people focus way too much on intent, e.g., whether or not donnie meant to incite a riot

[unblock]

for some things, certainly, intent matters. for instance, in a criminal trial where the charge involves intent, fine. there's certainly a difference between pre-meditated, intentional murder and negligent homicide.

but for many things in life, intent really doesn't matter that much. the effect is what counts, not what's going on inside someone else's brain. if your romantic relationship is toxic, if your boss treats you horrible, if your landlord behaves like a jerk, often it really doesn't matter why. maybe it does if you can use that information to change their ways, but people are notoriously resistant to that sort of thing. in the end, what matters is the relationship sucks, you just need to get out and find a better situation.


so it is with donnie and impeachment. really, it doesn't matter what donnie intended or if he really meant to incite a riot or if he really didn't want anyone to get hurt or killed. the fact is that he did some things that led to a mob storming the seat of government and killing a number of people in an effort to overturn an election.

impeachment is not a criminal trial. the wording in the constitution is perhaps unfortunate. it's really just a jobs review panel evaluating whether or not a person should be fired and possibly never hired again.

intent really doesn't make much of a difference. in the end, whether a federal officer abuses, neglects, or misuses their office out of ignorance, stupidity, malice, or accident, it hardly matters. regardless, they're not suited for the job. they need to go and not be hired again.


hypothetically, (and who knew we'd make it through 4 years without this one happening) if donnie momentarily forgot which button in his office summons a diet coke and which button send nukes to russia, honestly, no one should really care why he started a nuclear war. honest accident? who gives a crap. fire him and keep him away from any damn buttons.


so when republicans defend donnie by insisting the mob escalated things on their own, that things got out of hand, just tell them, who cares. it really doesn't matter. donnie gave them motivation and a sense of righteous anger, a time and a location, and a purpose. whether or not he's too stupid to realize that would lead to an attempted coup, or whether or not he just "forgot" to mention, please don't break any laws and please don't hurt people, who cares.

the fact is, he caused the situation, and he can't be trusted to be in a position to do anything like that again, even if by accident.




of course, it totally was on purpose, absolutely, i mean, gimme a break. but the point is, we don't need to prove that. he caused the whole situation and that's needed to reach the conclusion that he should be barred from holding office ever again.

[riversedge]

1. and remember. Didn't it take about 2 hours before he called out the Nat. Guard??

[csziggy]

21. He never did - Pence called out the National Guard

I suspect Pence was pissed when the insurgents were calling for Pence to be hung and decided, "Fuck it, I'm going around the mango menace to stop this!"

[Walleye]

2. He certainly intended a major obstruction of the legislative branch doing its work

[global1]

3. What Amazes Me Is How Far His Big Lie Got Him.....

it was conceived as a con and it was nurture for months by Trump constantly fueling the fire and it resulted in the storming of the Capitol; a near successful coup and people being injured and dying as a result.

[unblock]

16. scary how gullible the right-wing masses are. they'll believe anything.

somehow democrats are so good at election-stealing we stole it from donnie without leaving a trace of evidence, yet we still managed to lose seats in the house on the same ballots we rigged for biden.

so completely implausible and yet a big majority of republicans believe that, including plenty who are so convinced by that they were willing to kill or die and go to prison over what the rest of us know is a completely made up piece of b.s.

[choie]

4. Agreed.

The responsibility of the president is to keep us safe, not to put us in danger.

[Stallion]

5. Hadn't Noticed but Incitement to Insurrection Contains No Mens Rea or State of Mind Element

98% of federal and state statutes generally require a statutory mens rea (such as knowingly, intentionally or negligently) but this one just talks about engaging in such conduct-looks like you made a great legal point although I instinctively thought otherwise as an attorney (civil not criminal). I think there may be a general state of mind requirement to all illegal conduct but threshold appears low in this case

mens rea means the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

18 USC Sec. 2383
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

We may be hearing more about this point in coming weeks


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

[unblock]

8. Interesting that it's not even needed for the criminal charge.

Makes their argument about intent all the more of a red herring.

[coti]

24. It may be that the case law breaks it down further into elements

that would include mens rea.

[Raven123]

6. And Trump was warned by GA election official that he was inciting violence

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Good Point

K&R

[gratuitous]

9. Luckily we have the testimony of the rioters

In real time, I recall reporters talking to the rioters as they went up Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol Building that a lot of them thought Trump was walking up the street with them, maybe even leading the charge. It's understandable why some of them would think that, since Trump himself said he'd march with them on the Capital just minutes before. There's an indisputable bright line from Trump's speech stirring up the crowd and the crowd's actions directly afterwards.

And that doesn't even touch on some of the other inflammatory rhetoric that day, like Giuliani thundering "Why don't we have trial by combat?!" Judging by the immediate reaction of the crowd, they weren't parsing the statements for nuance or metaphorical meanings. They heard clear orders from their heroes, and they acted on those orders.

[AntiFascist]

10. I also don't understand why there isn't more focus on what Giuliani said...

as Trump's lawyer speaking at his "Save America" rally on Jan. 6th, that should be considered a direct cause and effect. "Let's have trial by combat!", and they did!

[bdamomma]

15. There were more

inciters, Jr, Cruz, Hawley, and more. They should all be held accountable.

[kentuck]

11. Why would his lawyers make that argument?

That he did not "intend" to incite violence?

If "intent" is the criteria for judging his guilt, then he is guilty as sin. Of course there was intent?

What was his "intent" when he invited them to Washington for a "wild" time?

What was his "intent" when he told them to march down to the Capitol and to be "strong"?

What was his "intent" in lying to them about election fraud and how he won in a landslide?

What was his "intent" when he sat by the TV, gleefully watching the show, and wondering why others were not applauding all his people storming our Capitol?

What was his "intent" when several people were calling him, including McCarthy, to beg for help and he ignored them. (Until "someone" persuaded him he could be criminally liable)

It seems like his lawyers have a very weak argument in regards to "intent".

[unblock]

13. not sure about his lawyers, but there certainly others argue that he's not responsible for the mob

bin laden was less involved in 9/11 than donnie was in the insurrection but no one seemed to be bothered by that.

you don't have to spell out every last detail to be responsible for something.

[robertpaulsen]

12. So if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and you don't intend to get people trampled to death ...

but they end up getting trampled to death anyway, (even if they carry a flag that says 'don't tread on me') the 1st Amendment doesn't protect you and you could still be held liable and/or prosecuted?

[unblock]

14. well, someone like that certainly shouldn't be president lol!

[0rganism]

17. i think casting this as a "trial" obscures the "performance review" angle

Last edited Tue Feb 2, 2021, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)

i'd prefer the senate proceedings were viewed in more of a "post-mortem review" light, as there are no criminal penalties associated with the impeachment's removal from office. the penalty of being unable to hold future office is far more in line with a performance review than a criminal conviction.

if the public looked at it thusly, the whole wagon of "intent" and "beyond reasonable doubt" crap could go away. instead, we're force-fed "senate trial" rhetoric, allowing Donny&friends to cosplay criminal trial rules.

[unblock]

18. yes. the constitution is a marvelous document, but i think this is one of its subtle mistakes

i think they should have avoided judicial words like "trial" and "conviction".

they should have called it a hearing or a performance review or a recall process and the result would simply be removal and possible bar from future office.

[struggle4progress]

20. We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our acts

[coti]

23. What he intended- and quite obviously- was to overturn the will of the voters

That's sedition in itself, with his countless clear statements that he wouldn't follow the results of the election, and within the context of the Capitol invasion it's also incitement of insurrection.