Normally we sing Greg Craven’s praises, but today I spotted this silliness in The Australian:
But here is the legal fact. Trump has engaged in activity that falls squarely within the definition of insurrection and associated offences. When an armed mob invades the legislature, that is an attack on government and its functions.
When a President stokes the rage of that mob, and then invites them to stroll to the Capitol, you are talking “incitement” and “conspiracy”.
Hmmmmmmm. No. That is not a legal fact. That is Greg Craven’s opinion.
Here is the opinion of Jeffrey Scott Shapiro – former assistant attorney general of the District of Columbia – writing in the Wall Street Journal.
The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
District law defines a riot as “a public disturbance . . . which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” When Mr. Trump spoke, there was no “public disturbance,” only a rally. The “disturbance” came later at the Capitol by a small minority who entered the perimeter and broke the law. They should be prosecuted.
The president’s critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense, and therefore his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.
If Donald Trump has actually incited a riot – or as his critics hilariously claim, a coup attempt – no doubt, he will be prosecuted in an open court and found guilty by a jury of his peers. What we have seen, however, is partisan allegations made by Democrats and their
useful useless idiot Republican allies.