Did Trump incite a riot under the D.C. code?

You’re probably thinking, "Yes, DUH." But I marched through the legal analysis.

As before, I found it easier to record a video.

If you prefer to read, stand by for a transcription. via @YouTube

D.C. A.G. Karl Racine said he’s looking into whether Trump and others violated D.C. Code section 22-1322, inciting a riot.

To get a conviction, a prosecutor has to prove each relevant element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The relevant elements are (a) and (c).

To do the analysis, we use ICRC, the method known to law students everywhere.

The issue is: Did Trump (and others) violate section 22-1322?

“R” stands for the rule.

Analysis just means we look to see whether there is enough evidence to meet each element.

Element (a) just says you need a riot. You can’t convict someone of inciting a riot if there was a riot.

Element (a) is sort of a no-brainer. We all saw the pictures. Yes, there was a riot.

(c) is a bit trickier because Trump has a few defenses.

Trump knows how to couch his words.

Michael Cohen, in his testimony before Congress, a few years ago explained how Trump lets people know what he wants them to do without saying it directly.

So he will keep pointing to his words and say, "Nothing wrong with that!"

"I told them to be peaceful!"

"People say 'fight' all the time! Look how many times X said 'fight!"

Given the totality of the circumstances, I think it’s a lame defense. I’d want my client to have a better defense than that.

Trump can also raise a First Amendment defense, which comes from a case called Brandenburg v. Ohio.

This is a case in which a guy named Brandenburg was convicted for an incendiary speech to Klan members. He made racist and incendiary comments.

The Supreme Court overturned his conviction and handed down a rule:

The only time incendiary speech isn't protected by the First Amendment is if it incites or produces imminent lawless action and or is likely to incite or produce such action.

This is intended to be a high standard.

Personally I think that Trump’s speech incited imminent lawless action, particularly because stopping the counting of votes by itself is lawless and Trump obviously wanted that.

Given what we’ve seen, I will be surprised if we don’t see Trump, Mo Brooks, Giuliani, and others charged under this statute.

But this statute is only a misdemeanor.

Racine also said his office collaborating with federal authorities . . .

Someone commented that they prefer to read unless videos are particularly cute.

I also prefer to read!

But maybe I should include JJ. in the next video.

Problem: He's usually busy guarding the house. He sits in that chair and watches for the mail carrier and skateboarders.
I definitely needed the edit button on this thread. I have some really random mistakes.

I stand by my usual defense: All errors are entirely the fault of keyboard gremlins.
You can follow @Teri_Kanefield.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: