Why the Department of Justice must indict Trump for inciting violence

[althecat]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by In_The_Wind (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

Today is a critical moment in US constitutional history.

If Trump wins tomorrow & becomes Republican nominee an army of quislings will assemble around his racist, mysogynistic violent platform.

Many will counsel that it is better to let him campaign and lose rather than use the full force of the law to try stop him.

But if a week is a long time in politics, then seven and a half months of hate rhetoric - backed by an army of quislings - is an an aeon.

If Trump is indicted it will at least slow him down. The people will have a clear steer that this is not an acceptable form of politics.

If Trump is indicted Police & Security Services will have a clear mandate to keep an eye on the evolution of his "political movement".

If Trump is indicted civil authority, civil society & civic leaders will have a shield of defence to use when they speak against this evil.

But if a blind eye is turned to Trump's violent rhetoric citing "politics" & "democracy" then his legions will claim immunity and run amok.

And this is why the US DOJ must #IndictTrump.

P.S. It has been a long time since i have posted here.. But this Trump situation is seriously getting out of hand. As some of you know I am an NZer and a news publisher. I am currently based in France and like everyone in the world watching what is happening in the US very closely. IMO a combination of #Brexit and Trump being a candidate in this election might dent global confidence sufficiently to trigger a second round of the global economic crisis.

[HereSince1628]

1. Not being a lawyer, I don't know the US code, is this something DOJ can do?

Seems like disorderly conduct, and it's encouragement is more a state and local thing.

My expectation is the anti-Trump protestors will be subject to crackdowns as much or more than Trump and his supporters.

[althecat]

6. Short answer is yes....

Short answer is yes....

From >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#The_decision

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. The majority opinion was per curiam (issued from the Court as an institution rather than as authored and signed by an individual justice). The earlier draft had originally been prepared by Justice Abe Fortas before he was forced to resign in the midst of an ethics scandal, and would have included a modified version of the clear and present danger test. In finalizing the draft, Justice Brennan eliminated all references to it, substituting instead the "imminent lawless action" language.[9] Justices Black and Douglas concurred separately.

From >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

"Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

The specific question has been considered by two newspapers so far that I can see.

NY Daily News - Senior Justice Correspondent Shaun King - KING: A history of Donald Trump inciting violence against protesters at his rallies and campaign events

&

Washington Post - The Fix: Could Donald Trump be held legally responsible for inciting violence at his rallies?

[libtodeath]

2. His rallies are little more then Klan meetings and are just as dangerous.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Here's why they can't:

For starters, there is no federal statute making "incitement" itself illegal, although there is a law against starting riots. 18 U.S. Code § 2101. The DoJ can't prosecute something that isn't illegal under federal law.

Also, even if there were such a law, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action." So, unless Trump says something that clearly urges people to commit acts of violence imminently, what he's been saying is protected speech. He'd basically have to tell a crowd in front of him at a rally to go out right now and beat up the protesters. He's hinted at it but he hasn't quite crossed that line. It would have to fall under the statute mentioned above that prohibits inciting a riot.

I am not defending him in any respect. I hate what he does, and something bad is sure to come from it. I'm only saying that a federal indictment isn't going to be the way to stop him.

[althecat]

7. But hasn't he done precisely this?

"directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

It seems to me he has done this on several occasions. From A The Washington Post Repot - which admittedly found a lawyer making the same argument as you

On Aug. 11 of last year, Donald Trump reacted to an incident in which Black Lives Matter protesters seized a microphone from Bernie Sanders. "That will never happen with me," he said. "I don't know if I'll do the fighting myself, or if other people will. It was a disgrace."

On Oct. 23, a Trump rally in Miami was consistently interrupted by protesters. Trump explained his strategy to the crowd. "See the first group, I was nice. Oh, take your time. The second group, I was pretty nice," he said. "The third group, I'll be a little more violent. And the fourth group, I'll say get the hell out of here!"

On Nov. 22, Trump responded to an incident in which a protester was roughed up by people at a rally. "Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing," Trump said. "I have a lot of fans, and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy who was a trouble-maker who was looking to make trouble."

On Dec. 12, the campaign began playing an announcement at the start of campaign rallies. "If a protester starts demonstrating in the area around you, please do not touch or harm the protester," an announcer states. "This is a peaceful rally." When it was played at a rally in Feb., a reporter noted that the audience laughed.

On Feb. 1 of this year, Trump says that his security team told him someone in the audience was preparing to throw tomatoes. "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them," he said. "Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees."

On Feb. 23, Trump spoke at a rally in Las Vegas and mentioned an incident with a protester. "Here's a guy, throwing punches, nasty as hell, screaming at everything else, when we're talking...," he said. "I'd like to punch him in the face, I tell ya."

He continued. "You know what I hate? There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches, we're not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks," Trump said. Later, he drew an analogy to waterboarding, which had come up in a debate.

"They said to me, 'What do you think of waterboarding?'," he said to the crowd, which was chanting "U-S-A!". "I said I think it’s great, but we don't go far enough. It’s true. We don't go far enough. We don't go far enough."

On Feb. 27, he criticized the slow reaction of police in ejecting protesters. "You see, in the good old days, law enforcement acted a lot quicker than this," he said. "A lot quicker. In the good old days, they’d rip him out of that seat so fast — but today, everybody’s politically correct."

On Wednesday, a protester being escorted out of a Trump rally was sucker-punched in the face by an audience member. This was not the first incident in which protesters had been physically attacked -- not even this month. At the Republican debate the following night, Trump was asked about incidents of violence at his rallies, and he blamed the protesters. At a press conference on Friday morning, Trump repeated the same argument he'd made in the past.

"He was swinging, he was hitting people, and the audience hit back," Trump said about an unspecified protester. "That's what we need more of." (A CBS reporter who follows the Trump campaign tweeted last night that he had "yet to see a single protester start swinging as Trump just said.&quot

There's a reason we've documented those comments in the way that we have. To a casual observer, it gives the impression of a candidate that is, at times, explicitly encouraging violence against protesters at his rallies. This is perhaps not every example; Trump has held many rallies and protesters appear at most. But it suggests a pattern to a lay person.

It seems to me that Trump has both called for violence and applauded it after it has occurred. Even Fox News has been having a go at him about it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. It would have to be very specific and immediate.

If, for example, at a rally he saw one of his goons roughing up protesters and he said something like, "Come on, get those guys!" that might qualify. So far most of his remarks have been expressing approval after-the-fact or expressed as if something happens, but not imminently inciting. The way things are going I expect he might cross that line, but so far he's just put a toe on it. If he actually encourages violence at the time, that's a whole 'nother thing.

[glinda]

10. +1

[pipoman]

4. As likely as a Hillary indictment (probably less likely)

[Waiting For Everyman]

5. We have free speech here.

It's meaningless if it only applies to speech we like; it protects speech we don't like, because everyone's speech is disliked by somebody somewhere.

As Thomas More said, you have to give the devil himself benefit of law, or you won't have it to defend yourself with either.

The more Trump is suppressed, the more he is the one with a grievance. Nobody has been significantly harmed as of yet. At this point (not that it couldn't change), I think people are hyperventilating about this too much.

The right has been propagandized with lies since 1980. They believe a lot of untrue things. The Trump phenomenon is more about that than it is about Trump, and that won't be undone quickly or easily. Suppressing Trump would make all those lies seem more true.

My opinion -- maybe down the road, if some laws are violated, but not now.

[althecat]

8. At law there are clear limits to free speech clearly defined by the Supreme Court

... and Donald Trump appears to be tramplng all over them. He has incited violence at his rallies on multiple occasions and it has occurred at his rallies by his supporters acting at his behest. His threats have also been broadcast on National TV over and over again. At the very very least he ought to be warned. Surely.

I know that in NZ if he did this he would be charged. I expect that is also the case in the UK, France, Germany etc. While the US is particularly attached to its version of freedom of speech there is a a specific exemption for speech calling for "imminent lawless action.

"Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

[Waiting For Everyman]

12. No

I see your reply to Velveteen Ocelot above, who explained it well.

Trump may cross the line but he hasn't yet. If you'll notice, not much has happened in the way of his supporters harming others. A couple of people were roughed up, but in a minor way considering how many people were there. A punch or two. Those people can file charges against those who hit them AND Trump if they choose. That would make sense. If they do, he may or may not be convicted.

As to inciting violence, Trump didn't tell those doing the assaulting to hit those protestors. Not that I'm aware of anyway. Just creating a climate is not usually enough.

What you suggest would not be appropriate at this point as I see it. If the Department of Justice thought they could charge him with something, they probably would.

But Trump also has lots of pretty good lawyers, so I'm not so sure that challenging him legally would be very effective.

[pdsimdars]

11. Agree, freedom of speech has its limits --

like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
You shouldn't be allowed to incite violence in a mob like he does, calling for people to punch others. Does he have no discretion? If not, he needs to learn some. Give him a little quiet time, an adult "time out", in a prison somewhere.

[althecat]

13. +1 Quite so :)

[In_The_Wind]

14. Locking

Statement of Purpose

A forum for general discussion of the Democratic presidential primaries.

[img][/img] You may wish to continue this discussion in GD.