Posted on 02/11/2021 8:07:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
We are a nation of laws, including one prohibiting insurrection. A citizen charged with and arrested for the crime of inciting insurrection (a felony) in Washington, D.C. would be tried under Title 18 of the U.S. code, with insurrection punishable by a fine, a maximum sentence of ten years in prison, or both.
A sitting president can't be arrested for the crime of inciting insurrection; he can't be incarcerated and tried for any crime whatsoever, under a longstanding legal precedent against indicting a sitting president. Rather, he is charged (impeached) in the House, should our representatives want to remove him from office, and tried in the Senate, where he faces the punishment of removal from office only (no fine or jail sentence).
While some people were dying to see President Trump arrested and incarcerated, forget impeached and removed from office, that's not how things work in America. A president is protected from arrest and incarceration: the U.S. Department of Justice has long held that arrest and incarceration "would essentially incapacitate the executive branch, undermining its ability to 'perform its constitutionally assigned functions.'" Protecting a president makes perfect sense.
The House impeached Trump (Jan. 13) for inciting an insurrection (Jan. 6), though he left office (Jan. 20), removed by the Electoral College, following the destruction of election security measures by clever Democratic lawyers able to bypass state legislatures in battleground states. If the prosecution did not do a good job of proving their case yesterday (Feb. 10), if their argument, their evidence for inciting insurrection, was nonexistent, and it was, it wasn't for lack of trying.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It is indeed.
Not a Single Argument or piece of so called Evidence these Corrupt Quisling Congress Critters would ever be ALLOWED IN ANY COURT in America!!.. Any Lawyer that brought up crap like this would be Disbarred at the Least, most likely Jailed and Fined severely...
The word “incite” is too subjective. An angry, violence prone nut can easily get incited by any complaint about fraud or injustice. More accurate to say that urging someone to commit a crime or verbally helping its commission is not protected.
Maxine outright incited people in the crowd (and listening at home) to press for physical confrontations that could easily lead to violence.
Ted Cruz’s wife was surrounded at that restaurant as the mob got more and more agitated. Cruz said “God bless you. Please let her get through. God bless you.”
There is a difference between liberty and license.
Liberal minds are incapable of the sophisticated distinctions between those two.
You are free to drive a car. You are NOT free to drive a car 70 MPH onto a playground.
When you have between 500,000 and a million people there in DC for a protest...
And a few DOZEN -WALK , unarmed, into the Capitol as police stand aside...
It is NOT insurrection.
If we had wanted an insurrection, just imagine what half a million ARMED citizens would have done in DC.
Isn’t she precious....
Should now.
Should’ve then.
Didn’t then, and now this.
The corporate media incites the hate and division. They are not news organizations. They are acting like part of a political party. They lie, omit and distort the truth about American citizens. They can’t continue to hide behind the First Amendment while taking those rights from the rest of us. There must be some enterprising lawyers willing to go after the corporations that run the media. There are billions to be made representing the people.
Is Maxine a commie thug?
Is Maxine a commie thug?
Incitement has two participants - the “inciter” and the “inciteree”.
In order for the inciter to bear any responsibility for the action of an inciteree, the inciter must be a mind reader, or a svengali ie, he must know that a prticular word will cause the inciteree to go into action and destroy things or people.
This is a very slippery slope in today’s world where even the most common and innocuous word can be deemed a “micro aggression” and a trigger for some demented person to take action and have an alibi.
What a wonderful scheme for those who want to control every word you utter.
The responsibility for a crime should fall squarely on the person who ACTS to commit the crime.
The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. In the case, a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that "it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken." The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Selected Applications of the Brandenburg Test
The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Hess, an Indiana University protester said, “We’ll take the fucking street again” (or “later.”) The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court concluded that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”
In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied Brandenburg and found that the speech was protected: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.