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.