Well then the poster should have added a sarcasm tag. It was a despicable comment, which unfortunately too many people in this world have no problem with.
That would be a waste of good wine. How about a septic tank?
2 Likes
By each other, largely online. Do you really think that thousands and thousands of deplorables descended on D.C. the morning of January 6 for a day of peacefully listening to Hair Fuhrer and his supporters peacefully speachifying, only to have Trump say magic words that incited them to do an insurrection? Because that would be pretty credulous on your part.
1 Like
I see your point.
1 Like
In my view Trump’s entire 2020 campaign was incitement to insurrection.
Advocating for the anti-democratic overthrow of the United States government is, in fact, protected by the First Amendment.
So, President Trump never made any online mention of any of it? The date, the vote certification, the rally, the need for people to show up, no allegations of election fraud, etc.?
He was startled to find the crowd, and said to himself, “Self, I think all these unexpected rally attendees are expecting me to say something. I better say something. Gee, what should I talk about?”
ETA, I understand your reticence to make any declarative statements, that Trump was actively working online to get people there, to get them full of disinformation and outraged about it.
But you appear to have gone so far in the opposite direction that it’s as credulous as claiming Trump was 100% responsible for the rally, the march to the Capitol and the conduct of everyone who went in the building.
3 Likes
He tweeted about the “big protest” on January 6 and stated that it will “be wild,” but that was a few weeks before the insurrection, and is still protected by the First Amendment because it’s not an incitement to imminent illegal conduct. And he didn’t create the protest with that tweet – he was simply promoting an insurrection that others were already openly planning online.
What folks are seeing in Trump’s pre-insurrection words may well count as inciting the insurrection under the statute, but it won’t sustain a conviction, by itself, thanks to the First Amendment. We are far more likely to see some sort of criminal conspiracy charge against him. If that idiot ever told flunky who’s willing to flip anything like like “This is great, I want all those people to go down to the Capitol and stop the electoral vote so I can win in the House,” he’s in legitimate peril.
2 Likes
So even if he was making statements that would be incitement if made closer to(or on Jan 6), and was inviting people to come to the rally to be encouraged to interfere with the vote count, because he didn’t on that day reiterate the agenda he had previously laid out, it’s not incitement.
Sounds like a grey area that needs some regulation - probably would have to come via legislation, too.
“In two weeks, I want you to fuck that guy up when I’m done with my speech calling him a rat bastard who deserves a beating. So be there!”
Regardless of whether it’s “incitement,” it is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Call it whatever you want, but he’s not getting charged for it.
As you are undoubtedly already aware, he never said anything remotely close to that.
That specifically? No.
But we have several hundred people facing charges for the events at the Capitol on January 6.
And a not insignificant number of them have testified that they inferred from Trump’s public statements on Twitter, TV, and in person at public events, that he wanted them to go to DC, and that they could stop the election from being stolen.
Maybe they weren’t incited, but rather recruited?
1 Like
It’s protected speech. It does not matter whether his morons inferred what he undoubtedly intended to imply. It’s free fucking speech. That is all.
1 Like