[FRIAM] incitement

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

IDK. If the article of impeachment had focused on "failed to protect the constitution", then I'd buy it. He did fail, particularly in rhetorical attacks on the election, inciting Pence to interfere in the EC count, not calling out the Guard to help the police, etc.

But that's not the gist of the accusation. If we follow Marcus' lead and widen it all the way out to politics, then it's fine. But if we get all persnickety about "high crime", then we're inviting others to get all persnickety about whatever it is they want to get persnickety about.

It's either a legal proceeding or a (purely) political one. Any sophistry in between should be seen clearly.

On 1/19/21 10:49 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> I think this is right, Nick, and think I have seen lawyers comment just to this effect either in print or on video.
> 
> One need not have committed a criminal offense to be held to have committed a “high crime”.
> 
>> On Jan 19, 2021, at 1:46 PM, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I think of "high" crimes and misdemeanors as those that only a person of lofty office can commit.  So violation of an oath of "high" office is a High Crime.  I don't know if that interpretation has any basis in history.  But the plain text of the constitution seems to suggest it: "...bribery and OTHER high crimes and misdemeanors..."  So, I see the impeachment passage in the constitution as setting out vulnerabilities of high office */_in addition to_/* those that ordinary citizens endure. 

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ