5 ms·

Did Trump ever call on anyone to riot?

by _fq4v 6y ago

bufferout 6y ago
"Stand back and stand by" as spoken to a pseudo white-nationalist group.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Did Trump ever call on anyone to riot? Did he explicitly say “Go riot!”, or “Go forth and <enumeration of elements of some crime>.” Probably not. Did he say things which had the intent and effect of inciting riot and insurrection? I think the answer is pretty clearly yes.
- _fq4v 6y ago
  By that metric, I can point to many statements by many democrats, including the incoming Vice President, that 'directly incited' violence. This is a ridiculous standard. The double think is insane.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > By that metric, I can point to many statements by many democrats, including the incoming Vice President, that ‘directly incited’ violence. I don’t think you can, but, so what? > This is a ridiculous standard. It’s basically (stated informally, sure) the legal standard.
    - offby37years 6y ago
      > I don’t think you can, but, so what? https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1347574973972545536 https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1347574973972545536 https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080 https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080
      - kombucha111 6y ago
        Lol
- zaroth 6y ago
  I think there are a few problems with this theory. First, what Trump actually told the protestors on the 6th was to go peacefully. His plain language has been analyzed by qualified legal scholars and they conclude it does not meet the very high threshold of “fighting words”. [1] Second, as we can clearly see, the attacks on the capital were planned well in advance of Trump’s speech and therefore could not have been incited by that speech in the first place. Third, the violent protesters had already started breaching the capital while Trump was still speaking a mile away. So I think there are important facts on the ground that do not support the allegation that Trump’s speech on the 6th incited a spontaneous mob. I think you could argue that denial of the election result and false claims of election fraud — over many weeks and by many people including Trump — led in part to certain people to plan for violence on the 6th. The people that planned and executed the violence should be charged with crimes and face a jury of their peers. My understanding is that the laws against inciteful speech require the speech to result in imminent lawless action. If I listen to a podcast on Monday and decide to violently protest next week, the podcast would not be illegal speech. [1] - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/11/democrat-law-professor-no-trump-did-not-incite-the-capitol-mob-n2582935 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/11/democr...
  - vkou 6y ago
    > First, what Trump actually told the protestors on the 6th was to go peacefully. His plain language has been analyzed by qualified legal scholars and they conclude it does not meet the very high threshold of “fighting words”. [1] 1. Language doesn't have to be illegal for it to break Twitter's TOS. 2. Language requires context. When Michael Corleone says "I don't want anything to happen to him while my mother's alive" everyone listening to those words understand exactly what they mean - that his brother's a few weeks away from ending up with a bullet in his head. The context in this case has been weeks of crying from the rooftops about how the deep state is stealing the election from you, and that your boys should go to Capitol and do something about it. Meanwhile, your lawyer is shouting about how it's time for 'Trial by combat.'
    - zaroth 6y ago
      I think it’s totally clear that in the court of public opinion Trump is guilty of inciting the riot. In the context of a court of law, if we’re speaking about the actual limits of free speech in America, I think Trump’s speech does not meet the threshold. So I’m not trying to make a political point, but I think there’s an interesting legal discussion to really understand that just because violence happens after a speech, or in this case concomitant to a speech, there’s still a very high bar - very direct language that has to be used for that person to be guilty of incitement in a court of law. I completely agree it’s totally up to Twitter to decide to ban Trump from their platform. They likely don’t even have to give you a specific reason under their ToS. I wasn’t speaking about the Twitter ban in this case. Lastly, I’d agree completely that context matters. Interestingly, the context of Giuliani’s “trial by combat” statement was discussing some hypothetical investigation that was supposed to happen over the next 10 days that they were going to “stake their reputation” on; https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346847382768676864?s=20 https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346847382768676864?s=20 Again, this is a kind of statement that politicians make all the time, and is not illegal.
mhh__ 6y ago
Did Henry II call on anyone to kill Thomas Becket? https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-encourages-those-at-his-rally-to-march-to-the-capitol-99045445525 https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-encourages-those-at-his-... They went straight from his rally to Capitol hill. Ultimately his MO is edging very close to unacceptable and saying the right things to the right people to please his ego. IMO he should've been banned from Twitter on the spot after he retweeted a video of a gut shouting white power at a bunch of black people
- _fq4v 6y ago
  > They went straight from his rally to Capitol hill They went straight from his rally, where he asked them to 'cheer on the brave congressmen' fighting for them. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/01/06/dc-protests-capitol-riot-trump-supporters-electoral-college-stolen-election/6568305002/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/01/06/dc-protest... I'm so done. If I cannot live in a country where a politician, of any background, cannot call on their supporters to protest, I will do like my parents did and emigrate. I cannot believe this is going on in America. This is exactly why my parents left their country to come here. They thought people were free to talk and believe here, independent of the actions of others in their group. This is insanity at every level. I cannot believe I'm seeing Americans go along with it, and there's only one politician in the opposition party (Tulsi Gabbard) with any gumption to downright criticize it. > IMO he should've been banned from Twitter on the spot after he retweeted a video of a gut shouting white power at a bunch of black people Oh my goodness, this is such a farce. I remember that video, and you have to have super hearing to even decipher that. Without the transcript, I wouldn't even have heard it. He also took it down once people brought it up. In conclusion, I am stunned. Throughout his entire term and his entire 2016 campaign, he has not once called for violence, and yet I hear continuously how evil he is. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris calls for an uprising, Maxine waters to confront people wherever they go and not leave them in peace, Pelosi denies there is any rioting at all and refuses to condemn it, etc, and I am to believe that Donald Trump told people to vandalize the US capitol. Unlike all the politicians I mentioned above, the moment Trump heard about the violent breakins, he immediately told people to go home. That puts him on a wholly different moral playing field than Harris and Biden who took many days or weeks to even acknowledge the violence over the summer. I cannot believe this. I thought political speech was allowed in America.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Did Trump ever call on anyone to riot?

by _fq4v 6y ago

Did Trump ever call on anyone to riot?

bufferout 6y ago

"Stand back and stand by" as spoken to a pseudo white-nationalist group.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Did Trump ever call on anyone to riot? Did he explicitly say “Go riot!”, or “Go forth and <enumeration of elements of some crime>.” Probably not. Did he say things which had the intent and effect of inciting riot and insurrection? I think the answer is pretty clearly yes.

_fq4v 6y ago
By that metric, I can point to many statements by many democrats, including the incoming Vice President, that 'directly incited' violence. This is a ridiculous standard. The double think is insane.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > By that metric, I can point to many statements by many democrats, including the incoming Vice President, that ‘directly incited’ violence. I don’t think you can, but, so what? > This is a ridiculous standard. It’s basically (stated informally, sure) the legal standard.
  - offby37years 6y ago
    > I don’t think you can, but, so what? https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1347574973972545536 https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1347574973972545536 https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080 https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080
    - kombucha111 6y ago
      Lol
zaroth 6y ago
I think there are a few problems with this theory. First, what Trump actually told the protestors on the 6th was to go peacefully. His plain language has been analyzed by qualified legal scholars and they conclude it does not meet the very high threshold of “fighting words”. [1] Second, as we can clearly see, the attacks on the capital were planned well in advance of Trump’s speech and therefore could not have been incited by that speech in the first place. Third, the violent protesters had already started breaching the capital while Trump was still speaking a mile away. So I think there are important facts on the ground that do not support the allegation that Trump’s speech on the 6th incited a spontaneous mob. I think you could argue that denial of the election result and false claims of election fraud — over many weeks and by many people including Trump — led in part to certain people to plan for violence on the 6th. The people that planned and executed the violence should be charged with crimes and face a jury of their peers. My understanding is that the laws against inciteful speech require the speech to result in imminent lawless action. If I listen to a podcast on Monday and decide to violently protest next week, the podcast would not be illegal speech. [1] - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/11/democrat-law-professor-no-trump-did-not-incite-the-capitol-mob-n2582935 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/11/democr...
- vkou 6y ago
  > First, what Trump actually told the protestors on the 6th was to go peacefully. His plain language has been analyzed by qualified legal scholars and they conclude it does not meet the very high threshold of “fighting words”. [1] 1. Language doesn't have to be illegal for it to break Twitter's TOS. 2. Language requires context. When Michael Corleone says "I don't want anything to happen to him while my mother's alive" everyone listening to those words understand exactly what they mean - that his brother's a few weeks away from ending up with a bullet in his head. The context in this case has been weeks of crying from the rooftops about how the deep state is stealing the election from you, and that your boys should go to Capitol and do something about it. Meanwhile, your lawyer is shouting about how it's time for 'Trial by combat.'
  - zaroth 6y ago
    I think it’s totally clear that in the court of public opinion Trump is guilty of inciting the riot. In the context of a court of law, if we’re speaking about the actual limits of free speech in America, I think Trump’s speech does not meet the threshold. So I’m not trying to make a political point, but I think there’s an interesting legal discussion to really understand that just because violence happens after a speech, or in this case concomitant to a speech, there’s still a very high bar - very direct language that has to be used for that person to be guilty of incitement in a court of law. I completely agree it’s totally up to Twitter to decide to ban Trump from their platform. They likely don’t even have to give you a specific reason under their ToS. I wasn’t speaking about the Twitter ban in this case. Lastly, I’d agree completely that context matters. Interestingly, the context of Giuliani’s “trial by combat” statement was discussing some hypothetical investigation that was supposed to happen over the next 10 days that they were going to “stake their reputation” on; https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346847382768676864?s=20 https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346847382768676864?s=20 Again, this is a kind of statement that politicians make all the time, and is not illegal.

mhh__ 6y ago

Did Henry II call on anyone to kill Thomas Becket? https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-encourages-those-at-his-rally-to-march-to-the-capitol-99045445525 https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-encourages-those-at-his-... They went straight from his rally to Capitol hill. Ultimately his MO is edging very close to unacceptable and saying the right things to the right people to please his ego. IMO he should've been banned from Twitter on the spot after he retweeted a video of a gut shouting white power at a bunch of black people

_fq4v 6y ago
> They went straight from his rally to Capitol hill They went straight from his rally, where he asked them to 'cheer on the brave congressmen' fighting for them. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/01/06/dc-protests-capitol-riot-trump-supporters-electoral-college-stolen-election/6568305002/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/01/06/dc-protest... I'm so done. If I cannot live in a country where a politician, of any background, cannot call on their supporters to protest, I will do like my parents did and emigrate. I cannot believe this is going on in America. This is exactly why my parents left their country to come here. They thought people were free to talk and believe here, independent of the actions of others in their group. This is insanity at every level. I cannot believe I'm seeing Americans go along with it, and there's only one politician in the opposition party (Tulsi Gabbard) with any gumption to downright criticize it. > IMO he should've been banned from Twitter on the spot after he retweeted a video of a gut shouting white power at a bunch of black people Oh my goodness, this is such a farce. I remember that video, and you have to have super hearing to even decipher that. Without the transcript, I wouldn't even have heard it. He also took it down once people brought it up. In conclusion, I am stunned. Throughout his entire term and his entire 2016 campaign, he has not once called for violence, and yet I hear continuously how evil he is. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris calls for an uprising, Maxine waters to confront people wherever they go and not leave them in peace, Pelosi denies there is any rioting at all and refuses to condemn it, etc, and I am to believe that Donald Trump told people to vandalize the US capitol. Unlike all the politicians I mentioned above, the moment Trump heard about the violent breakins, he immediately told people to go home. That puts him on a wholly different moral playing field than Harris and Biden who took many days or weeks to even acknowledge the violence over the summer. I cannot believe this. I thought political speech was allowed in America.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]