[FRIAM] incitement

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Yeah, but I think there would be other remedies available if the Merrick Garland is willing to pursue them. I don't think a felony conviction would prevent him from running in 2024. But if he's still in jail, that would limit his rally attendance. Plus, I wouldn't mind seeing him run again, anyway. If we elect him a 2nd time, after 4 years of opportunity to fix the problems his presidency made clear, maybe our society deserves to die.

On 1/19/21 8:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> That his lack of caution arises from stupidity as much as it does from malice shouldn't give him any relief. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:03 AM
> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: [FRIAM] incitement
> 
> How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 linguists explain
> https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483
> 
> 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.

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ