• Two Truths, a Question and the Problem with Incitement

    January 14, 2022

    Tags: , , , , , ,
    Posted in: Democracy, Trump

    One truth is the 2020 campaign never really ended. On paper Joe Biden became president and Donald Trump became a real estate developer again, but in reality Biden is simply a placeholder and Trump an active candidate for the presidency in 2024.

    A second truth is in the law, unlike in propaganda and journalism as it is practiced today, words have very precise and specific meanings. Terms like assault, for example are well-defined by decades of case law. You can write gobbledy guck about things like a “verbal microaggressive assault” but that’s just for the rubes; don’t expect the case to make it to court. The same for terms like incitement, hate speech, and conspiracy. Never mind terrorism, treason or sedition.

    The question is: after five years of failed, false accusations against Trump (Russiagate on down), how valid of an election strategy is it to twist vernacular definitions into quasi-legal ones? After so many instances of crying wolf (walls closing in, tick tock, etc,) will doing it all again over the events of January 6 actually win votes for the Democratic candidate, or will voters finally realize the Emperor’s arguments about Trump have no clothing and stay home?


    Absent some Pearl Harbor-scale event, it is difficult to see what the Dems can run on in 2024. It is unlikely the Democrats will emerge from the 2022 midterms with a new majority, meaning all of their domestic agenda promises are shot. They are likely to lose the battle over Roe, and accomplish little on immigration other than the half-arsed decision to stop enforcing immigration law on the southern border. Even if Mother Nature casts a vote and cleans up Covid somehow, it will be difficult for Democrats to take much credit. They have no clear plan for unfutzing the economy and any progress made will be seen as catch-up at best. Tearing down statues and appointing transpeople only goes so far.

    Their whole strategy for 2024 is to make people believe Trump tried to overthrow the Constitution on January 6, and having failed sulk away to embrace the electoral process and just run for president again. It’s a tough ask. Propaganda/journalism have failed to sway many minds. To succeed it’s going to require something real, an actual court finding Trump actually guilty of an actual crime that meets the expectations set after flinging around words like treason and sedition. Some goofy tax problem in a New York state court or empty process crimes like “conspiracy to…” which dragged the Russiagate mess, will not be enough.

    The issue? In the law, unlike in propaganda and journalism as it is practiced today, words have very precise and specific meanings. Problem One is there was no coup. Presided over by Trump non-accomplice Mike Pence, Congress did its job. Biden took office. Trump went home. The rioters went home. After a year of efforts none of the 700 some prosecutions have been for anything close to sedition or treason, mostly just fluffy versions of trespassing. None claimed they acted on orders from Trump, Don Jr. or the Pillow Guy. Despite all the over-blown Powerpoints and texts, there was no realistic path toward a coup taking place. That is a very high bar to climb over and prove something serious like treason. You need a fire to prove arson.

    So the Dems and media are left with some lawyering to do, in their minds the equivalent of taking down Al Capone on tax violations. The problem is Capone really did fail to pay taxes. Trump’s actions were instead legal under the First Amendment. The smoking gun can’t have been loaded with blanks.


    So the focus ends up on the one thing Trump actually did do on January 6, speak at the Stop the Steal rally. Dems argue his words constitute incitement. You can reread them, but it would be more productive to spend some time learning what actually is and is not incitement.

    A democracy can’t lock up everyone who stirs up a crowd. Speech which inspires, motivates or stirs up the blood cannot be illegal as it is the very stuff of democracy. Trump thought the election was unfair and had a Constitutional right to say so. Democracy could not exist if the law held every speaker responsible for whatever people who heard him talk did later. A finer line was needed.
    The first try at restricting “dangerous speech” was Schenck v. United States, which produced the misunderstood line about not shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre. It would be for the later case of Brandenburg v. Ohio to refine the modern standard for restricting speech. It tightened the criteria to 1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; 2) the speaker intends their speech will result in the use of violence or lawless action, and 3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action is the likely result of the speech. Brandenburg is the Supreme Court’s statement on what government may do about speech that seeks to incite others to lawless action.

    The key to Brandenburg is intent. You have to prove, not just speculate, the speaker wanted to cause violence. A hostile reaction of a crowd does not automatically transform protected speech into incitement. Listeners’ reaction to speech is thus not alone a basis for regulation, or for taking action against a speaker. The speaker had to clearly want to cause some specific illegal act. You need to prove Trump wanted the crowd to attack the Capitol (he instead tells them to walk there and cheer on the legislators “who do the right thing” and “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”) and set out to find the words to make that happen.

    In the 1982 Claiborne v. NAACP the Court ruled civil rights leaders were not responsible for a crowd which, after hearing them speak, burned down a white man’s store. The state’s argument, rejected by the Court, was that no matter how they disguised their codewords and dog whistles, the leaders just knew their inflammatory rhetoric would drive the crowd to violence. Nope, said the Court, the standard is simple, the actual words spoken.

    The law is similar for sedition, seeking to overthrow the government by force. This is intimately tied to the concept of free speech in that any true attempt at illegal overthrow, as well as any legitimate criticism of the government, will both include persuasion and stirring up of crowds. The line between criticizing the government and organizing for it to be overthrown is a critical juncture in a democracy. The law requires the government prove someone conspired to use force to overthrow the government. Simply advocating broadly for the use of violence is not the same thing as violence and in most cases is protected as free speech. That’s why no one from January 6 has been or will be charged with sedition or treason or anything similar. For example, suggesting the need for revolution “by any means necessary” is unlikely to be seen as conspiracy to overthrow the government by force. Actively planning such an action (distributing guns, working out the logistics, actively opposing lawful authority, etc.) could be considered sedition. But that’s not what happened with Trump on January 6.

    Most of the rest of the guff around Trump and January 6 is even emptier of substance, things like “giving aid or comfort” to those committing sedition, conspiracy to forcibly “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or corruptly impede any official proceeding. The Dems focus in this sphere is on what Trump did not do to stop the riot, particularly his taking three hours to issue a video request for the rioters to go home. The over-arching problem is that crimes generally require you to do something. Not doing things, or not doing them fast enough to the Dems satisfaction, is hardly a chargeable crime.

    The clearest sign there is nothing real behind the exaggerated claims surrounding January 6 is that after an impeachment, a calendar year passing, and 700 some low-level prosecutions, nothing much has been proven. As with Russiagate, the more time that passes with nothing but media-generated smoke the less likely there is anything more. Even die-hard Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers like Laurence Tribe are reduced to weakly calling for more robust investigations instead of beating the drum for execution. Time for the left to lump Merrick Garland in with Robert Mueller as a great failure.

    There is certainly room to judge Trump’s actions on January 6. But that judgement must come from the voters, not a kangaroo court, if you want to talk about preserving the rule of law.


    Related Articles:

    Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.

  • Recent Comments

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Do you really want to leave it up to the voters? Repugs have no chance if they leave it up to majority rule.

      01/15/22 9:07 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Yeah, Trump is so misunderstood…like this patriot:

      “Sen. Ron Johnson pushed back against accusations of racism from Black lawmakers and Democrats after Johnson said the crowd that attacked the U.S. Capitol didn’t worry him, but if the mob had been supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement he may have been concerned for his safety.

      “There’s nothing racial in my comments whatsoever,” Johnson told conservative radio show host Dan O’Donnell on WISN-AM radio. “They’re just using the race card as they always do.”

      They? Like black people?

      01/15/22 6:05 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Trump Derangement Syndrome? You mean like this.


      —We won very substantially in Georgia. You even see it by rally size, frankly. We’d be getting 25-30,000 people a rally and the competition would get less than 100 people.

      — We think that if you check the signatures — a real check of the signatures going back in Fulton County you’ll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged.”

      —As you know, every single state … we won every state.

      — But in Detroit, we had, I think it was, 139% of the people voted. That’s not too good.

      — In Pennsylvania, they had well over 200,000 more votes than they had people voting.”

      —And the real truth is I won Georgia by 400,000 votes. At least. That’s the real truth. But we don’t need 400,000. We need less than 2,000 votes.”

      Nothing much has been proven? Care to amend your statement?

      01/18/22 10:09 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Trump may plead the 5th, but if his mental regression persists and this idiot country still re-elects him, the VP and his cabinet may plead the 25th. They only needed him to get the White House. After that, Trump would be dumped.

      01/18/22 10:05 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      And if that Trump VP is the now-skinny Pompous Pig, whose rapturous wet dream is the End Times Dead Zone…

      01/19/22 9:36 AM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      When Pompeo wins in 2024 he can make Trump the USA’s official inciter for more Trump Towers around the globe.

      01/20/22 10:37 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...



      You Russkies can relax…for now. The Pompous Pig who would love to outdo Greg Stillsons Dead Zone missile fantasy doesn’t have the voter support other than the Kochsuckers. Trump will be naive to have him as his VP, thinking his evilgelicals will demand it. Then Trump’s end time will be near as the End Times crowd will make certain Trump is dumped and the Pompous Pig is z presidense. World War Z.

      Would idiot Amerika really think it is a good idea to have the pig with the wet dream of the rapture and EndTimes with his finger on the nuclear button? Makes as much sense of letting pedophiles in the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts.

      01/21/22 8:54 AM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      Bauer- you’re thinking rationally. That puts you in a definite minority in today’s America. Pompeo probably feels Trump may be too ill to run in 2024. He’s not looking at the VP slot is my guess. Trump better bring along his food taster if he is invited to the Pompeos for dinner.

      01/22/22 9:42 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...



      The Repugs have no candidate other than Trump who can get out the vote in 2024. If elected, Trump has until 2026-27 when a stroke/heart attack is highly probable given his fast food habit.

      Pompous Pig is the likely VP candidate, replacing that traitor Pence and has the same demo of deluded End Times evilgelicals supporting him. The guy lost all that weight because Trump can’t stand obese people….other than himself.

      Better tell Putin to watch the “Dead Zone” because this Wichita Greg Stillson is dangerous.

      01/22/22 7:03 PM | Comment Link

    Leave A Comment

    Mail (will not be published) (required)