Shows how stupid you are. Not that it is anything new.
Rand Paul floats impeaching Chuck Schumer
- Thread starter Sailor
- Start date
Shows how stupid you are. Not that it is anything new.
I do not understand how his CRA was misconstrued, his votes reflected he believed what he said.
I’ve always thought the older was more true to his convictions than the younger.
And all the others before them since 1619.
Why do you make yourself look so stupid?
Not even close if you are talking about criminal prosecution. The things that happened this summer were not an immediate result of their speech. Those riots went on for days and weeks. I think that would have happened without Schumer, Booker, or Waters.
There has to be an crowd who is stirred by an emotional speech urging violent action that immediately leads to violence. You almost have to prove the violence would not have occurred had that person not urged them to do so.
Approval of an action does not constitute a crime or incitement. The person needs to be present to arouse emotions enough to follow his exhortations. It is not speech somebody made on TV three days ago.
Trump's case is closer to incitement since the crowd went directly from his speech to the Capitol. But, it would be difficult to show his speech caused the violence to occur; especially since FBI reports now reveal a lot of evidence planning had been occurring the days previous to the attack.
Those riots went on for months and are continuing on today (against democrats.Go figure). Of course democrats incited them. Their rhetoric, their approval, their refusal to stop them. They called for it and let it happen. There is no denying any of that. None. Zero.
His continually stoking the fires with the stolen election rhetoric can’t be considered, what about his call to come to the Capitol, it’s going to be wild?
All democrats started riots dumb fuck. And let them happen. Get your head out of your ass and try to get some oxygen.
That was my point. To be charged with incitement to riot the person's speech had to lead to immediate violence. That does not apply to something that happens two months from now. Rhetoric, approval, and refusal to stop them are not elements of that crime.
If you use that criteria Trump is also guilty. But neither Trump or the Democrats can be prosecuted for incitement.
It did. They inflamed them. And I disagree about the democrats. We will agree to disagree on this one Flash.
Sure, he obviously set the stage even before the election and then making charges about fraud that he called "rumors" and then led his followers to believe he could still win even after the electoral votes were cast December 14. But it is hard to prove he caused the riot to occur. Many came prepared with protective gear and some weapons.
Of course, this is not a criminal prosecution and the Senate does not have to meet that standard to convict him.
But there was no imminent violence due to their speech. It did not come until later and the speakers were not even present in most cases. I'm just citing the law on incitement as interpreted from previous cases as I understand it.
Can you prove whether Waters, Shumer, or Booker's speech incited the riot? You can't prove it was all three. Their speech had to immediately result in the riot---not some future time.
This is the part that is hard to prove: "the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)."
"First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)"
I not as acquainted with the law as yourself, but I just see Trump stoking the fires till that moment when it exploded.
There is nothing in the Brandenburg test that says anything about imminent or immediately. But it does show that democrats met it. No need for me to prove it. There is plenty of video and media sources that show that.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agree to disagree on his comments.
Agreed older was more true. Rand definitely sold his soul to Trumpism.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. Regardless, he'll walk like OJ. I'd like to see the criminal side of this being approached. Can Trump or anyone working for him who coordinated the rally be held criminally and/or civilly liable? Since Trump worked very hard for pardons for himself and adult children, I think he knows they can.
Should be a fun next five years as this melodrama plays out in the media and the courts.
All the video showed is that the riots occurred. You can't prove it was caused by any individual(s) with their speech.
Brandenburg does require imminent action:
"First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)
I think free speech is much broader than you suggest. For example, you can advocate anything. I can say I favor the overthrow of the U. S. government by violent revolution. That is protected speech. And, even if somebody who hears me goes out tomorrow and tries to overturn the government I could not be charged with inciting a riot because it does not meet several of the elements of Brandenburg.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Not a lawyer, but how does that square with screaming "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater which induces a panic with injuries?
Do you think any of the adult Trump kids who were personally involved in the planning of the rally including coordinating with certain pro-Trump groups can be held criminally or civilly liable?
You make some good points. And I will stand by my view that democrats met all three. The only issue which would not be hard to prove is when they said compared to when riots happened or got worse. As a matter of fact a good lawyer could make the case that their inaction to stop the riots and allowing them to continue and get worse would fit the second part perfectly. The first and third there is no doubt.