Incitement

 

You Made Me Love You

You made me love you
I didn't wanna do it
I didn't wanna do it
You made me want you
And all the time you knew it
I guess you always knew it

What determines a guilty verdict of incitement?

In a federal criminal trial, in order to convict, the prosecutor must show the defendant knowingly committed an overt act to further insurrection. A conviction carries up to 10 years in federal prison. (18 U.S.C. § 2383; Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 , 1957.)  An act of  incitement does not only occur BEFORE an insurrection.  If that overt act to further the insurrection occurs DURING the insurrection, then that also is  incitement. 

If Sen. Tuberville’s statements about his phone call with Donald Trump are true, then Donald Trump knew that an insurrection was taking place before he took an overt act, a tweet in which he said “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”.  This was an overt act which furthered the act of insurrection and placed the then Vice President’s life in danger.

This is an impeachment trial, not a criminal trial.  In addition to overt criminal acts, the high crimes and misdemeanors covered by impeachment, can be acts of dereliction of duty, such as not calling for assistance during the insurrection that demonstrate that the insurrection was likely to have been incited.

This IS the trial, not the arrest.  The House managers did not have to present this evidence before the vote on the Article of Impeachment.  The impeachment trial is where it is appropriate to hear evidence if the President knew that an insurrection was occurring .  If he did, then this tweet is an overt act to further the insurrection, and could be a federal criminal offense, not merely a political impeachable offense.

The defense team argued that there is more due process in a parking ticket.  I have received parking tickets.  I do not remember having, or expecting, due process from the parking officer. In fact, in all cases, the ticket was issued while I was not even present.  However, during the hearing on any parking ticket, I expected, and did receive, the due process to present evidence of my innocence.  Do I wish that the parking ticket had not been issued?  Cleary, because then I would not have even spend the time to attend a parking hearing.  But did I think my due process was violated because the parking officer did not hear that evidence before issuing the ticket? Absolutely not.  There is a difference between arrest and trial.  Due process is applicable only DURING the trial, not DURING the arrest.