That’s a good point, but I still don’t think it gets anywhere close to conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. His speech was too equivocal, and in-the-moment sympathy for the insurrectionists isn’t incitement of them. There may be more direct evidence out there, but we have not seen any of it yet. If they don’t have more direct evidence of intent, Trump will not be charged.
4 Likes
I’m unclear on what it is they are going to try again - armed insurrection? That’s a nonstarter for sure. Stealing the election? Yeah we’re kind of prepared for that - forewarned is forearmed.
5 Likes
$0.00.
2 Likes
He may not have literally told the crowd to break down the doors and enter the Capitol, but the primary goal of the speech was to whip up the crowd so they would interrupt Congress in session, while they were certifying the vote. That alone is an illegal act, before you even get to insurrection, property damage, violent attacks on police, etc.
2 Likes
Maybe, but there is no meaningful evidence for that claim. Certainly not any that would sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
1 Like
I agree he can’t be charged on his Jan. 6 speech alone. His communications and action (or inaction) during and after the attack might reveal his part in a conspiracy.
5 Likes
The evidence is the video of the speech! That’s literally what he asked the crowd to do, and it doesn’t take a genius to decode the Mob boss phrasing he used.
Do any of us here have a reasonable doubt that this is what happened? Did any of the Senators who voted to convict in the second impeachment trial have any reasonable doubts? Even McConnell basically said as much, right after the trial. It’s never a slam-dunk and would depend on what kind of jury he got, but I don’t see a conviction as being that unlikely if it ever gets to trial.
He was impeached twice with zero convictions.
I’m not talking about impeachment which is a political process, and where politics prevented a conviction. I’m talking about a criminal trial with a jury, if it ever gets that far.
1 Like
Trump is not in the headlights
The minions are
1 Like
Conspiracy requires a meeting of the minds, i.e., an agreement to do the criminal thing. No evidence exists that Trump agreed to do anything with anyone criminal on the insurrection. Hell, he didn’t have to – the insurrectionists were happy to do it on their own!
Oh, you mean that speech of his that is well within the bounds of the First Amendment’s protections because it did not seek to incite anyone to imminent unlawful conduct? That won’t cut it, I’m afraid.
As far as we know now.
3 Likes
Probably, but there isn’t much point in trying to figure out whether he’s actually stupid or just playing because either way, we wind up with a self serving asshole who is worse than useless.
3 Likes
Interrupting a session of Congress isn’t unlawful? News to me.
1 Like
His words did not interrupt a session of Congress. A bunch of insurrectionists did.
He told them to do that. That’s what incitement means.
Read the transcript (I suggest you keep a bottle of Rolaids handy). It is full of hatred and lies. He talks about taking back the country, true, but I think he managed to skirt right around the edges as @txlawyer has pointed out. The other speakers? Not so much.
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.
And I say this despite all that’s happened. The best is yet to come.
So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol, and we’re going to try and give.
The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
1 Like
What, some engineers learn math? I though they just learned formulae… (sorry, that’s “formulas” for any engineering majors reading this…) 
(Maths & CompSci grad here…)
3 Likes
Yeah, I’ve read it. This is the key part, from what I can tell:
And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn’t, that will be a, a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our Constitution.
Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down.
Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re 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.
This was followed a couple of paragraphs later by “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” If it ever gets to court, it will be a battle between that one word “peacefully” and the language above, but I don’t know how any reasonable person could interpret it any other way than as a call for the lawful session of Congress to be interrupted by the crowd.
And of course it wouldn’t be this speech alone, but everything he said leading up to it, and whatever can be dug up about his reaction when he returned to the WH. But I think those words above are damning. He wanted what was happening in Congress right then to be stopped by the crowd.
1 Like