The impeachment case against Trump comes down to this one question

[DonViejo]

Feb. 12, 2021, 9:18 AM EST

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Carrie Dann and Melissa Holzberg

WASHINGTON — The last three days of arguments by the Democratic impeachment managers boil down to this simple question: Is political violence — in support of a president, provoked by a president, never vociferously condemned by a president — ever acceptable in a democracy?

As it turns out, we were asking this very question five years ago during the 2016 GOP presidential race.

“We love American politics because of its excitement, its unpredictability, and its clash of ideas and policies. But we’ve never seen this in our lifetimes until now — when politics becomes scary,” said our March 14, 2016 newsletter. “And that has been the overarching political story over the past 96 hours, as Donald Trump rallies have featured sucker punches, scuffles, unrest, and even a protester trying to jump on the stage.”

And here was our colleague Benjy Sarlin’s story just two days later: “Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that his supporters would respond with ‘riots’ if he fails to secure the nomination at July’s convention in Cleveland. ‘I think you’d have riots,’ Trump told CNN on Wednesday. ‘I think you’d have riots. I’m representing a tremendous many, many millions of people.’”

In the end, fights at rallies and threats of “riots” became acceptable to most of Trump’s voters and allies.

more
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/impeachment-case-against-trump-comes-down-one-question-n1257610

[Ninga]

1. Welp, and yep. Indeed he threatened "riots" if he didn't win the 2016 nomination. His people

after all loved him that much, that they would riot.
But hey, her emails.

[marble falls]

2. Simpler than that: Did he or did he not set the insurection off intentionally?

[UpInArms]

3. He inflamed them, he summoned them

And he pointed them at his target.

End of story.

[marble falls]

5. Sold me. Guilty as sin.

[Pantagruel]

4. Better question

If that wasn't a POTUS inciting to riot, please describe what would be.
Must we wait for a POTUS leading the charge up the Capitol steps wielding a pitchfork?

[andym]

6. They are not very logical-- they pose the question as one about violence provoked by a President

and then talk about incidents where a candidate (not a President) 5 years ago talked about possible riots on his behalf. A candidate is never held to the same standard as an elected official such as the President himself. Sure the behavior that led to the insurrection was foreshadowed, but the real question is whether a President is allowed to lie about elections he lost and then incite his followers to not only riot, but to mount an insurrection to stop Congress from performing its constitutional duty to certify a Presidential election, and then potentially murder Congresspeople, officials, even the VP, who stood in their way.