5 ms·

“Everyone” collectively knowing someone incited violence unequivocally is very different than proving, in a court of law, that said person incited violence. As

“Everyone” collectively knowing someone incited violence unequivocally is very different than proving, in a court of law, that said person incited violence. As another commented, it’s actually really difficult to do because you must prove intent and state of mind. It’s part of why I’m surprised that’s the only charge on the impeachment, despite there being a potentially more clear cut issue, legal wise, that happened the weekend before (call with Georgia election officials).

LiquidSky 6y ago
That actually is referenced in the full text of the impeachment resolution[1]: "President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so." https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolutio...
dragonwriter 6y ago
> “Everyone” collectively knowing someone incited violence unequivocally is very different than proving, in a court of law, that said person incited violence. As another commented, it’s actually really difficult to do because you must prove intent and state of mind. It’s part of why I’m surprised that’s the only charge on the impeachment, despite there being a potentially more clear cut issue, legal wise, that happened the weekend before (call with Georgia election officials). Impeachment may be shaped like legal process, and the final act may be called a “trial” and supervised by the Cheif Justice, but its a political process, and the difficulty of proving things “in a court of law” is pretty much irrelevant except to the extent that comparisons to a court of law may be provide political rationalizations for actions in the impeachment or trial process. (IIRC, one version of the bill of impeachment had a second article related to Abuse of Power with regard to the Georgia election call, but that was eliminated in favor of making the issues regarding the call part of the context for the insurrection charge, rather than a separate charge.)
nobody9999 6y ago
>Everyone” collectively knowing someone incited violence unequivocally is very different than proving, in a court of law, Proving criminal liability is not required[0] in an impeachment trial. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25786125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25786125
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  Yeah, I agree that usually it wouldn’t matter as impeachment trials are not held to the same standards, but a senator could argue a similar angle though. It only takes one charge to convict, so I don’t understand why one wouldn’t one more options, not less.

LiquidSky 6y ago

That actually is referenced in the full text of the impeachment resolution[1]: "President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so." https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolutio...

dragonwriter 6y ago

> “Everyone” collectively knowing someone incited violence unequivocally is very different than proving, in a court of law, that said person incited violence. As another commented, it’s actually really difficult to do because you must prove intent and state of mind. It’s part of why I’m surprised that’s the only charge on the impeachment, despite there being a potentially more clear cut issue, legal wise, that happened the weekend before (call with Georgia election officials). Impeachment may be shaped like legal process, and the final act may be called a “trial” and supervised by the Cheif Justice, but its a political process, and the difficulty of proving things “in a court of law” is pretty much irrelevant except to the extent that comparisons to a court of law may be provide political rationalizations for actions in the impeachment or trial process. (IIRC, one version of the bill of impeachment had a second article related to Abuse of Power with regard to the Georgia election call, but that was eliminated in favor of making the issues regarding the call part of the context for the insurrection charge, rather than a separate charge.)

nobody9999 6y ago

>Everyone” collectively knowing someone incited violence unequivocally is very different than proving, in a court of law, Proving criminal liability is not required[0] in an impeachment trial. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25786125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25786125

jsjohnst 6y ago
Yeah, I agree that usually it wouldn’t matter as impeachment trials are not held to the same standards, but a senator could argue a similar angle though. It only takes one charge to convict, so I don’t understand why one wouldn’t one more options, not less.