MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:50 pm
However, my issue isn't with 'losing' due to jury nullification, it's that the incitement to violence is a necessarily high bar. Maybe it shouldn't be so high, that's arguable, but if I'm not mistaken there's a fair amount of legal precedence that may make it difficult for the courts to go there.
But my real issue has been that I'd like us to avoid "political" prosecutions from the DOJ if we can possibly help it. Very slippery slope.
Maybe this situation will have no other recourse, maybe this is SO egregious there's no other choice, but I am concerned about the unintended downstream consequences.
There is a tension between the first amendment and criminal activity, but that is true anytime you try to prove a crime with someone’s words. When the mafia boss says “take care of him,” the prosecutor may introduce evidence of surrounding circumstances, get testimony from mob members, etc. to prove the boss’ real meaning.
Obviously a lot more investigation will be needed here, but I would think the prosecutors will be able to find evidence from people who say T**** meant for the mob to enter the Capitol building and confront and force members of Congress to approve objections to the electoral college votes. Some or most of that activity necessarily implies force. There is no other way to enter the building but by force. There is no other way to get members of Congress to vote a certain way (under these circumstances) except by force.
But in any event, I don’t think you need to allege or prove violence to prove insurrection. While insurrection ordinarily contemplates some measure of violence, I don’t think it absolutely is essential. Or the amount of violence may be minimal.
Sure, the case is defensible. But I think any reasonable person knows what happened here was a serious criminal wrong, and that T**** was behind it.
Potentially very damaging evidence against him would be testimony from those at the White House who (reports are) saw him reacting gleefully to the violence on TV.
The media is accumulating a lot of other statements he has made in the past few months, many of which are relevant.
If a president who incites a crowd to enter the Capitol building to interrupt and overturn the process by which a validly elected president is approved by Congress shouldn’t be held criminally liable, then what citizen in this country should be criminally charged for anything?
I hear you, and agree in concept, about avoiding political prosecutions. Again, though, if inciting the overthrow of the government isn’t prosecutable, what is?
I’m not sure what downstream unintended consequences you are thinking about. I assume you mean harmful consequences that would outweigh the damage to the country of not prosecuting T****. We can never foresee everything that might happen in the future. We have to make decisions with the information we have at present.
Right now, the right thing to do is to prosecute T**** for attempting to overthrow the government. It may take some time for that to really sink in since it has never happened in this country’s history in exactly this way. Not even in the Civil War.
But that is, in fact, what happened. The sitting president, in an attempt to retain power, incited a mob to physically interfere with Congress’ formal approval of the election results. That’s sedition, pure and simple. That is what the history books will say 50, 100 years from now.
So, do you let the guy walk or do we prosecute him? I say we prosecute him. If a jury of his peers lets him walk, that will be a dark day indeed for the country, but that will be the judgment of our judicial system, and the country will survive.