No, it came to my mind too, but I just don't think you can negligently incite an insurrection. — Kenosha Kid
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
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".
The page is curved and not fully visible, but the heading is titled “[illegible] taken immediately to save the [illegible] constitution".
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
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
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
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’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
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.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
It sets a dangerous precedent to impeach a politician—or anyone—for advocating the peaceful exercising of their constitutional rights. — NOS4A2
In America this is called “free speech”, and it applies to everyone equally. — NOS4A2
is contrary to the constitution — NOS4A2
is contrary to the constitution
— NOS4A2
You just saying so does not make it so. — Tobias
"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
"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
The article of impeachment is "incitement of insurrection". — NOS4A2
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
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. — Echarmion
No way, he only pardons his loyal cronies. — praxis
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
What???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
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.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.