Let's debunk the "Trump didn't tell his followers to riot" argument.

You can still incite violence in a crowd that has violent tendencies. Some might say its a prerequisite.

 

Well since never suggested any one go burn loot and steal...

 

So, out of some 40,000 at the rally, you finally found one antifa guy.

Goody for you. I guess we can cancel the inauguration and coronate Trump now.

Not.

 

Horseshit, and feeble rationalizing dodge in light of Sullivan's violent role among very few violent incidents. Not surprised at all given the source. But that's OK, starting a thread on Sullivan's arrest as soon as I post this.

 

You just claimed Democrats stole the election. Prove it.

As for the insurrection, I imagine a prosecutor will present the case thus:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...wers-to-riot-argument.583847/#post-1072376653

Or, here's a real prosecutor ( 30years, Wash DC prosecutor ) presenting a similar case:

 

BFD.

 

Ah, the old 'it's got to be black and white in order to be guilty' argument.

Life isn't often so so black and white, as truth always or tends to exist in the grey areas. The greater truths require skillful articulation of nuance, as that is where the greater truth is, which a good lawyer will be able to explain to a jury and get a conviction

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...wers-to-riot-argument.583847/#post-1072376653

 

ooh goody another conspiracy theory.

 

Let the Trump defending by the usual suspects begin. Man, must it blow to have voted twice for a guy who is now completely disgraced, in the US and worldwide.

 

The indictment is in the source link. So anyone calling "conspiracy theory," which is apparently the new dishonest, disingenuous, childish LW canard on this forum, is lying.

 

Except he did.

 

The indictment is not in question, the conclusion is.

 

"Questioning" something is rational. Hollering "conspiracy theory" when faced by irrefutable, emergent facts counter to one's narrative is irrational.

The only "conspiracy theory" applicable is the wild, repetitive non evidence-based, laughably "armchair lawyered" erroneous accusations of serious crimes such as in the OP.

 

I've followed the Court's free speech decisions, and I'm confident that a criminal case against President Trump for "incitement" for what he said on January 6th would fail, and it wouldn't even be close. You can make the political argument that he ought to be impeached for his speech, or that you think morally he's culpable for something, but he's not criminally culpable. Nothing he said got within 10,000 yards of meeting the legal definition of the crime of "incitement".

And BTW, you should read this article before you try to use the "screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" analogy again.

Atlantic - It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

 

LOL. He doesn't "present a case", in fact, he spends the first few minutes of that video saying he's not going to discuss caselaw or legal principles. He spends the latter part of the video trying to whip up his audience to 'do something about' President Trump. If anything, that's uncomfortably close to the definition of 'incitement' that many leftists seem to be advocating for.

 

And he has been wee wee'ing them up for 2 years, it doesn't take much to light a fire you've been building for 2 years.
The speech ain't nothing, it's the larger picture that the radical right defenders always miss.

 

Still nothing about violence. "we need to fight" is a common phrase among politicians on both sides. Fail.

 

There is intent to overturn the results of a democratic election. That is called "insurrection". And Trump incited it. It's what he was impeached for.

So things are not looking well for the Insurrectionist in Chief. I would hate to be the judge that contradicts the most bipartisan impeachment in history.

 

"Fire!" is a common phrase among people who call the fire department.

 

As I have said, there were three major groups on January 6th.

There were the congressman going through a very legal procedure to count electoral votes. Objecting to some of the states count is legal and Constitutional.

There were a large group of peaceful protesters. That was also very legal.

The third group was those that entered the Capitol building and destroyed property and threatened the lives of American Officials. That was illegal and they should be punished ot the full extent of the law.

Do not try to say the illegal activities carried over to the other two groups.

 

Who gives a crap about "two groups". I'm talking about the instigator of all this. That idiot is in the WH. He belongs in prison.

 

4. At no point did Trump advocate imminent lawless action, the current legal standard.

 

But you appear to be comixing the two groups.

 

Well, at this point we can really congratulate Trump - his followers are making posts calling Trump a sell-out and a
traitor for not following through on his promise to stop Biden, and are promising armed revolution ... so he wound them up, dumped these ass-hats on the country, and now he's just going to slink away.

Damnit, I warned you folk that Trump was toxic. Now look what you have created. A movement without any sort of
moral base and lots of weapons. What could possibly go wrong ... well, I'm glad I've moved out of the stock market for
the next week, cause Trump has lit a match to the country.

 

Insurrection is not legal.