[FRIAM] incitement

[Robert J. Cordingley]

So textually analyze "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F>"! 


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 sore 
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/opinion/trump-celebrity-successors.html> 
still exists and we need to deter other wannabe autocrats from a repeat 
performance. It's not a laughing matter.

Robert

On 1/19/21 9:02 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210119/bb4c6dde/attachment.html>