<div dir="ltr">I find the Legal Eagle youtube channel highly insightful. His coverage in this case matched my intuition. Trump would almost certainly not be convicted of incitement in court, based on the language he used. However, that has nothing to do with an impeachment proceedings. In this case an "originalist" court should be squarely on your side. "High crimes and misdemeanors", in its original intent, was very broad, and clearly covers situations such as this one. <br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br><div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="mailto:echarles@american.edu" target="_blank"></a></div></div></div></div></div></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwqAInN9HWI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwqAInN9HWI</a><br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM <<a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div class="gmail-m_8811656890946283219WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">Nice, Robert! I am glad to know all of that. N<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Nick Thompson<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" target="_blank">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Robert J. Cordingley<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:14 PM<br><b>To:</b> uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <<a href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com" target="_blank">gepropella@gmail.com</a>>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <<a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com" target="_blank">friam@redfish.com</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] incitement<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p>So textually analyze "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F" target="_blank">will no one rid me of this turbulent priest</a>"! <u></u><u></u></p><p>Your last sentiment if widely held is scary indeed. Acquitting is being absolved of the crime. As others have pointed out what would a president have to do to be found guilty if not to want to and attempt to encourage the overthrowing of the results of a legally held, fair and square democratic election result? With Trump gone(?) the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/opinion/trump-celebrity-successors.html" target="_blank">sore</a> still exists and we need to deter other wannabe autocrats from a repeat performance. It's not a laughing matter.<u></u><u></u></p><p>Robert<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On 1/19/21 9:02 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"><pre>How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 linguists explain<u></u><u></u></pre><pre><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483" target="_blank">https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483</a><u></u><u></u></pre><pre><u></u> <u></u></pre><pre>There's plenty to doubt, there. But it follows along our previous conversations about ambiguity (both [in]formal) and binding. Personally, I don't believe Trump purposefully incited the riot. He'd have to be a literal genius to *purposefully* use language like this with the intent/objectives attributed to him. What does it mean, though, to *accidentally* incite a riot? Where does _mens rea_ fall for incitement? It seems most plausible that Trump is simply pre-adapted to riot-incitement by his years of practiced marketing bullsh¡t and the trendly positive feedback he gets from that marketing bullsh¡t. He did incite a *rally*. He loves when his groupies get together to fawn over him. But did he incite them to riot? I don't think so. Laughable as the idea is, were I a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.<u></u><u></u></pre><pre><u></u> <u></u></pre></blockquote></div></div>- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
</blockquote></div>