In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


The president did not incite violence: WSJ Op-Ed

This is from an opinion article by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro in the Wall Street Journal. Shapiro served as an assistant attorney general of the District of Columbia, 2007-09. He is a White House appointed official at the U.S. Agency for Global Media.

The piece notes that making people emotional is not a crime.

According to Shapiro:

House Democrats have drafted an article of impeachment that accuses President Trump of “incitement to insurrection.” Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin said Thursday that his office is “looking at all actors here and anyone that had a role” in the Capitol riot. Some reporters have construed that as including Mr. Trump.

The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink.

In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to “intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear” and to “incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue.” This language is based on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), in which the Supreme Court set the standard for speech that could be prosecuted without violating the First Amendment. The justices held that a Ku Klux Klan leader’s calls for violence against blacks and Jews were protected speech. The court found that Clarence Brandenburg’s comments were “mere advocacy” of violence, not “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action . . . likely to incite or produce such action.”

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.”

4 thoughts on “The president did not incite violence: WSJ Op-Ed”

  1. Agree that Trump didn’t provoke or incite what occurred. However, doesn’t matter what we plebes think or know. We aren’t sitting in the halls of power, we have no say how the spineless Republicans will vote, and many for the sake of their own hide will vote to forward the motion.

  2. I have seen the video of the police opening the fire doors and beckoning in the crowd outside who looked bemused and then walked in, The police pointed out to them where to go. There is also the photo of the old granny inside looking sheepish holding a little stars and stripes, plus another photo of a group walking in single file between the ropes that show people were to go. They looked like tourists., about 20 of them. Apparently the first ones in were let in 5 minutes before Trump actually started speaking elsewhere, I’ve read . It was all very convenient how it started anyway.

  3. Yes, that was an excellent WSJ op-ed. There’s ZERO basis for accusing President Trump of “inciting” violence. But it makes no difference to Democrats, spineless Republicans, the press mob, social media, Big Tech and all Trump, USA haters. Pelosi smells blood and, like a vicious, cold-hearted shark, she’s going in for the kill. Also, except for sites like this one and the few remaining conservative outlets, what this op-ed says will get little public distribution. The press mob, social media, fake news and big tech will make sure of it.

Comments are closed.