Read on Twitter
So here's the thing about Graham's "we'll bring in the FBI" argument. He's apparently trying to make the argument that if the FBI came in, they'd testify that people were already planning on storming the Capitol, so Trump didn't incite them.
Except that only really works tmk ...
Except that only really works tmk ...
if Trump KNEW this. However, if he saw a bunch of angry people & said "go storm the Capitol" & then they did, from HIS perspective he didn't know they were already planning that, & so his subjective intent was still to incite a riot.
Now, in the CRIMINAL law, there's still a ...
Now, in the CRIMINAL law, there's still a ...
causality issue, & a clever defense attorney could argue that this is akin to a homeless guy yelling at a falling meteor "hit that building" & then being blamed when it hit the building. For a hypothetical example, let's look at the DC Sniper.
The Sniper shot people at gas ...
The Sniper shot people at gas ...
stations from a distance. So let's imagine that he sees a man standing next to a car at a gas station. The man is reaching into his trunk, but the Sniper can't tell what he's looking at. He shoots the man.
It later is discovered that the man he shot was in the process of ...
It later is discovered that the man he shot was in the process of ...
strangling someone he had tied up in the trunk & would've killed them if he wasn't shot. Was the Sniper's shooting of him justified? HE didn't know that. HE just thought he was shooting a dude at a gas station.
It's not a 1:1 comparison to causality, but it does illustrate ...
It's not a 1:1 comparison to causality, but it does illustrate ...
the importance of subjective intent in criminal law. If I see a bunch of armed men walking towards my neighbor's house & I yell at them "go kill that lady she kills puppies" & they do, do I skate if, unbeknownst to me, they were already planning to kill her?
In a CRIMINAL case, the answer is maybe, at least if the charge is pure incitement. If' it's aiding & abetting or attempted incitement or something like that, my chances are probably lower. But I'm not a criminal lawyer, so don't take my word for it. My professional legal ...
advice is, don't yell at people to do crimes. It's just a bad idea.
But this isn't a criminal case. This is an impeachment. The burden of proof isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's "do we think he did something bad enough to impeach him for." We went through this with the ...
But this isn't a criminal case. This is an impeachment. The burden of proof isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's "do we think he did something bad enough to impeach him for." We went through this with the ...
first impeachment, where all the Trumpers were shouting about "well what CRIME under the FEDERAL PENAL CODE did he commit" knowing full well that impeachment wasn't limited to criminal law. So I'm not going to go into that again.
The reason I mention this is to say, look, ...
The reason I mention this is to say, look, ...
even if we WERE looking at the Penal Code, he'd probably be guilty of something, so as long as the impeachment standard is ANYTHING less strict than that, he's impeachable, & all this argument over causality is just them throwing mud in the air.
So whenever you hear one of those arguments, don't worry about looking up the elements of incitement under the federal criminal law. Don't wait for another lawyer to make a point-by-point counterargument. Just apply the wise words of a great legal mind.
(And if I'm wrong about incitement & causality under the criminal law please correct me. As I said, not a criminal lawyer.) @greg_doucette
