<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>So textually analyze "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F">will
no one rid me of this turbulent priest</a>"! <br>
</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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/opinion/trump-celebrity-successors.html">sore</a>
still exists and we need to deter other wannabe autocrats from a
repeat performance. It's not a laughing matter.<br>
</p>
<p>Robert<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/19/21 9:02 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:62c35a60-b332-1373-7e68-50fc0bd80c3e@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 linguists explain
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483">https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483</a>
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>