He consistently accused the Dems of stealing the election and destroying the fabric of our democracy. Then tells his supporters to "fight like hell" and to "Stop the Steal." Then was caught on tape bullying an elected official into finding votes. This sort of verbiage being used is pretty clear incitement. Words have power, especially when someone in a position of influence uses them.
GDT: 11/3/20, Election Day, Donald J. Trump vs. Joseph R. Biden
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
- Status
He consistently accused the Dems of stealing the election and destroying the fabric of our democracy. Then tells his supporters to "fight like hell" and to "Stop the Steal." Then was caught on tape bullying an elected official into finding votes. This sort of verbiage being used is pretty clear incitement. Words have power, especially when someone in a position of influence uses them.
I'd be ok with that.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
"you'll never take back our country with weakness.... you have to be strong"
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
When it all came up about peacefully leaving
He would still claim that as long as he leaves and isn’t there a minute pass noon. He would have won if we had bet
So, to your example
Unless he said “storm the capitol. Kill them”
He will claim none of anything he’s done and said led to this happening
[tw]1348442018331172868[/tw]
Last edited:
tululush
New member
I can't wait until SturgSturg comes in and defend this.
Last edited:
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
You’ll find a equivalent one (in your eyes) to make ya feel about minimizing Last weeks insurrection
None of them will be similar to it
But that won’t stop ya
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
"But if bottom line is, the court is saying, 'We're not going to touch this. You have no remedy' -- basically, in effect, the ruling would be that you gotta go the streets and be as violent as Antifa and BLM."
Runnin
Well-known member
He should've added:
I'm a football coach and done NOTHING to deserve such an honor.
Receiving this award from this President would be a mark of shame.
I no longer support this President in any way and would like to forever wash my hands of him.
What he has done and is doing to our country will leave a permanent black stain upon it.
He should resign immediately and denounce any violence or terrorist activities carried out on his behalf.
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Let me ask, if all the things Trump claimed about election fraud was true. That he won in a massive landslide but has been stolen in a coup by Democrats, the media, and China in a giant conspiracy to destroy America. And he tells his followers to gather outside the Capitol. He tells them to go stop it. What is the logical conclusion. The logical conclusion by people who know he is full of **** and is feeding his ego but love Trump go and protest outside the capitol and maybe play some ironic rage against the machine music while dancing. The logical conclusion to a person who thinks Trump is literally sent by God and there is a giant conspiracy of satanic pedophiles is probably violence. Trump is 100% responsible for these peoples insane beliefs. He fed into it and then unleashed it on Congress. He groomed and conditioned them for violence. This is why everyone who went along with Trumps BS and refused to admit the emperor had no clothes are being blamed. Everyone who aided Trumps fake narrative of election fraud deserve blame. Al Gore thought he was screwed out of the Presidency. He conceded. Twice. To avoid dragging the country though that. Hillary thought she got screwed out of the Presidency by Russia interference. She conceded the night of the election. So Sturg can point to Democrats not being happy with the results all he wants but all challenges to the election were moot because the candidate conceded. If Trump had actually conceded when it was clear he lost this attack doesnt happen.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...cancelled-b1477876.html?utm_source=reddit.com
The warning signs....
The warning signs....
striker42
Well-known member
It's going to be very hard to put any criminal liability on Trump for what he said. There are major free speech implications. If he came out and said "Now go to the Capitol, break down the doors, drag the congressmen out, and make them reject the election!" Then you'd have something.
Saying things like "Show your strength" will be a hard sell to base a crime on.
The investigation would probably need to show Trump was having people organize the protestors to attack the Capitol. Absent that or something else we don't know about, he probably walks.
Saying things like "Show your strength" will be a hard sell to base a crime on.
The investigation would probably need to show Trump was having people organize the protestors to attack the Capitol. Absent that or something else we don't know about, he probably walks.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
there has to be a hereby in there otherwise it doesnt count
something like "i hereby incite you to storm the Capitol"
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The big lie. very poorly chosen one is the main architect of it. But many contributed and continue to do so even now. And ultimately those who buy into it are responsible as well no matter how feeble-minded they may be.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
yup...the standard was a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in which the parties say "we agree to collude"...without that there is "no proof"
Tapate50
Well-known member
It’s never enough
Criminally, you are probably correct. But what about in civil court? Do the victims and their families have legal recourse against a seditious POTUS that was instigating an angry mob (an angry mob that he helped organize by the way).
striker42
Well-known member
Civil is often the alternative to criminal due to the fact that proving facts in a civil case is often easier. Here the facts aren't in question. We know exactly what Trump said.
The test for whether Tumps words are protected by the first amendment is the same for civil or criminal. Either it's protected speech and he can't be touched civilly or criminally for it, or it's not protected and he's vulnerable to both.
The current test for determining if speech is protected by the first amendment is the Brandenburg test. This comes from the case Brandenburg v. Ohio. For speech to fall outside the first amendment it must 1) be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and 2) "likely to incite or produce such action". This is a pretty tough standard. Vague allusions to violence aren't generally going to be enough.
- Status