PoliTalker (11-27-2021)
My point exactly. However, the precedent was sent years ago which makes it difficult to prove. For example, those accused of inciting a riot during Vietnam War protests or civil rights marches already established the difficulty of showing a person's actions/speeches was the cause of the crowd's violence.
PoliTalker (11-27-2021)
Inciting a riot is a different charge than treason and easier to prove. The Big Lie did not incite a riot because it occurred over 2 months before the riot. Inciting a riot must be the immediate result of the speech--not something than happened previously.
Treason requires giving aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war. There is no war. So my opinion is that there is zero chance of that charge but it is based on previous court decisions. The Rosenbergs were executed for giving the Soviets American secrets but were not charged with treason because we were not at war.
no
"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.
Which big lie? He repeated it over and over to anyone who would listen. However, he organized the insurrection and selected the speakers at the rally. The speakers were easy to read and then Trump closed it out by elaborately using the big lie and inciting the riot. Trump is a mafia chief at heart. He uses descriptors without saying exactly what he wants you to do. I don't see how he can beat the rap because he talks too damn much.
PoliTalker (11-27-2021)
Flash (11-26-2021)
Hello Flash,
That is simply an interpretation. The law does not specify that.
That case and treason bear little relevance. This is the law which I believe applies:
We could see a situation where multiple individuals testify in court that they took part in an insurrection because they believed they were doing what Donald Trump urged them to do.
That makes Donald Trump guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection.
Note: There is not one word in that law about treason or enemies.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Hello Nordberg,
Well that's the thing. He says conflicting things. That always gives a lawyer an out. A lawyer can always selectively cherry-pick from Trump's speech and cause it to mean one thing and then the exact opposite. He said 'go peacefully' and also said 'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country.' And he doesn't leave much of a paper trail. He is slicker than Al Capone was. Capone was never charged with murder, but you know he had many people killed.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
It is court rulings. A person can conspire to stage a rebellion, but that is different than "inciting" it.
Right. The Rosenburg case is about treason, not insurrection or rebellion. Some posters said Trump was guilty of treason, and I was showing why treason does not apply.
Those rioters who claimed they were acting because they thought Trump wanted that found out that defense did not work. What they believed Trump wanted is not the same thing as being incited by him to do so.
Trump has not been charged under this law. I agree with you that it is very hard to prove a person incited another to take violent actions; thus, he is unlikely to face this charge.
Right. I was replying to those who said Trump should be charged with treason. Treason is a different law than rebellion and insurrection. I used the Rosenberg case to illustrate it is not treason unless we are in a state of war. That is why they were charged with espionage rather than treason even though they gave the Soviets atomic secrets.
PoliTalker (11-28-2021)
I think it is because they have evidence (communications) of prior planning by the Oath Keepers which proves a conspiracy.
In Portland the rioters broke into a building with jail and courtrooms and set it ablaze. They attacked police with Molotov cocktails, fireworks, and IEDs. Many of these were charged with felonies but none for rebellion/insurrection.
Like the D. C. rioters, it would be difficult to prove their intent was to overthrow civilian authority as opposed to getting caught up in a crowd of protestors who became violent.
Hello Flash,
Conspiracy / incitement of insurrection.
It does not have to be an either/or situation.
Both can exist simultaneously.
"Intent to overthrow" does not have to be proven for a party to be guilty of insurrection.
" incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, "
That is what has to be proven.
Looks like he is guilty of it to me. Can it be proven? Apparently the prosecutors either don't think so at this point, or they want more evidence before they go there.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Bookmarks