This question is sincere as I'm trying to find out myself. I'm a fairly active reader of news but have only seen outrage in mainstream news outlets about the DC protests and not specific claims of what Trump did or how the protests were more violent or dangerous than the months of BLM protests last year. The attached video by JP Sears seems to suggest that Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and Google have teamed up with Liberals to censor dissent and promote that Trump is dangerous via propaganda. In the video, he shows two tweets of Trump, shown below, that he says is what the fuss is all about - is that right?
Bonus question: How are the alleged calls of violence by Trump different or worse than those in this video below?
It is hard for me to realistically believe that Trump (and some of his supporters) are not purveyors of division at the least, violence at the worst.
How are we (anyone) to believe him (given all the misinformation/lies), if/when he says he wants peace ?
By a strictly legal standard, based on Supreme Court precedent, Trump did not say anything that would qualify as "Incitement," which requires a high threshold be satisfied, because the First Amendment most strongly protects political speech, and a president as an individual citizen is protected by that just as much as anyone else. For terms of impeachment, under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" section, the legal standard is not as high, and given his past 4 years, all the tweets, speeches, and random comments he's made, as well as his unchecked sociopathic narcissism, it is obvious to a not-very-sharp rock he absolutely intended to provoke the incident and totally got off on it. This is the guy who was quoted as admitting how much he loves the poorly educated. Why? Because only a poorly educated and/or person of low intelligence would actually fall prey to Trump's bs. Pericles, he is not.
If anyone saw the movie “The Accused” with Jodie Foster which was based on a true event, was exactly what Big Chump pulled.
You do not have to be a direct participant in a crime to be convicted. Goading, Encouraging or otherwise enticing someone to commit a crime, and depending on the laws of that state, is the Offense of Criminal Solicitation. Which was the offense committed in The Accused. Though less Subtlety, Trump did the exact same thing.
Incitations can and do take many forms, from mere, questionably, innocent suggestions/comments right through the spectrum to including out-right, blatant and plain 'demands' for Insurrection, Violence, Public Disquiet, etc, etc.
Most times it is NOT directly obvious from the wording/s BUT from what the intent is in what is suggested by 'reading between the lines,' looking for and finding the 'innuendos, etc, etc.
Despite, imo, being a rank Idiot, tRumpanzee has shown over decades that he is well adept at using these 'tactics' and thinking that he can get away with them as well.
Get off this fake fucking news bullshit. Fox has called him a liar repeatedly. There are dozens of news sources that report the opposite of Fox or News Max. There are over 160 cases opened by the FBI, and are currently looking through 100K pieces of digital data. His speeches HAVE been linked to hate crimes. He ADMITTED he does not go to daily security meetings. He said it's always the same stuff. When he does decide to go, he has to have them in picture form! Know what happens when you do that? THE FUCKING WHITE HOUSE GETS INVADED! He literally could not get off Air Force One and get in the limo directly in front of his fucking face! A SS Agent had to wave him towards AFO!''
You may not like it, but under capitalism private companies are entitled to run their business as they see fit within the law. If Parler wants to acquire its own server it is free to do so, and since you haven't noticed, large companies do not generally have a liberal bias. Perhaps you can dimly discern the difference between vandalising a McDonalds and violating the mechanisms of democracy or the wild rantings of a washed-up celebrity from the public addresses of the President of the USA. On second thoughts, I can't tell the difference between the last two either.
It is not ONLY about the day of January 6th. The storming of the Capitol, was a result of years of lies about evil Democrats then WEEKS of lies about non-existent voter fraud.
Violence should never be condoned, from wherever it comes; BUT, the BIG difference is that THIS insurrection was done with the INTENT of overturning the results of a FAIR and LEGITIMATE election. And, the people who did this believed the LIE perpetuated by tRump that he had won by millions and the election had been stolen.
Trump, and ALL complicit Republicans, who went along with the lie, WHILE KNOWING BETTER, are to blame for this attack on our Capitol and on our Democracy.
He did not, as some people seem to think, directly promote violence as far as I have seen, but he did promote division which of course, you would have to be stupid to not realize leads to it. And even the none condemnation of violence can be a thing which makes you complicit in it, Re. Pontius Pilate.
He told the assembled mob (ONLY there at his incitement/invitation!) that he would march with them to the Capitol, but instead went back to the WH to watch them on TV........meanwhile complaining that they looked "low class"....ya think?
All the speeches given to that mob were meant to wind them up, including comdemning people by name that drump felt hadn't done enough for him. For example, VP Pence, who was fully expected to be hung on the gallows the mob erected, along with Pelosi & others. Which was incessantly chanted from the time drump supposedly led them (!) & the entire time they besieged the place.
The most important thing in my view, regardless of debates over wording of impeachment, is that the President's attempt to take over the US government is ongoing, and the most logical way for him to removed (the 25th amendment) seems to be blocked by his loyal VP, and so it is appropriate to try to do the right thing and remove the President through Impeachment. Every moment that he is in office amounts to tolerating
It is hard to prove that words incite to violence, and I sort of wish they hadn't worded it that way, but I do think the President is guilty of inciting to insurrection. The President is sly and it was not likely going to be easy to get him out legally (just like it is often hard to get out of an abusive relationship). But it has to be tried, there are too many American lives, and the rule of law, immediately and directly at stake.
Further, doing the right thing is important and when the US is faced with an ongoing broad-daylight shameless threat to our rule of law, we should try to do the right thing and address that threat immediately and clearly.
See I’m torn between extremes. I support Nationalism (not letting China rape us economically and I don’t think we need thousands of uneducated immigrants pouring in). But I do support ANYTHING that makes HEALTHCARE more affordable and more accessible!! Trump didn’t campaign any clear healthcare plan. Also, Trump doesn’t respect other religions and he’s clearly a DIVIDER. I like this coming to a head. The USA COULD be so much better. Sometimes you gotta fight it out!
Lee Camp's erudite opinion.
"Should the racist violent insurrectionists at the Capitol be punished? Absolutely. But so too should the bought-off politicians who do the bidding of our morally bankrupt corporate America. These politicians and the CEOs they serve are purveyors of violence. They trade in, produce, and reap violence. They sit on hordes of money—the obscene profit from feeding American lives into the death cult of unfettered capitalism. "
"Violence on a breathtaking scale, far greater than what was done at the Capitol and far greater than any of us will witness in person. And yet large scale corporate-endorsed violence, death and destruction is not only allowable, it’s celebrated, it’s furthered, and promoted."
As a follow on from my former comment, I do have to add. That in the past, he has often promoted a violent culture. For example in his famous "You can get away with anything, grab them by the pussy.", quote about women, and many other similar, which certainly show open approval of a violent culture, and therefore have to share in the blame if there is a rise in violence under his administration.