No, it came to my mind too, but I just don't think you can negligently incite an insurrection. — Kenosha Kid

Then I don't think you understand the concept of "criminal negligence". The issue, is whether Trump's actions are contributive to the insurrection, as inciteful. If you understand the nature of criminal negligence you will see that for a person in the position of political influence, like the president, inciting an insurrection is the very type of thing which one could negligently do.

Here's Wikipedia:

The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a "malfeasance" where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a "misfeasance" or "nonfeasance" (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness, where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation. (In the United States, there may sometimes be a slightly different interpretation for willful blindness.) The degree of culpability is determined by applying a reasonable-person standard. Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life" (see the definitions of corporate manslaughter and in many common law jurisdictions of gross negligence manslaughter). — Wikipedia on Criminal Negligence

I would say that Trump's criminal negligence clearly obtains to the level of "gross", as defined above.

It’s not irrelevant according to the constitution of the United States of America. Representatives swore an oath to support and defend the constitution, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. These lawmakers are impeaching their political opponent for a “high crime” they just invented. They’re setting a very dangerous precedent.

If you want to argue that speakers who neither practice nor preach violence can be held responsible for the violent conduct of others, try to incite me to agree with you just to see how far you can get.

You mean the guy that repeatedly urged on violence at his rallies is denouncing violence? Sure. When's he's explicitly called out on it he of course denies it.



That's 2016 already. "In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough. ... We've become weak."

6 January 2021: "And after this, we're going to walk down there, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down ... to the Capitol and we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong."



Yeah. Nothing to see here. :roll:

EDIT: add "trial by combat" and we're done. It's not as if Rudy, as Trump's lawyer and representing his views up there, is to be seen separate from Trump all of a sudden. The guy had his tongue up Trump's ass for years.

Ah, sorry.

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

His real supporters are convinced.

A Common Line Keeps Emerging From Capitol Rioters: Trump Asked Us To Be Here

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell brings notes to White House that suggest calling for ‘martial law if necessary’

One of Donald Trump’s fiercest supporters, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, went to a meeting at the White House with notes suggesting “martial law if necessary”.

The notes, captured by a photographer as Mr Lindell entered the Oval Office on Friday, come after Mr Lindell tweeted then deleted calls for the president to “impost martial law” in the seven battleground states that won the election for Joe Biden.

The page is curved and not fully visible, but the heading is titled “[illegible] taken immediately to save the [illegible] constitution".

Imagine Trump were stupid enough to listen to this guy.

The page is curved and not fully visible, but the heading is titled “[illegible] taken immediately to save the [illegible] constitution".

[Criminal action must be] and [Trump administration from the] respectively.

I'm guessing.

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

I guess the question is how much honest delusion we credit Trump with. If someone sees a possible consequence of their actions, but simply doesn't care whether or not it happens, that is usually sufficient to establish intent.

It’s not irrelevant according to the constitution of the United States of America. Representatives swore an oath to support and defend the constitution, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. These lawmakers are impeaching their political opponent for a “high crime” they just invented. They’re setting a very dangerous precedent. — NOS4A2

It's irrelevant to the question of whether President Trump is guilty of inciting insurrection through criminal negligence. If you want to argue that this is a crime which the lawmakers "just invented", that's really irrelevant as well. Inventing crimes is what "lawmakers" do, so they're just doing their jobs. We live in a changing world, with the development of social media, and laws need to be invented to keep up with the capacity to commit new crimes. In no way does finding Trump guilty of inciting insurrection through criminal negligence violate the constitution. Now you've just resorted to outright lying, like your protege.

f you want to argue that speakers who neither practice nor preach violence can be held responsible for the violent conduct of others, try to incite me to agree with you just to see how far you can get. — NOS4A2

Did you read the Wikipedia quote on criminal negligence which I provided? There is no question that Trump's actions of disputing the election, and various absurd claims concerning the election, were a contributing cause of the insurrection, regardless of the few words you are able to provide in his defence. His "failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest" makes him guilty of criminal negligence, at the very least. The question now is not whether or not he is guilty, it is a question of the extent of his culpability. So, we must apply a "reasonable-person standard". And since there was much discussion and speculation, prior to the violence, that Trump's actions could very well lead to violent uprising, we can conclude that a reasonable person would have foreseen the danger, and Trump can be held accountable for a high degree of culpability.

magine Trump were stupid enough to listen to this guy. — Michael

Not many guys going to Trump nowdays.

Besides, Trump has got the people around him who he wanted and who he deserves.

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. — NOS4A2

I wish you ha bothered because it is fairly easy and I can show you by way of an example:
"Hey boss, what we supposed to do with that broad that keeps steelin our stash and keeps snitchin' on us to them cops"? You know what to do Antonio, make sure she sleeps".
What do you think 'to sleep' means here?

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. — NOS4A2

I love it when people keep repeating assertions without an argument. Firstly there is no "standard" for incitement as if there is a specific subset of words with which one might incite and others with which one might not. Something like incitement, just like insult or defamation is by necessity context dependent. Of course were it a criminal trial the bar for words to reach the level of incitement is higher, due to the restraint with which criminal law must be employed, This is impeachment and not criminal law. Secondly I have explained to you how impeachment works. ' High crimes and misdemeanors' is an open category. We are not dealing with criminal law, we are dealing here with constitutional law. I do not not know if it is often employed in constitutional law, but in private law and even sometimes in criinal law the 'reasonable person standard" is used. To come back to my example above, "let her sleep" might come down to aiding and abetting murder (or to construe some sort of conspiracy if that is not feasible) because of the context. Any reasonable person would know what the words mean.

Now let's apply the reasonable person standard, tried and tested in US law, to this situation. "March on to the capitol to give the encouragement they need" might in itself not be enough. However his aides urged for trial by combat the same day and consider Wayfarer's examples:

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. — Wayfarer

Add to this he did not tell his followers to back off immediately. Could he have known his leads to the endangerment of government officials in session? He most certainly could. Therefore his impeachment is justified.

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

It would be if that is what he did. And even then, for an average citizen to call for protest is ok. For a president to do this and challenge an election certified by officials and the judiciary alike which he lost, is altogether different. I would argue actually that even there has not been a storming of the capitol his words merit impeachment.

In America this is called “free speech”, and it applies to everyone equally. — NOS4A2

No it does not, it is always subject to time and place constraints. If I start yelling obscenities at Trump during his rally and he cannot continue because of my verbal abuse I am forcibly removed.

is contrary to the constitution — NOS4A2

You just saying so does not make it so. Actually I get visions of this baboon just clapping his hands together and uttering constitution, constitution in a nigh unintelligible fashion. No matter how often you say it is against the constitution, that does not make it so.

So this is one of the few things that has genuinely surprised me - perhaps naively - about the capitol incident. The myth that spontaneously formed right after it happened was that it was the actions of disaffected, poor, white, working class people. Turns out, this is not the case at all. The people there very much well-off and in positions of power. Should have known. Of course the people prepared to support Trump like that are those with monied interests:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/thoroughly-respectable-rioters/617644/

"They were business owners, CEOs, state legislators, police officers, active and retired service members, real-estate brokers, stay-at-home dads, and, I assume, some Proud Boys. The mob that breached the Capitol last week at President Donald Trump’s exhortation, hoping to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, was full of what you might call “respectable people.”

The notion that political violence simply emerges out of economic desperation, rather than ideology, is comforting. But it’s false. Throughout American history, political violence has often been guided, initiated, and perpetrated by respectable people from educated middle- and upper-class backgrounds. The belief that only impoverished people engage in political violence—particularly right-wing political violence—is a misconception often cultivated by the very elites who benefit from that violence.

The members of the mob that attacked the Capitol and beat a police officer to death last week were not desperate. They were there because they believed they had been unjustly stripped of their inviolable right to rule. They believed that not only because of the third-generation real-estate tycoon who incited them, but also because of the wealthy Ivy Leaguers who encouraged them to think that the election had been stolen."

Or in video form for those with short attention spans:

is contrary to the constitution
— NOS4A2

You just saying so does not make it so. — Tobias

Trump supporters live in Opposite Land. Shamelessly. So if Trump is impeached for violating the constitution, YOU’RE violating the constitution. If Trump says something racist, and you call him such, YOU’RE a racist. Etc. And of course “both sides” deserve equal consideration.

It’s as predictable as it is childish. Pure tribalism.

One of the House freshman (Green) has already drawn up impeachment papers for Biden. I suppose NOS and other deluded Trump cultists will say this is perfectly constitutional.

If we were to leave it up to them, nothing will happen until we’re all dead. No consequences for Trump, no action needed on climate change, no need for police reform, no such thing as racism, etc. All that’s relevant is giving away as much as possible to the plutocracy. Cut their taxes, get rid of any regulation, privatize everything — all while screaming about “small government.” Capitalistic nihilism at its finest.

Again I repeat: these people can’t die off quickly enough. I just hope they don’t bring the entire human species down with them, which is their goal.

"Criminal negligence" is completely irrelevant. It is not mentioned in any articles of impeachment. The article of impeachment is "incitement of insurrection".



Let's use real quotes. For instance, if one reads Trump's speech he can see that Trump uses the word "fight" in a figurative manner throughout. For example:

"We have great ones, Jim Jordan, and some of these guys. They’re out there fighting the House. Guys are fighting, but it’s incredible."

Does a reasonable person conclude that Trump thinks Jim Jordan is actually getting in fist fights on the House floor?

Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us.

Does a reasonable person conclude that Trump believes Republicans are boxing in the house?

But it used to be that they’d argue with me, I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight. I’d fight, they’d fight. Boop-boop. You’d believe me, you’d believe them. Somebody comes out. They had their point of view, I had my point of view.

Does a reasonable person conclude that Trump is talking about fist fighting with the press?

Yet the following phrase is used in the articles of impeachment as evidence Trump incited insurrection:

"We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore"

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

Does this pass the reasonable person test?

Because reasonable people such as yourself take his use of the word "fight" to mean actual fights, actual trial by combat, I think the "reasonable person standard" does not apply here.

Again, the standard for incitement to violence in law is "immanent lawless action". Congress uses the similar phrase "lawless action" in the articles (minus the word "immanent") hinting that they are in fact alluding to the Supreme court standard "immanent lawless action". I'm not sure why they leave out a very important part of Supreme court precedent, but my guess is that it is a specious attempt to tie much earlier speech to later violence—"before this therefor because of this" nonsense.

As for the claim that his words matter more than anyone else's therefor he should not figuratively use the word "fight" in case someone takes it to mean something else, I completely disagree.

Given that impeachment is not a matter of criminal law, the reasonable person test is irrelevant. All that matters is the congressman/senator test.

It wouldn't be a miscarriage of truth to admit that Trump spent almost an entire year rabble-rousing and spreading false rumours about voter fraud in a way that both undermined American democracy and also fuelled violent unrest. There's no need for quote mining or trying to cite legal precedent; "high crimes and misdemeanours" is so vague that it could refer to anything, and the way Trump pointed a rally/protest/whatever at the capitol building during electoral proceedings can certainly pass for both.

Regarding the "incitement of insurrection" charge, if the senators believe what happened at the capitol can be called an insurrection, and if they believe Trump incited it to some or any degree, then they could call it a high crime and impeach him for it, and it would be just execution of the US constitution.

"We have great ones, Jim Jordan, and some of these guys. They’re out there fighting the House. Guys are fighting, but it’s incredible."

Does a reasonable person conclude that Trump thinks Jim Jordan is actually getting in fist fights on the House floor? — NOS4A2

Well, he uses the words ' fight' in those instances figuratively perhaps. As I would argue he does. However he is not indicted for those. He is indicted for speech acts which might well have lead to the storming of the Capitol and him tellingly refraining from condemning the action. It is rather pointless to debate what times Trump used ' fight' figuratively sometimes, the question is could a reasonable person predict that his words spoken there and than lead to violence and than my answer would be yes. Did he mind the violence? Well there are indications he did not otherwise he would have spoken out immediately against it instead of watching television, right? Did Trump's incitement to walk to Washington helped creating an insurrection? Yes. Is that unbecoming of a president? Yes. Does it amount to high crimes and misdemeanors? Yes. Is an impeachment therefore constitution? Yes.

"immanent lawless action". Congress uses the similar phrase "lawless action" in the articles (minus the word "immanent") hinting that they are in fact alluding to the Supreme court standard "immanent lawless action". I'm not sure why they leave out a very important part of Supreme court precedent, but my guess is that it is a specious attempt to tie much earlier speech to later violence—"before this therefor because of this" nonsense. — NOS4A2

In law the devil is in the details. What doe imminent mean? Immediately? Well, not very likely. It would narrow the definition of crime to the point of redundancy. Incitement takes some time to foment the necessary will in those incited. I might incite to violently and openly to overthrow the government and the coup d'etat happens a couple of days later after., because it needed some time to prepare Was that imminent? depends on your interpretation of the word. This is called the open texture of law. There is some necessary interpretation going on in every legal definition.
So maybe they want to avoid the bickering about the word ' imminent' . You might find it problematic, I do not. Again, impeachment is not a criminal trial, so they do not need to stick to definitions of the criminal law. What they need to prove is that the president acted in ways contrary to how a president should behave. Undermining democracy does not seem to fall out of that category. I believe Nixon was inter alia impeached for contempt of congress. That is not a criminal offence and actually inherently vague.

The article of impeachment is "incitement of insurrection". — NOS4A2

Right, and we all know that Trump is guilty, whether he intended to incite insurrection or not, because even if he did not intend to incite insurrection, the insurrection occurred, and he is guilty of inciting that insurrection through the concept of criminal negligence, regardless of his intent.

The members of the mob that attacked the Capitol and beat a police officer to death last week were not desperate. They were there because they believed they had been unjustly stripped of their inviolable right to rule. They believed that not only because of the third-generation real-estate tycoon who incited them, but also because of the wealthy Ivy Leaguers who encouraged them to think that the election had been stolen." — StreetlightX

Theft may be prevented with violence in the libertarian code of ethics.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/16/us-capitol-rioters-donald-trump-pardons

Capitol insurrectionists are begging for pardons from Trump. Quandary: these are die-hard Trump fanatics, a dying breed, and Trump thrives on that sort of insane adoration; on the other hand, pardoning the insurrectionists is definitely comforting them, and will look bad in his impeachment trial.

Self-adoration or self-preservation: which will the pussy-grabber choose?

Self-adoration or self-preservation: which will the pussy-grabber choose? — Kenosha Kid

He's way too much of a pussy (heh) to take such a risk. So I'll vote self-preservation.

He's way too much of a pussy (heh) to take such a risk. So I'll vote self-preservation. — Echarmion

He usually does, eventually. His principles last about as long as their utility, maybe a bit longer. (Just recalling how contrite-ish he was about Megyn Kelly calling him a misogynistic when he needed Fox approval.) He only has a few days to decide though which, while for an average human is a lot, for him can pass like a fleeting moment during one of his sulks.

No way, he only pardons his loyal cronies.

No way, he only pardons his loyal cronies. — praxis

Yes, the insurrectionists might have a little too much independent initiative for his liking.

It would be funny if he did pardon them, though.

"I cannot excuse the violent actions taken by those who invaded the Capitol."

"But you did."

Regardless of whether Trump personally was inciting the insurrection, it's looking pretty clear that it was not just a spontaneous thing that happened because people took Trump's speech on the 6th too seriously.

The real smoking gun about prior planning seems to be Lauren Boebert, a congressperson who gave a tour of the Capitol to many of the insurrectionists on the 5th, who tweeted "today is 1776" the morning of the 6th before the insurrection began, and who was live-tweeting the movements of congresspeople within the Capitol during the insurrection.

It seems extremely unlikely that Trump was completely unconnected to what is looking like a clearly planned event that was both pursuing a cause in his name and triggered by a speech he gave.

The real smoking gun about prior planning seems to be Lauren Boebert, a congressperson who gave a tour of the Capitol to many of the insurrectionists on the 5th, who tweeted "today is 1776" the morning of the 6th before the insurrection began, and who was live-tweeting the movements of congresspeople within the Capitol during the insurrection. — Pfhorrest

Yeah, that's the twist in the tale. I had thought the insurrection well planned but just between nutters on right-wing social media and messaging platforms. But an inside job immediately raises the question of who else was involved in the planning.

Still... It remains to be proven that Trump was involved in that planning.

Lauren Boebert, — Pfhorrest

she's one of the q-anon nutjobs. Magnetically attracted to Dear Leader. Her comms director just walked.

It remains to be proven — Kenosha Kid

It's a matter of executive responsibility.

Also it was reported this morning on the Australian Broadcasting Corp. news that Mitch McConnell has announced Republicans will have a conscience vote at the Senate trial, i.e. they're not being whipped to vote nay. I haven't seen confirmation in the US media yet, but it's a significant move. As I said earlier, if he is convicted and then disbarred from holding public office, then his political career is over, which the sane minority of the Republican Party would surely relish.

I think that Eric Weinstein had an interesting and a bit different take on what happened in DC. Interview by Saagar Njeti and Marshall Kosloff. As always, nice to listen to a bit something else:

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. — NOS4A2

What???

Are you now questioning if people can or cannot be incited? Oh boy.

Or wait a minute, did the second impeachment of Trump happen for the reason that Trump possessed magical powers to control peoples tongue and motor cortex? I think I missed that!

Given that impeachment is not a matter of criminal law, the reasonable person test is irrelevant. All that matters is the congressman/senator test.

It wouldn't be a miscarriage of truth to admit that Trump spent almost an entire year rabble-rousing and spreading false rumours about voter fraud in a way that both undermined American democracy and also fuelled violent unrest. There's no need for quote mining or trying to cite legal precedent; "high crimes and misdemeanours" is so vague that it could refer to anything, and the way Trump pointed a rally/protest/whatever at the capitol building during electoral proceedings can certainly pass for both.

Regarding the "incitement of insurrection" charge, if the senators believe what happened at the capitol can be called an insurrection, and if they believe Trump incited it to some or any degree, then they could call it a high crime and impeach him for it, and it would be just execution of the US constitution.

Politicians have and will contest the election results and express doubt about the winner, as is their right. Elizabeth Warren, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Stacy Abrahms have all done it. Hell, we had to put up with the nonsense of Russian collusion for years, and people like Jimmy Carter saying Trump is illegitimate. That's why I treat these claims with utter suspicion. No amount of glittering generalities such as "undermining our democracy" are persuasive, even as propaganda. The ability to contest election results, to express doubt, and to share with others those beliefs is a feature of democracy. Criminalizing and censoring that doubt is undemocratic.

Yes, Congress can invent "high crimes and misdemeanors" at their whim and fancy and impeach their opponents for it while absolving themselves of the same crime. They have already done it. My contention is that it is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent.

Louis Gomert recently quoted Nancy Pelosi talking about "uprisings" and calling Trump an "enemy of the state" on the House floor. Journalists were actually complaining that he was inciting violence. This is peak clown world. These nutters have lost their minds.

US takes back its assertion that Capitol rioters wanted to 'capture and assassinate' officials

Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it