Trump Offered to Deploy 10,000 National Guard Troops in DC Ahead of Jan. 6: Mark Meadows

SPC Steve Bright - It doesn't mean he was.

18 U.S. Code § 2102. Definitions
(b)As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall NOT [emphasis mine] be deemed to mean the mere oral or written
(1) advocacy of ideas or
(2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
Source Cornell Law Library
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102

I have read the transcript [PBS, hardly a right-wing, Trump-loving media outlet, that might alter the transcript] of his speech that day. Fiery rhetoric is not enough.



The First Amendment: Brandenburg v. Ohio
Court decisions stress that democracy cannot stand if speech or conduct disagreeing with the government is criminalized—even when that speech advocates unpopular beliefs, condones racism, or suggests the use of force.

To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test.
Source: (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)



Applying the Brandenburg Test
Cases applying the Brandenburg test stress just how high the bar is set before the government can criminalize someone for advocating dissent or violence.

First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). CARELESS CONDUCT OR "EMOTIONALLY CHARGED RHETORIC" DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD. THE ACCUSED MERELY URGED THE CROWD TO PROTEST, BUT NOT TO RIOT OR COMMIT VIOLENCE IS COMMONLY SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE, PLACING THE BURDEN ON THE STATE TO PROVE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS CALLS TO IMMEDIATE VIOLENCE. [Emphasis mine]'

Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action.

Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence.
Source: (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)

Maj John Bell First im not an attorney so I won’t argue the legal merit of this being rhetoric after months of framing a stolen election.
But this is also not a court of law but rather an impeachment trial. A president that has knowingly created a fake story and reality and then continued to ask for his people to champion this fake cause, create a sense of failure in democracy should be stripped of all benefits. Period. What he did is shake the very foundations of our government with his rhetoric AND actions.

But again. I’m not an attorney and this is not a trial. I do think he should be held accountable for his actions and words.

SPC Steve Bright - That is why I said near the front:

The impeachment is a "political" process and most of what is required in a court is not required in the senate.

If the Senate chooses to convict President Trump, that is a perfectly legal and Constitutional outcome. However the Representatives that voted to impeach, and any Senators that vote to convict should understand that there are perfectly legal and Constitutional consequences to their vote, and to the punishment they hand down if President Trump is convicted.

The left and/or people like you who want President Trump punished have every right to hope that he suffer those penalties available to the Senate, up to an including permanent disbarment from federal office.

Secretary Clinton was by my estimation a horrific candidate with a very "Presidential" and professional demeanor. I didn't vote for Candidate Trump. I voted against her.

My assessment of President Biden is that he with the exception of the occasional "where the hell did that come from" outburst has a very "Presidential" and professional demeanor. But prior to the election, I believed what he said in his campaign web site. I thought his economic policy, energy policy, position on the 2nd Amendment and predilection for the "nanny-state" are just bad, very bad, policy.

I happen to think President Trump was good President with a crap personality. If allowed to run for office again, I would not rule out voting for him. It all depends on who the Democrats put up against him. Although not one Democrat I would have voted for ran for the office in 2020.

So the right and/or people like me who don't think the "purely political" reasons are enough to disallow our choice in 2024, have every right to hold the Representatives and Senators, whose vote we dislike, accountable at the ballot box in the next election cycles.

This country hasn't seen a decent nominee out of either party since George W. Bush when he was first elected and I have no idea why he turned into such a bad President in his second term.

But no matter what... if someone is going to use a term like "incitement," which has a LEGAL definition, then I will hold them to the standard they pick. Impeaching Trump for "reckless rhetoric" and "piss poor judgment" on January 6th would have been a honest, legitimate and perfectly valid charge.

Maj John Bell
I think for the most part we would agree. I am fiscally conservative and moderate otherwise. I agree Clinton was a horrible president and that Bush was a good first term president. However, I saw Trump for who he was - a bully with half baked ideas and spoke before thinking of his actions. Now I think he actually does think and thinks little of the people in general. His ideas of immigration, America First are Great but his implementation and political rhetoric is disgusting.
I work now at the treasury, hold a position that allows me to influence policies. I have the education and two decades of real Wall Street experience to help make the decisions. What I have seen during trump‘s presidency has been horrifying - comments that are incorrect about the markets, comments about trade, ignoring the pandemic when treasury brought it forward weeks before mid March.
Because of my background I tend to vote based on economic policy. Trump did some good things: lowering corporate taxes was one. His Middle East peace was great. Pushing back (but too hard) on NATO nations and his toughness on immigration were also good. But poor rhetoric destroyed our presence on the world stage. Our president should lead by persuasion, not by bullying.

As to Biden his economic policies are pretty good so far. Taxes on those like me need to be raised. Married individuals over $500k need to pay more as well. Leave the middle class alone for for god‘s sake stop w handouts to the poor. Have a job program for them.

And don’t add more justices to the bench. Packing the court is just wrong imho.
But like I said, I figure we’d probably agree on most.

SSG (Join to see) - That doesn't answer my question.

James Anders - Your question doesn't make sense, what politician, etc, but the reverse is a democrats says something and we are supposed to take it as truth, hell politicians lie all day long for a living.

SSG (Join to see) - " but the reverse is a democrats says something and we are supposed to take it as truth"

Well idk about you but I sure as hell don't do that.

"hell politicians lie all day long for a living."

That's my point. Why should we believe what a lying politician like Mark Meadows says about Trump without any evidence?

James Anders - Still makes no sense, said nothing about Meadows, I just said this whole thing was a political folly, totally bogus and unconstitutional