Friam

incitement

Classic

List

Threaded

21 messages Options

gepr

incitement

How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 linguists explain
https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483

There's plenty to doubt, there. But it follows along our previous conversations about ambiguity (both [in]formal) and binding. Personally, I don't believe Trump purposefully incited the riot. He'd have to be a literal genius to *purposefully* use language like this with the intent/objectives attributed to him. What does it mean, though, to *accidentally* incite a riot? Where does _mens rea_ fall for incitement? It seems most plausible that Trump is simply pre-adapted to riot-incitement by his years of practiced marketing bullsh¡t and the trendly positive feedback he gets from that marketing bullsh¡t. He did incite a *rally*. He loves when his groupies get together to fawn over him. But did he incite them to riot? I don't think so. Laughable as the idea is, were I a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: incitement

That his lack of caution arises from stupidity as much as it does from malice shouldn't give him any relief.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:03 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] incitement

How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 linguists explain
https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483

There's plenty to doubt, there. But it follows along our previous conversations about ambiguity (both [in]formal) and binding. Personally, I don't believe Trump purposefully incited the riot. He'd have to be a literal genius to *purposefully* use language like this with the intent/objectives attributed to him. What does it mean, though, to *accidentally* incite a riot? Where does _mens rea_ fall for incitement? It seems most plausible that Trump is simply pre-adapted to riot-incitement by his years of practiced marketing bullsh¡t and the trendly positive feedback he gets from that marketing bullsh¡t. He did incite a *rally*. He loves when his groupies get together to fawn over him. But did he incite them to riot? I don't think so. Laughable as the idea is, were I a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: incitement

Yeah, but I think there would be other remedies available if the Merrick Garland is willing to pursue them. I don't think a felony conviction would prevent him from running in 2024. But if he's still in jail, that would limit his rally attendance. Plus, I wouldn't mind seeing him run again, anyway. If we elect him a 2nd time, after 4 years of opportunity to fix the problems his presidency made clear, maybe our society deserves to die.

On 1/19/21 8:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> That his lack of caution arises from stupidity as much as it does from malice shouldn't give him any relief.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:03 AM
> To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] incitement
>
> How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 linguists explain
> https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483
>
> There's plenty to doubt, there. But it follows along our previous conversations about ambiguity (both [in]formal) and binding. Personally, I don't believe Trump purposefully incited the riot. He'd have to be a literal genius to *purposefully* use language like this with the intent/objectives attributed to him. What does it mean, though, to *accidentally* incite a riot? Where does _mens rea_ fall for incitement? It seems most plausible that Trump is simply pre-adapted to riot-incitement by his years of practiced marketing bullsh¡t and the trendly positive feedback he gets from that marketing bullsh¡t. He did incite a *rally*. He loves when his groupies get together to fawn over him. But did he incite them to riot? I don't think so. Laughable as the idea is, were I a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

David Eric Smith

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

I would go Marcus one further. Stupidity, yes, but not only. I think an even heavier point is the t**** is a sociopath. It simply doesn’t matter to him whether a riot occurs, since it will land on somebody else and not him. Whether sociopaths are “trained” I don’t know, but since his whole life experience has been that everything lands on somebody else and never him, if they could be trained, his life would be the one to do it. So if he had the capacity to think about consequences, he probably still wouldn’t bother to.

That does raise a certain question of law, however (not goal, just method and framing). If you don’t plan ahead for destruction because you are unconcerned whether actions you take might cause it, it seems that shouldn’t be _less_ of a wrongdoing than having incited intentionally. Since the Richie Ramirez thing appears to be back in the pop consciousness just now (I remember the evening news cycle when I was a boy and that was all going down), we can probably say there is precedent that sociopaths don’t get indemnity.

Eric

> On Jan 19, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> That his lack of caution arises from stupidity as much as it does from malice shouldn't give him any relief.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:03 AM
> To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] incitement
>
> How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 linguists explain
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ftheconversation.com%2fhow-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483&c=E,1,zcp9h6yF_yIGGOaZvOzFvqjq77xR0gD6cn8JNRZJTVAOuTYk_uLEViGSITUuuP-Xn5WNwE-kKg2ENf7JFKVre_520oXeueBJhWG6Mt2UCnkHWYSXBg,,&typo=1
>
> There's plenty to doubt, there. But it follows along our previous conversations about ambiguity (both [in]formal) and binding. Personally, I don't believe Trump purposefully incited the riot. He'd have to be a literal genius to *purposefully* use language like this with the intent/objectives attributed to him. What does it mean, though, to *accidentally* incite a riot? Where does _mens rea_ fall for incitement? It seems most plausible that Trump is simply pre-adapted to riot-incitement by his years of practiced marketing bullsh¡t and the trendly positive feedback he gets from that marketing bullsh¡t. He did incite a *rally*. He loves when his groupies get together to fawn over him. But did he incite them to riot? I don't think so. Laughable as the idea is, were I a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,8a2FKmkiXmYCAvbrwzFlEnhk5Qb6m0j3xJh8A-PKGSosX3vgOxCjMO1v2OMQ7H0ftZl7Dxvi4CWg4taqJflWRRwNTePfva-clja1_nMAUKx5OrRx3fge&typo=1
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,W7U463cILJ_k3y7gMtq-WXi7i1THlbClPz-M2bGJU5lD7g3HKnUp2m7K2ssE4YuQMWRfHcPK7YWEW2MxtDdJDK6eTwVhVx2_19Q-LNU2zK6z&typo=1
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,QeRtgEaeD-tfVrQlIRj5xJXTQ84WjExWqcE_rr7sm8NQGfFdn8K_iKb0QvPpupJhowwjSrDrjLaT19etQbIZN6kvqCoeRS7BSV4yEQkfOI1-iI7Jiw,,&typo=1
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,gLDu6KJQnHWWYTbCMNhxhJQmfkGcC4j0GdEeOCqmZb6E3PdUDdmzlPzUaoC_uqjBnrt8LSrgd1CGUdxLC-Keu96U1-Aupe0z4wMMzHQaUMm5&typo=1

thompnickson2

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen, et. Al,

I am concerned that the present article of impeachment relies on the concept of incitement, which has, I am told, a very specific and narrow definition in federal law. Now I recognize that violation of federal law is not required for impeachment. However, I would hope that, just to be sure, we would add the charges of “reckless disregard” during the Ellipse speech and "dereliction of duty to protect” during the later stages of the riot itself. Neither charge requires the establishment of criminal intent. It is as if he drove down a crowded walking street at high speed and then failed to stop to give aid when he heard a bunch of thumps on his fenders. Sure he was late for a dentist appointment; what difference does that make?

As to intent: When I was a lad, I went to a shrink. The third time that I spilled a cup of coffee on her desk, she opined that I might harbor some resistance to treatment. I claimed I had no such intent. In retrospect, I think she was right. "Intent" just means a "persistence-until quality to behavior."

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:03 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] incitement

How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 linguists explain
https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483

There's plenty to doubt, there. But it follows along our previous conversations about ambiguity (both [in]formal) and binding. Personally, I don't believe Trump purposefully incited the riot. He'd have to be a literal genius to *purposefully* use language like this with the intent/objectives attributed to him. What does it mean, though, to *accidentally* incite a riot? Where does _mens rea_ fall for incitement? It seems most plausible that Trump is simply pre-adapted to riot-incitement by his years of practiced marketing bullsh¡t and the trendly positive feedback he gets from that marketing bullsh¡t. He did incite a *rally*. He loves when his groupies get together to fawn over him. But did he incite them to riot? I don't think so. Laughable as the idea is, were I a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

Right. The goal should be to keep the sociopath from harming others, not to have vindication in punishment.
Antibodies should be all over him. Even McConnell knows this.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:22 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

I would go Marcus one further. Stupidity, yes, but not only. I think an even heavier point is the t**** is a sociopath. It simply doesn’t matter to him whether a riot occurs, since it will land on somebody else and not him. Whether sociopaths are “trained” I don’t know, but since his whole life experience has been that everything lands on somebody else and never him, if they could be trained, his life would be the one to do it. So if he had the capacity to think about consequences, he probably still wouldn’t bother to.

That does raise a certain question of law, however (not goal, just method and framing). If you don’t plan ahead for destruction because you are unconcerned whether actions you take might cause it, it seems that shouldn’t be _less_ of a wrongdoing than having incited intentionally. Since the Richie Ramirez thing appears to be back in the pop consciousness just now (I remember the evening news cycle when I was a boy and that was all going down), we can probably say there is precedent that sociopaths don’t get indemnity.

Eric

> On Jan 19, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> That his lack of caution arises from stupidity as much as it does from malice shouldn't give him any relief.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:03 AM
> To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] incitement
>
> How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol
> riot – 2 linguists explain
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ftheconversation.co
> m%2fhow-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol
> -riot-2-linguists-explain-152483&c=E,1,zcp9h6yF_yIGGOaZvOzFvqjq77xR0gD
> 6cn8JNRZJTVAOuTYk_uLEViGSITUuuP-Xn5WNwE-kKg2ENf7JFKVre_520oXeueBJhWG6M
> t2UCnkHWYSXBg,,&typo=1
>
> There's plenty to doubt, there. But it follows along our previous conversations about ambiguity (both [in]formal) and binding. Personally, I don't believe Trump purposefully incited the riot. He'd have to be a literal genius to *purposefully* use language like this with the intent/objectives attributed to him. What does it mean, though, to *accidentally* incite a riot? Where does _mens rea_ fall for incitement? It seems most plausible that Trump is simply pre-adapted to riot-incitement by his years of practiced marketing bullsh¡t and the trendly positive feedback he gets from that marketing bullsh¡t. He did incite a *rally*. He loves when his groupies get together to fawn over him. But did he incite them to riot? I don't think so. Laughable as the idea is, were I a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn
> GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailm
> an%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,8a2FKmkiXmYCAvbrwzFlEnhk5Qb6m0
> j3xJh8A-PKGSosX3vgOxCjMO1v2OMQ7H0ftZl7Dxvi4CWg4taqJflWRRwNTePfva-clja1
> _nMAUKx5OrRx3fge&typo=1
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspo
> t.com%2f&c=E,1,W7U463cILJ_k3y7gMtq-WXi7i1THlbClPz-M2bGJU5lD7g3HKnUp2m7
> K2ssE4YuQMWRfHcPK7YWEW2MxtDdJDK6eTwVhVx2_19Q-LNU2zK6z&typo=1
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn
> GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailm
> an%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,QeRtgEaeD-tfVrQlIRj5xJXTQ84WjE
> xWqcE_rr7sm8NQGfFdn8K_iKb0QvPpupJhowwjSrDrjLaT19etQbIZN6kvqCoeRS7BSV4y
> EQkfOI1-iI7Jiw,,&typo=1
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspo
> t.com%2f&c=E,1,gLDu6KJQnHWWYTbCMNhxhJQmfkGcC4j0GdEeOCqmZb6E3PdUDdmzlPz
> UaoC_uqjBnrt8LSrgd1CGUdxLC-Keu96U1-Aupe0z4wMMzHQaUMm5&typo=1

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

I suppose all 3 positions (Marcus, Eric, and Nick) argue that impeachment isn't really a legal proceeding, but a democratic one ... representative democracy, however far removed. I've often argued that it's reasonable that lawyers be elected to Congress. The purpose of Congress is argumentation. And lawyers are the closest we have to professional arguers. But, I suppose I'm changing my mind about that. Congress might be legislative, but it's not about arguing (at least not anymore). Their "debates" seem mostly granstanding. And the "deals" that turn into legislation are done more by what looks like beating the pavement ... lots of "arguing" in semi-private, I guess. But not in the sense of rational debate and consideration of consequences. That all happens in the courts.

So we go back to populism. It strikes me as a populist sentiment that Trump is guilty of incitement (and populist sentiment that he's an "outsider" "fighting the deep state"). And I'm left with the question: What's the difference between democracy and populism? Yeah, I know populism is cartooned as requiring a belief in the "corrupt elite". But is democracy really only a well-formed populism?

If it's not the *letter* of some law that convicts or acquits Trump, then what method should be used? "My noisiest constituents want me to [convict|acquit]"?

On 1/19/21 8:29 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> I am concerned that the present article of impeachment relies on the concept of incitement, which has, I am told, a very specific and narrow definition in federal law. Now I recognize that violation of federal law is not required for impeachment. However, I would hope that, just to be sure, we would add the charges of “reckless disregard” during the Ellipse speech and "dereliction of duty to protect” during the later stages of the riot itself. Neither charge requires the establishment of criminal intent. It is as if he drove down a crowded walking street at high speed and then failed to stop to give aid when he heard a bunch of thumps on his fenders. Sure he was late for a dentist appointment; what difference does that make?

On 1/19/21 8:21 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> That does raise a certain question of law, however (not goal, just method and framing). If you don’t plan ahead for destruction because you are unconcerned whether actions you take might cause it, it seems that shouldn’t be _less_ of a wrongdoing than having incited intentionally. Since the Richie Ramirez thing appears to be back in the pop consciousness just now (I remember the evening news cycle when I was a boy and that was all going down), we can probably say there is precedent that sociopaths don’t get indemnity.
>
>> On Jan 19, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> That his lack of caution arises from stupidity as much as it does from malice shouldn't give him any relief.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: incitement

It would certainly hit Benjamin Franklin's assertion that impeachment was for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious" or Hamilton's "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:58 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

I suppose all 3 positions (Marcus, Eric, and Nick) argue that impeachment isn't really a legal proceeding, but a democratic one ... representative democracy, however far removed. I've often argued that it's reasonable that lawyers be elected to Congress. The purpose of Congress is argumentation. And lawyers are the closest we have to professional arguers. But, I suppose I'm changing my mind about that. Congress might be legislative, but it's not about arguing (at least not anymore). Their "debates" seem mostly granstanding. And the "deals" that turn into legislation are done more by what looks like beating the pavement ... lots of "arguing" in semi-private, I guess. But not in the sense of rational debate and consideration of consequences. That all happens in the courts.

So we go back to populism. It strikes me as a populist sentiment that Trump is guilty of incitement (and populist sentiment that he's an "outsider" "fighting the deep state"). And I'm left with the question: What's the difference between democracy and populism? Yeah, I know populism is cartooned as requiring a belief in the "corrupt elite". But is democracy really only a well-formed populism?

If it's not the *letter* of some law that convicts or acquits Trump, then what method should be used? "My noisiest constituents want me to [convict|acquit]"?

On 1/19/21 8:29 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> I am concerned that the present article of impeachment relies on the concept of incitement, which has, I am told, a very specific and narrow definition in federal law. Now I recognize that violation of federal law is not required for impeachment. However, I would hope that, just to be sure, we would add the charges of “reckless disregard” during the Ellipse speech and "dereliction of duty to protect” during the later stages of the riot itself. Neither charge requires the establishment of criminal intent. It is as if he drove down a crowded walking street at high speed and then failed to stop to give aid when he heard a bunch of thumps on his fenders. Sure he was late for a dentist appointment; what difference does that make?

On 1/19/21 8:21 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> That does raise a certain question of law, however (not goal, just method and framing). If you don’t plan ahead for destruction because you are unconcerned whether actions you take might cause it, it seems that shouldn’t be _less_ of a wrongdoing than having incited intentionally. Since the Richie Ramirez thing appears to be back in the pop consciousness just now (I remember the evening news cycle when I was a boy and that was all going down), we can probably say there is precedent that sociopaths don’t get indemnity.
>
>> On Jan 19, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> That his lack of caution arises from stupidity as much as it does from malice shouldn't give him any relief.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: incitement

Right, but that doesn't really answer the question. I suppose it's akin to "living constitution" vs. "originalism". How do we *expect* our individual Senator to make their decision? Does there even need to be any kind of semi-explicit heuristic by which they make such decisions? Can they simply "go with their gut"?

On 1/19/21 10:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It would certainly hit Benjamin Franklin's assertion that impeachment was for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious" or Hamilton's "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: incitement

My take: The trial is performative and the Chief Justice's role ceremonial. If most want him to go down, he goes down.
Where are the votes, though?
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:14 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

Right, but that doesn't really answer the question. I suppose it's akin to "living constitution" vs. "originalism". How do we *expect* our individual Senator to make their decision? Does there even need to be any kind of semi-explicit heuristic by which they make such decisions? Can they simply "go with their gut"?

On 1/19/21 10:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It would certainly hit Benjamin Franklin's assertion that impeachment was for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious" or Hamilton's "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by gepr

You didn't quite steelman me, Glen. I begged the question of whether his crimes met the legal definition of incitement, but urged that he be tried on crimes amounting to neglect of due diligence. If you drive in such a way that people are likely to be hit and then fail to stop when you hit somebody you can be done for negligent homicide and leaving the scene.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:58 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

I suppose all 3 positions (Marcus, Eric, and Nick) argue that impeachment isn't really a legal proceeding, but a democratic one ... representative democracy, however far removed. I've often argued that it's reasonable that lawyers be elected to Congress. The purpose of Congress is argumentation. And lawyers are the closest we have to professional arguers. But, I suppose I'm changing my mind about that. Congress might be legislative, but it's not about arguing (at least not anymore). Their "debates" seem mostly granstanding. And the "deals" that turn into legislation are done more by what looks like beating the pavement ... lots of "arguing" in semi-private, I guess. But not in the sense of rational debate and consideration of consequences. That all happens in the courts.

So we go back to populism. It strikes me as a populist sentiment that Trump is guilty of incitement (and populist sentiment that he's an "outsider" "fighting the deep state"). And I'm left with the question: What's the difference between democracy and populism? Yeah, I know populism is cartooned as requiring a belief in the "corrupt elite". But is democracy really only a well-formed populism?

If it's not the *letter* of some law that convicts or acquits Trump, then what method should be used? "My noisiest constituents want me to [convict|acquit]"?

On 1/19/21 8:29 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> I am concerned that the present article of impeachment relies on the concept of incitement, which has, I am told, a very specific and narrow definition in federal law. Now I recognize that violation of federal law is not required for impeachment. However, I would hope that, just to be sure, we would add the charges of “reckless disregard” during the Ellipse speech and "dereliction of duty to protect” during the later stages of the riot itself. Neither charge requires the establishment of criminal intent. It is as if he drove down a crowded walking street at high speed and then failed to stop to give aid when he heard a bunch of thumps on his fenders. Sure he was late for a dentist appointment; what difference does that make?

On 1/19/21 8:21 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> That does raise a certain question of law, however (not goal, just method and framing). If you don’t plan ahead for destruction because you are unconcerned whether actions you take might cause it, it seems that shouldn’t be _less_ of a wrongdoing than having incited intentionally. Since the Richie Ramirez thing appears to be back in the pop consciousness just now (I remember the evening news cycle when I was a boy and that was all going down), we can probably say there is precedent that sociopaths don’t get indemnity.
>
>> On Jan 19, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> That his lack of caution arises from stupidity as much as it does from malice shouldn't give him any relief.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

I think of "high" crimes and misdemeanors as those that only a person of lofty office can commit. So violation of an oath of "high" office is a High Crime. I don't know if that interpretation has any basis in history. But the plain text of the constitution seems to suggest it: "...bribery and OTHER high crimes and misdemeanors..." So, I see the impeachment passage in the constitution as setting out vulnerabilities of high office in addition to those that ordinary citizens endure.

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 12:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???

Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:58 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

So we go back to populism. It strikes me as a populist sentiment that Trump is guilty of incitement (and populist sentiment that he's an "outsider" "fighting the deep state"). And I'm left with the question: What's the difference between democracy and populism? Yeah, I know populism is cartooned as requiring a belief in the "corrupt elite". But is democracy really only a well-formed populism?

If it's not the *letter* of some law that convicts or acquits Trump, then what method should be used? "My noisiest constituents want me to [convict|acquit]"?

On 1/19/21 8:29 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> I am concerned that the present article of impeachment relies on the concept of incitement, which has, I am told, a very specific and narrow definition in federal law. Now I recognize that violation of federal law is not required for impeachment. However, I would hope that, just to be sure, we would add the charges of “reckless disregard” during the Ellipse speech and "dereliction of duty to protect” during the later stages of the riot itself. Neither charge requires the establishment of criminal intent. It is as if he drove down a crowded walking street at high speed and then failed to stop to give aid when he heard a bunch of thumps on his fenders. Sure he was late for a dentist appointment; what difference does that make?

On 1/19/21 8:21 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:

> That does raise a certain question of law, however (not goal, just method and framing). If you don’t plan ahead for destruction because you are unconcerned whether actions you take might cause it, it seems that shouldn’t be _less_ of a wrongdoing than having incited intentionally. Since the Richie Ramirez thing appears to be back in the pop consciousness just now (I remember the evening news cycle when I was a boy and that was all going down), we can probably say there is precedent that sociopaths don’t get indemnity.

>> On Jan 19, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> That his lack of caution arises from stupidity as much as it does from malice shouldn't give him any relief.

↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

David Eric Smith

Re: incitement

I think this is right, Nick, and think I have seen lawyers comment just to this effect either in print or on video.

One need not have committed a criminal offense to be held to have committed a “high crime”.

Eric

On Jan 19, 2021, at 1:46 PM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think of "high" crimes and misdemeanors as those that only a person of lofty office can commit. So violation of an oath of "high" office is a High Crime. I don't know if that interpretation has any basis in history. But the plain text of the constitution seems to suggest it: "...bribery and OTHER high crimes and misdemeanors..." So, I see the impeachment passage in the constitution as setting out vulnerabilities of high office in addition to those that ordinary citizens endure.

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 12:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

It would certainly hit Benjamin Franklin's assertion that impeachment was for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious" or Hamilton's "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:58 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

I suppose all 3 positions (Marcus, Eric, and Nick) argue that impeachment isn't really a legal proceeding, but a democratic one ... representative democracy, however far removed. I've often argued that it's reasonable that lawyers be elected to Congress. The purpose of Congress is argumentation. And lawyers are the closest we have to professional arguers. But, I suppose I'm changing my mind about that. Congress might be legislative, but it's not about arguing (at least not anymore). Their "debates" seem mostly granstanding. And the "deals" that turn into legislation are done more by what looks like beating the pavement ... lots of "arguing" in semi-private, I guess. But not in the sense of rational debate and consideration of consequences. That all happens in the courts.

So we go back to populism. It strikes me as a populist sentiment that Trump is guilty of incitement (and populist sentiment that he's an "outsider" "fighting the deep state"). And I'm left with the question: What's the difference between democracy and populism? Yeah, I know populism is cartooned as requiring a belief in the "corrupt elite". But is democracy really only a well-formed populism?

If it's not the *letter* of some law that convicts or acquits Trump, then what method should be used? "My noisiest constituents want me to [convict|acquit]"?

On 1/19/21 8:29 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> I am concerned that the present article of impeachment relies on the concept of incitement, which has, I am told, a very specific and narrow definition in federal law. Now I recognize that violation of federal law is not required for impeachment. However, I would hope that, just to be sure, we would add the charges of “reckless disregard” during the Ellipse speech and "dereliction of duty to protect” during the later stages of the riot itself. Neither charge requires the establishment of criminal intent. It is as if he drove down a crowded walking street at high speed and then failed to stop to give aid when he heard a bunch of thumps on his fenders. Sure he was late for a dentist appointment; what difference does that make?

On 1/19/21 8:21 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> That does raise a certain question of law, however (not goal, just method and framing). If you don’t plan ahead for destruction because you are unconcerned whether actions you take might cause it, it seems that shouldn’t be _less_ of a wrongdoing than having incited intentionally. Since the Richie Ramirez thing appears to be back in the pop consciousness just now (I remember the evening news cycle when I was a boy and that was all going down), we can probably say there is precedent that sociopaths don’t get indemnity.
>
>> On Jan 19, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> That his lack of caution arises from stupidity as much as it does from malice shouldn't give him any relief.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,JDa24YsuxsHcx6sYSIFMCjGZfbf1tpZvIZ6HLuGrYGLVc-im2NFSGFEFI_WKhnKqtCWDMwhR2hB7_-o11KrsFOmWg2i4Hnj9ZvZkMWQ8xz8autDX_zElwFQZ&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,XxItpimpSkJAjegp4TpRpTxxK4eKQGW7iyC3d-8STePrJKUdRUlOiqLpsx5bvlW38A7N9E4OJJnr_5BJDS80oUPoWWyrNgTDq1EqEyCsqHJfU4A,&typo=1

thompnickson2

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

I disagree, Marcus.

Each Senator need only ask himself, "Did he take advantage of his office to do things that are substantially beyond it's job description and norms. If people seriously believed (and could demonstrate) that Obama had abused Executive Orders as a means of accomplishing policy, he could have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office for it, even if he committed no other crime. The only weasel word in that understanding is "substantially." I assume we wouldn't impeach a president for ordering a sandwich after hours from the canteen.

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 12:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

My take: The trial is performative and the Chief Justice's role ceremonial. If most want him to go down, he goes down.
Where are the votes, though?
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:14 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

Right, but that doesn't really answer the question. I suppose it's akin to "living constitution" vs. "originalism". How do we *expect* our individual Senator to make their decision? Does there even need to be any kind of semi-explicit heuristic by which they make such decisions? Can they simply "go with their gut"?

On 1/19/21 10:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It would certainly hit Benjamin Franklin's assertion that impeachment was for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious" or Hamilton's "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

IDK. If the article of impeachment had focused on "failed to protect the constitution", then I'd buy it. He did fail, particularly in rhetorical attacks on the election, inciting Pence to interfere in the EC count, not calling out the Guard to help the police, etc.

But that's not the gist of the accusation. If we follow Marcus' lead and widen it all the way out to politics, then it's fine. But if we get all persnickety about "high crime", then we're inviting others to get all persnickety about whatever it is they want to get persnickety about.

It's either a legal proceeding or a (purely) political one. Any sophistry in between should be seen clearly.

On 1/19/21 10:49 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> I think this is right, Nick, and think I have seen lawyers comment just to this effect either in print or on video.
>
> One need not have committed a criminal offense to be held to have committed a “high crime”.
>
>> On Jan 19, 2021, at 1:46 PM, <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> I think of "high" crimes and misdemeanors as those that only a person of lofty office can commit. So violation of an oath of "high" office is a High Crime. I don't know if that interpretation has any basis in history. But the plain text of the constitution seems to suggest it: "...bribery and OTHER high crimes and misdemeanors..." So, I see the impeachment passage in the constitution as setting out vulnerabilities of high office */_in addition to_/* those that ordinary citizens endure.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by gepr

So textually analyze "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest"!

Your last sentiment if widely held is scary indeed. Acquitting is being absolved of the crime. As others have pointed out what would a president have to do to be found guilty if not to want to and attempt to encourage the overthrowing of the results of a legally held, fair and square democratic election result? With Trump gone(?) the sore still exists and we need to deter other wannabe autocrats from a repeat performance. It's not a laughing matter.

Robert

On 1/19/21 9:02 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 linguists explain
https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483

There's plenty to doubt, there. But it follows along our previous conversations about ambiguity (both [in]formal) and binding. Personally, I don't believe Trump purposefully incited the riot. He'd have to be a literal genius to *purposefully* use language like this with the intent/objectives attributed to him. What does it mean, though, to *accidentally* incite a riot? Where does _mens rea_ fall for incitement? It seems most plausible that Trump is simply pre-adapted to riot-incitement by his years of practiced marketing bullsh¡t and the trendly positive feedback he gets from that marketing bullsh¡t. He did incite a *rally*. He loves when his groupies get together to fawn over him. But did he incite them to riot? I don't think so. Laughable as the idea is, were I a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: incitement

Litigation from states, expulsion from most social media, personal bankruptcy, together with his age and health may be enough to take a future run off the table. All together preferably, but even any of them. Impeachment is a nice-to-have, but it seems improbable to me because the Republicans have just gone mad.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:14 AM
To: uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

So textually analyze "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest"!

Robert

On 1/19/21 9:02 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 linguists explain

https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483

There's plenty to doubt, there. But it follows along our previous conversations about ambiguity (both [in]formal) and binding. Personally, I don't believe Trump purposefully incited the riot. He'd have to be a literal genius to *purposefully* use language like this with the intent/objectives attributed to him. What does it mean, though, to *accidentally* incite a riot? Where does _mens rea_ fall for incitement? It seems most plausible that Trump is simply pre-adapted to riot-incitement by his years of practiced marketing bullsh¡t and the trendly positive feedback he gets from that marketing bullsh¡t. He did incite a *rally*. He loves when his groupies get together to fawn over him. But did he incite them to riot? I don't think so. Laughable as the idea is, were I a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.

gepr

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

Sorry if I was unclear. It is laughable that I would ever be a Senator. But I disagree anyway. If Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert, et al have taught us anything, it is that *everything* is a laughing matter. And as court jesters have taught us, laughing matters may well be the most effective path to serious criticism.

On 1/19/21 11:13 AM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote:
> It's not a laughing matter.
>
> Robert
>
> On 1/19/21 9:02 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> Laughable as the idea is, were I a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by gepr

It's like a tort proceeding. Violation of contract. Where the only damages appropriate are removal from office and inability to hold future office. It's a legal proceeding, but not a criminal one.

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 12:56 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

IDK. If the article of impeachment had focused on "failed to protect the constitution", then I'd buy it. He did fail, particularly in rhetorical attacks on the election, inciting Pence to interfere in the EC count, not calling out the Guard to help the police, etc.

But that's not the gist of the accusation. If we follow Marcus' lead and widen it all the way out to politics, then it's fine. But if we get all persnickety about "high crime", then we're inviting others to get all persnickety about whatever it is they want to get persnickety about.

It's either a legal proceeding or a (purely) political one. Any sophistry in between should be seen clearly.

On 1/19/21 10:49 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> I think this is right, Nick, and think I have seen lawyers comment just to this effect either in print or on video.
>
> One need not have committed a criminal offense to be held to have committed a “high crime”.
>
>> On Jan 19, 2021, at 1:46 PM, <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> I think of "high" crimes and misdemeanors as those that only a person
>> of lofty office can commit. So violation of an oath of "high" office is a High Crime. I don't know if that interpretation has any basis in history. But the plain text of the constitution seems to suggest it: "...bribery and OTHER high crimes and misdemeanors..." So, I see the impeachment passage in the constitution as setting out vulnerabilities of high office */_in addition to_/* those that ordinary citizens endure.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: incitement

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

Nice, Robert! I am glad to know all of that. N

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:14 PM
To: uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] incitement

So textually analyze "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest"!

Robert

On 1/19/21 9:02 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 linguists explain

https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483

There's plenty to doubt, there. But it follows along our previous conversations about ambiguity (both [in]formal) and binding. Personally, I don't believe Trump purposefully incited the riot. He'd have to be a literal genius to *purposefully* use language like this with the intent/objectives attributed to him. What does it mean, though, to *accidentally* incite a riot? Where does _mens rea_ fall for incitement? It seems most plausible that Trump is simply pre-adapted to riot-incitement by his years of practiced marketing bullsh¡t and the trendly positive feedback he gets from that marketing bullsh¡t. He did incite a *rally*. He loves when his groupies get together to fawn over him. But did he incite them to riot? I don't think so. Laughable as the idea is, were I a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/