should a riot break out. The same sorts of arguments you're using against Trump would apply.

If Trump is to blame for the expressions and acts of others, who should I blame for the expressions and actions of ssu? I’d love to know who possesses enough magical powers to control your tongue and motor cortex.

Until it would be an Ocazio-Cortez using exactly similar rhetoric talking to the BLM or some Black block.

Then it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!! :grin: — ssu

how isn’t it? shouldn’t the president be held to a higher standard? you’re a leader of a country versus an organization..

Damn.

I agree, Trump is guilty of inciting insurrection.

But his supporters will not be convinced of this by the text of his speech to the mob...

His speech is not considered incitement by any American law, state or otherwise. So why would they keep claiming that he incited violence? Same thing with the trite phrase “undermining democracy”. These violations are made up whole cloth, inventions, fantasies, inapplicable to any set of rules or codes of conduct, legal or otherwise, and apparently only the president can be guilty of them. This is arbitrary persecution. — NOS4A2

Well one can incite violence irrespective of the criminal difference for a crime names 'inciting violence' is fulfilled. Het is not charged with the crime 'inciting violence' he is being charged with misconduct, namely the inciting of violence. For good reasons the criminal law restricts its ability to punish to certain very strictly described behaviours. That does not mean that behavior that falls outside of its scope is automatically ' right'. Especially a president must know that his words carry weight. If he says " March on the capitol to give our republican allies the encouragement they need", it is A. not likely he meant that literally, i.e. his followers singing a round of Kumbaya together and B. if he did mean it literally why then did he not urge his followers immediately to stop storming and start singing? Only the most naive among us, or those pretending to be naive would take the president's words literally.

He is not being prosecuted, he is being impeached. And indeed certain roles makes one more liable to prosecution, even in the criminal law sense. That is known as ' garantenstellung' in German. From someone trained with firerarms you may expect to shoot at the legsin self defense, whereas an ordinary citizen might indeed beexcused when shooting an assailant in the chest. There is nothing odd about it. Especially a president who has bred a following of devoted citziens a number of whom who are known to be violent, should choose his words more carefully than indeed Joe Blow.

I’d love to know who possesses enough magical powers to control your tongue and motor cortex. — NOS4A2

Trump at the time of the riot was President of the United States. So his words obviously have the power to influence others. When he said 'go there and fight like hell' and 'we cannot take the country back through weakness', his many followers took that as a call to arms and acted accordingly. And he'll never live it down.

Het is not charged with the crime 'inciting violence' he is being charged with misconduct, namely the inciting of violence — Tobias

Trump was charged with:

"incitement of insurrection" in urging his supporters to march on the Capitol building. The article stated that Trump had committed high crimes and misdemeanors by making a number of statements that "encouraged–and foreseeably resulted in–lawless action" that interfered with Congress' constitutional duty to certify the election and stated that Trump "threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government," doing so in a way that rendered him "a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution" if he were allowed to complete his term. — Wikipedia

Trump was charged with: — Wayfarer

Yeah... seems to me not out of the bounds of the reasonable. The actual charge is high crimes and misdemeanors, which is a legal catch all term as explained above. The incitement of insurrection is the species of it, but not the same thing as the criminal law definition of the crime. That would actually punished by a heft jail time I reckon.

Defending Trump is now akin to defending OJ. His supporters are still looking for the “real inciters.”

Remember where all this started: demonstrably untrue claims about voter fraud and a stolen election. That rhetoric alone should be impeachable.

Yes, nothing to see here. Just another House Republican terrorist.


Btw, what level of a fucking mind votes for this piece of human garbage?

:up: Defence of Trump is just a continuation of the fascist propaganda that led us to this. Response should be full force.

And what do you mean by 'full force'?

The context is verbal defence, lies, rhetoric etc,

demonstrably untrue claims about voter fraud and a stolen election. That rhetoric alone should be impeachable. — Xtrix

so I'm talking about verbal force in response.

https://nyti.ms/3in4DSI

Start by telling the truth.

Understand that your fellow citizens have been lied to and fallen to those lies, but that they still are your fellow citizens. The worst thing is to fall into thinking that this is the 'new normal'.

They're not my fellow citizens.

In general, fine, but it's a kind of milquetoast response. Needs more. (They've been told the truth since the election results in November. Made no difference.)

They're not my fellow citizens. — Baden

In general, fine, but it's a kind of milquetoast response. Needs more. (They've been told the truth since the election results in November. Made no difference.) — Baden

Milquetoast, feeble?

Well, those who broke the law should be dealt by the justice system. Those who incited them should be put to trial too. Those that believed the lies, but haven't broken the law, should be left alone.

You see, if those who were in the past your fellow citizens aren't anymore, then likely you see them as an enemy of some sort. That's the first step to dehumanize other people and prepare the way to a genuine civil war. Don't think that it's impossible.

I’m not going to bother asking for the specifics on how one is able to compel another adult to criminal action by speaking of peaceful action. What I will repeat is that their version of “incitement” is no standard and is contrary to the constitution, which they have sworn a duty to support and defend. In America this is called “free speech”, and it applies to everyone equally. If their version of “incitement” is not a standard used by any authority in the land, it is arbitrary, made up, and also, selectively applied.

It sets a dangerous precedent to impeach a politician—or anyone—for advocating the peaceful exercising of their constitutional rights.

Again, no one is saying Congress doesn’t have the power to do this, or that they cannot set the rules and make up the high crimes as the go along. So repeating that is no argument.

I meant I'm not American, so they're not my fellow citizens.

It sets a dangerous precedent to impeach a politician—or anyone—for advocating the peaceful exercising of their constitutional rights. — NOS4A2

Yeah, definitely peaceful. Except for the sacking of the Capitol, which Trump incited.

Go gaslight somewhere else.

And don't forget when Giuliani told the rioters to engage in "trial by combat" against lawmakers, he meant "hand out candies". Just a big misunderstanding, really.

At zero point did he tell rally-goers to commit violence or break the law. — NOS4A2

So, what's that prove? "Incite" does not mean 'told them to do it'. Nor does "incite" imply 'conspired with'. Your arguments are simply irrelevant. Under any reasonable understand of "incite", coupled with a reasonable understanding of Trump's actions, it's very evident that he's guilty of inciting that violence.