/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/prisa/4JFDMOMIAXTWPC64QT7XQ572TQ.jpg?w=560&ssl=1)
The images are shocking. Republican senators will hardly be able to take the iron away from what happened on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6. That is why their argument to exonerate Trump, as anything they are preparing to do, is to claim that the uprising, reprehensible as it was, was not directly instigated by then-President Trump.
Democrats believe Trump has “instigated insurrection” by using his allegations of electoral fraud to encourage his followers to storm the Capitol and attempt to interfere with the certification of his rival Joe Biden’s victory. Incitement to insurrection is not the same as treason, one of the two crimes the Constitution explicitly lists as meritorious accusationInstead, it is included in the phrase “other serious crimes and crimes” mentioned in Article 2. It is easier to prove than treason. This implies a warlike conflict, something that is not necessary for an uprising to take place.
Defense lawyers have jurisprudence to support their position that Trump’s words fall under the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech. In 2016, during his first presidential campaign, protesters who opposed the candidate came to one of his rallies to protest. From the podium, Trump told his followers, “Get them out of here.” The protesters later claimed they had been attacked by Trump supporters and sued the candidate for inciting unrest. A federal appeals court agreed with Trump, finding that the candidate’s words were protected by the First Amendment. The same, now defended by his attorneys, who protects him after urging his followers on January 6 to “fight like the devil” and “march to the Capitol.”
But there are differences from that precedent. First, that in that case Donald Trump was a private individual who aspired to the presidency. In contrast, the conduct now on trial is that of a President of the United States. And there are behaviors that may be legal for a private individual and that, for public office, constitute a violation of his oath and may be the basis of a accusationThis was highlighted last week by 144 lawyers who are experts on the First Amendment, who signed an open letter describing the attempt to protect the president’s behavior under the said constitutional change as “legally frivolous.”
Another difference is that since the charge was in charge of demonstrating during the three days of argument, isolated facts are not assessed here. The basis of the accusation is not just the words addressed to his followers on January 6 when, according to Congressman Jamie Raskin during the trial, Trump “left his role as commander in chief to become chief.” It’s also a campaign Trump has been planning and running for months with the aim of staying in office illegally. “Donald Trump cultivated violence for months, praised it, and when he saw the violence his followers were capable of, he sent it to that great historic event,” said Stacey Plaskett, one of the managers of the United States. accusation, the group of congressmen sent by the House of Representatives to serve as prosecutors in the Senate.