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

Looks like there are numerous threads in which some Trumpers contend that Trump needed to SAY "Go forth and riot, my children" (or something like that) for him to be inciting the riots on January 6. Or the riots that will occur tomorrow. Or the ones on January 20... That he has some "free speech right" to inflame his already inflamed crowd

Hate to break it to you: he doesn't!

That's like claiming that screaming "Fire!" in a crowded Theater is "free speech" so long as the person doesn't say "trample over anybody who gets between you and the exit"

Anybody who has bothered to follow any "free speech" discussion in the Supreme Court for the last hundred years or so, will tell you that this argument would never work. I don't think even any Republican Justice would accept it.

Falsely screaming "fraud!" in a Trump rally, is exactly like falsely screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

And BTW, screaming "Fire!" and then quietly adding "please exit peacefully" will not excuse the action.

But Trump did much more than just scream "fraud!". He told his crowd exactly what to do. And I'm not just talking about his January 6 speech. He has been falsely screaming "fire!" since December. Trump told them
-“We need to fight.”
-“They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”
-"...we’re going to have to fight much harder"
-"You have to show strength, and you have to be strong”,
-"... you are allowed to go by very different rules"
-"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore., You'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong,"

Now... the excuses. Arguments to excuse this are of three types.

1- "Trump is too uninformed to be held accountable": This type of arguments are based on the presumption that he didn't know that extreme right-wing social media groups (some of which he often retweeted) were planning a violent protesters. He didn't receive security briefings about these plans. He didn't listen to the speakers before him. He didn't hear Giuliani's "trial by combat" remark.... And besides, he didn't know what EVERYBODY knew? That there would be riots in those protests.

2- "Trump is too stupid to be held accountable": They argue that he didn't know that incendiary language demanding the elections be overturned, and declare HIM President, would produce violent behavior. Or that telling them that Mike Pence was just another "Deep State" enemy would put his life at risk.

3- "Trump is too incompetent to be held responsible": In the middle of the riot "keep it peaceful" followed by "We love you" is an idiotic way to try to stop a coup attempt by a mob. In fact, Trump didn't even denounce the riots until after he was impeached. And the other arguments thats fall in this category are or the type "it was the rioters fault, not Trump's". He incites a crowd and then he can't control it. What a loser!

All attempts at defending Trump fall into one of those three broad categories. So let's see if Trumpers have something that doesn't

 

How about another much simpler argument. Those are arguments that most of us have used without advocating violence.

I don't know when he said what you claimed he said because you did not provide a link. However, the FBI has found out that they were warned about violence at least as early as January 5th which was before he made his speech.

 

The case with Trump is trickier. Because, he didn't specifically tell anyone to commit illegal acts. But, he does bear responsibility, not all of it, but most of it. Just do a 'but for'. But for Trump, there would have been no siege. Of course, not all 'but for(s)" prove the case, but, given the totality of the facts, they do here.

It boils down to the fact that the engine of the juggernaut that charged the capitol was rage over the act that they believed Democrats stole the election. So, that's where the 'but for' goes, i.e., but for their belief the election was stolen, they wouldn't have charged the capitol building BECAUSE they were trying to 'take back' what they 'believed was theirs' that 'democrats stole from them'.

But for that one fact, 5 people who died or were murdered would still be alive.

Trump is a special case, as President of the United States, his words matter, carry far more weight than that of your average citizen. Therefore his speech, whereupon he told a lie that 'dems stole the election' (because 60 lawsuits failed to prove that contention) over and over and over at all of his rallies (numerous every month of the year ) for a number of months, such that when they did charge the Capitol, they shouted 'stop the steal' 'hang pence' 'find Pelosi' that what was driving their rage to the point of a juggernaut was the lie that Democrats stole the election, and filled with this rage, they decided to do something about it, they made that decision on January 6, after Eric told them "we are coming for you" and Giuliani shouted "trial by combat" and Trump asserted (paraphrased) 'march on Washington, and we must take back our country, we can't be weak", and when they did something about it, all of which can be likened to a volcano about to erupt, which did finally erupt, he whipped his flock up to a frenzy, driven by 'stop the steal' all it took was being whipped up to a frenzy, it didn't really matter if Trump actually said 'take the capitol building' or not, because, given the entirety of the message, evidenced by the 'stop the steal' mantra over a period of months, that is what they heard, which resulted in 5 people were killed, many were injured, property was damaged, and Pelosi's computer was stolen. All of his speech, deeds, taken as a whole, there is a solid ( not air tight, but solid ) argument that he committed sedition, and that argument can, and probably will, at some point, be argued in a court of a law, and I hope the government prevails against Trump, because justice matters. This is a big deal, and in historical terms, the only thing I can think of that was a bigger deal was Pearl Harbor.

 

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

You're better off using crayons and a coloring book trying to explain to some of these people what's so obvious to anyone with any intelligence and integrity. And even then they will try to come up with any excuse to defend an obvious attempt at a coup by the traitor-in-chief.

 

He bears responsibility. However, to charge him with all you want to charge him with, you must prove intent. That you have failed to do. There is no proof that he intended people to enter the capitol and kill anyone or do damage.

 

Speak for yourself. I have never in my life used those words when I address a crowd in which there were people who were planning to violently take over a government building, kidnap lawmakers and the VP so as to overturn the elections, unless I was advocating violence.

Well, then maybe the FBI should start monitoring extreme right-wing groups in social networks. Or at least reading newspapers and news organizations like Fox, which were alert about this far in advance. Since early December even.

Maybe they hadn't thought about doing that, right?

 

They did. That is how they found a plot to break into and do damage on Jan 5th. For whatever, reason no action was taken and we are just finding out about the FBI having access to the information.

He was addressing all Republicans. Not just those would do violence. I haven't addressed such a crowd either, so your statement is meaningless. However, I am fairly sure that most of us have used variations of those words in our lifetime.

 

The President of the United States IS NOT "most of us."
Trump spoke of "peaceful" protests for 10 seconds in an hour speech. The rest of the time was spent wailing about
unproven fraud, berating fellow Republicans who didn't kiss his ass, and trying to convince his followers they had
to stop the "theft" of the election by marching on Congress.

 

And where in that did he say to break into the Capitol building and harm anyone.

 

None of what you said are the actual arguments.

The actual argument is that what Trump said is flowery language similar to what many of the things Democrats including Hillary and Biden said. If you're going to use that as an example of inciting violence, you're going to convict a lot of Democrats too.

 

That's like a mob guy saying, "Yo, your honor. I never told Vinny to kill the guy, I just told him to take Joe down to end of the pier
and introduce him to the fishes ...".

Trump told the crowd to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral vote. And they tried to do just that.

 

Are you saying that it is illegal to protest in order to get something done?

 

As soon as a Democrat invites a crowd of followers to the Capitol and incites them with bs rhetoric for an hour, and
they invade the Capitol - I'll call for their impeachment. Deal?

 

Protest is fine. Riot? Hell no.

 

THIS is a peaceful protest.

 

Where did he tell them to riot?

 

THIS is NOT a peaceful protest.




Any questions?

 

How about but for Democratic cheating there would have been no riot.

 

Inculcating them day after day after day rally after rally after rally that 'democrats stole the election'?

To what end? To disrupt the process by any means possible, legal or otherwise.

I think good lawyer could easily persuade a jury of what his intentions were.

I know you want your prez to weasel out of legal jeopardy, but he owns this thing. He really does.

 

There you go, you believe the lie.

Prove it.

 

Well since there was no cheating.

 

NONE of that says "Storm the capital"
Fail!
please try again

 

That is a flawless characterization of the events that took place.

That is a very strong argument. If not by any means necessary then what exactly was this Hail Mary play for? Ignorance and lack of intent intent just don't cut it, he went directly against everything he swore to protect. He was the igniting spark intentionally or otherwise.

 

ANTIFA John Sullivan arrested for some of the very few acts of violence at the overwhelmingly peaceful Trump Protest at the Capitol. Calls for Sullivan accomplice CNN employee involved to be arrested as well.

FBI Arrests Antifa Leader John Sullivan After Storming US Capitol (humansarefree.com)

Thankfully, Trump's speech was late, and this left bad actors hanging out early at the Capitol with no mob to blend into... else the damage caused by these violent Trump Supporter PRETENDERS would have been far worse.

Expect more ANTIFA and other LW agitators arrests when the dust settles. Don't accept lie narratives on Trump "inciting" anyone that omit the above very necessary context.

 

Why I'm still waiting for proof that Trump caused the riot or asked for it at any point.