Poor choice of phrasing on my part, now that I look at it. My intended gist was that he'd been recognizably trying to pretend he'd really always known <insert topic he'd expressed and demonstrated ignorance of> long before people started calling him out on, and that I suspect that people's initial willingness to set it aside because it just wasn't worth pursuing had emboldened him into thinking that he'd successfully bluffed us rather than the lot of us just rolling our collective eyes at the transparent lie and moving on.
Suffice it to say that I find it to be very telling that you're now trying to claim knowledge of defamation and the generalized existence of non-protected speech while trying to prove that you're familiar with the concepts of incitement and solicitation, indicating that you're still unfamiliar enough with the topics that you remain unable to distinguish between them.
Not remotely. Setting aside for a minute that I'm explaining existing precedent to you and listing out the factors that indicate Mens Rea and culpability, the specific point you're referring to there was that Trump riled up a mob that he had reason to believe had violent intent, specifically moved to better enable that by telling security to stop checking for weapons, and pointed them at a target that they then violently assaulted. This is, once again, where the imminent lawless action test comes in: It centers on speech directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. an immediate riot).
That your takeaway from that is to claim you could shutdown any speech by telling the speaker that you had a gun is both dishonest and...well, stupid. For starters, the proportionate remedy would be removal of the weapon or the person with the weapon if they get belligerent about it. Second, once again, we're specifically referring to an instance wherein the speaker allegedly specifically told event security to stop checking for weapons because he was sure that they weren't going to be used against him, which is a very different beast than simply hearing that somebody had a gun. Rather it's circumstantial evidence indicating that Trump expected a lot of his rallygoers to be armed as they marched on the Capitol with the goal of making Congress overturn the results. And finally: If a speech riling up a crowd results in a riot: OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE CHARGED WITH INCITEMENT! For fuck's sake, it's literally in the books! "(d) Any person who willfully incites another to engage in a riot and that inciting results in a riot or is directly and imminently likely to produce a riot is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor." and escalating from there.
Yet again, you make the critical mistake of assuming that the people you're talking to must be as intellectually lazy as you are and therefore cannot have actually researched their points.
And yet again you fall back to arguing that since he said peaceful one time in an hour long speech that is all you need to know about it and nothing can ever convince you otherwise.
If you were arguing the virtues of any one state being able to make a sweeping declaration, that would be one thing. But that's not what you've been arguing. What you've been arguing is that the evidence doesn't show Trump to be an insurrectionist and insisting that arguments suggesting his guilt were "all because you don't like Trump", and mischaracterizing the evidence so you could scoff at it as irrational.
Notice how you also said that you "feel the case is paper thin against Trump". Also recall that my first statement to you was about how you kept on invoking the song "Right to Party" as if it were some zinger of a comparison that proved that the case against Trump was irrational hysteria that didn't stand up to scrutiny.
And the point that you've consistently failed to understand is that I was providing context on the circumstances behind the speech that made the characterization of it as incitement far more warranted than claiming the same about a 30 year old that thought yourself clever for declaring it equivalent to.
Let me quote for you what I actually said:
Since I evidently have to explain even this to you, "merits of the case" mean judging based off the facts of the case that would either establish guilt or innocence. "Based on the evidence, how do you find", to put it directly. So when I say that a court is making a decision irrespective of the merits of the case, that means that they aren't judging whether or not the case proves guilt, but instead entirely on technical or procedural issues (e.g. when the statute of limitations has run out, evidence of guilt doesn't factor in). My analysis, such as it was, was that the justices had indicated that they weren't judging the case based off the evidence of whether or not Trump was guilty of insurrection, but instead on whether or not the courts should be allowed to make such a ruling as a matter of course, on principle if you will. And I specified this because your arguments with me have been focusing on whether or not the evidence showed Trump's guilt, and you asked me whether or not Trump would legally be declared an insurrectionist. My answer was that what I'd seen indicated that the upcoming ruling was going to sidestep that question and instead void the decision by declaring that courts could not rule on the matter at all.
And if you stop and read the ruling, you might notice that that's exactly what happened, even going a bit further than I expected in that I had presumed they'd simply say the state courts could not make that judgement, but the ruling actually goes as far as to say that the Federal courts can't do it either, instead declaring that it is something that only Congress can do (which, frankly, is a judgment I share Ag3ma's concerns about).
Last edited:
