[FRIAM] incitement

[Eric Charles]

I find the Legal Eagle youtube channel highly insightful. His coverage in
this case matched my intuition. Trump would almost certainly not be
convicted of incitement in court, based on the language he used. However,
that has nothing to do with an impeachment proceedings. In this case an
"originalist" court should be squarely on your side. "High crimes and
misdemeanors", in its original intent, was very broad, and clearly covers
situations such as this one.

<echarles at american.edu>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwqAInN9HWI



On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nice, Robert!  I am glad to know all of that.  N
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Robert J.
> Cordingley
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:14 PM
> *To:* uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <gepropella at gmail.com>; The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] incitement
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210119/8071a06e/attachment.html>