[FRIAM] incitement

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

You didn't quite steelman me, Glen.  I begged the question of whether his crimes met the legal definition of incitement, but urged that he be tried on crimes amounting to neglect of due diligence.  If you drive in such a way that people are likely to be hit and then fail to stop when you hit somebody you can be done for negligent homicide and leaving the scene.  

Nick 

Nick Thompson
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:58 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

I suppose all 3 positions (Marcus, Eric, and Nick) argue that impeachment isn't really a legal proceeding, but a democratic one ... representative democracy, however far removed. I've often argued that it's reasonable that lawyers be elected to Congress. The purpose of Congress is argumentation. And lawyers are the closest we have to professional arguers. But, I suppose I'm changing my mind about that. Congress might be legislative, but it's not about arguing (at least not anymore). Their "debates" seem mostly granstanding. And the "deals" that turn into legislation are done more by what looks like beating the pavement ... lots of "arguing" in semi-private, I guess. But not in the sense of rational debate and consideration of consequences. That all happens in the courts.

So we go back to populism. It strikes me as a populist sentiment that Trump is guilty of incitement (and populist sentiment that he's an "outsider" "fighting the deep state"). And I'm left with the question: What's the difference between democracy and populism? Yeah, I know populism is cartooned as requiring a belief in the "corrupt elite". But is democracy really only a well-formed populism?

If it's not the *letter* of some law that convicts or acquits Trump, then what method should be used? "My noisiest constituents want me to [convict|acquit]"?

On 1/19/21 8:29 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> I am concerned that the present article of impeachment relies on the concept of incitement, which has, I am told, a very specific and narrow definition in federal law.  Now I recognize that violation of federal law is not required for impeachment.  However, I would hope that, just to be sure, we would add the charges of “reckless disregard” during the Ellipse speech and "dereliction of duty to protect” during the later stages of the riot itself.  Neither charge requires the establishment of criminal intent.  It is as if he drove down a crowded walking street at high speed and then failed to stop to give aid when he heard a bunch of thumps on his fenders.  Sure he was late for a dentist appointment; what difference does that make?

On 1/19/21 8:21 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> That does raise a certain question of law, however (not goal, just method and framing).  If you don’t plan ahead for destruction because you are unconcerned whether actions you take might cause it, it seems that shouldn’t be _less_ of a wrongdoing than having incited intentionally.  Since the Richie Ramirez thing appears to be back in the pop consciousness just now (I remember the evening news cycle when I was a boy and that was all going down), we can probably say there is precedent that sociopaths don’t get indemnity.
> 
>> On Jan 19, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>>
>> That his lack of caution arises from stupidity as much as it does from malice shouldn't give him any relief. 


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/