SR,
You're right, "anyone with half a brain".
Well finally, we now know why you fall short, as often as you do.
I always knew I had a "whole" brain, and that's why I am able to consider and speculate things that are not in the public domain or mainstream attitudes. I can always rely on the plebs and those with half a brain to foolishly posture over or about irrelevant topics and ideologies.

10 senators?

Try Seven.

Still struggling with those darned numbers.

And if you look at the seven, you'll see why Trump and his supporters will wear the enmity of the seven as a badge of honour. These are people who never signed up to MAGA and never supported Trump or his 70 odd million voters.

Crossing the floor was a godsend for Trump and a harbinger for the end of their careers. Most have already been censured by their relevant state bodies

Mhaze,

"These are people who never signed up to MAGA and never supported Trump or his 70 odd million voters."

Neither did the 80 odd million Biden voters.

That's democracy. Get over it.

Joe

Loudmouth, irrespective of your opinions of myself, I have always held you in higher esteem and regard than most of the plebs on OLO.
In saying this, I am curious as to why you have not seen through the BS that has been continually thrust at trump, to the point that it would qualify for a conviction of harassment, and more, against the aggressors.
I have always known him to be a bit of a "child" in many ways. Spoilt, petulant, you know what I mean.
But one thing he was not, was devious, conniving, evil and a host of other unsavory traits that this current old doddering fool of a "YES MAN", is.
Surely you can see that Biden exposed his arrogance and lying, scheming ways, when he took office and proceeded to do exactly what he said he wouldn't do, and all that before his arse even touched the Presidential chair.
Anyone mature, curious and worldly enough to look into things rather than follow the sheeple, who BTW are being led by the scum, with mis-information, or exaggerated and false information, will at the very least come away with a lot of questions.
At best they will learn the truth behind this anti-Trump campaign, and why.
So far my research has led me to the WEF, and then to the door marked; THE GREAT RESET!

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

The free online US legal dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, indicates the following definition of the term “incite” :

« To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot. Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet.” .See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 30 N. W. 310. »

The Farlex free online US legal dictionary, West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2, provides the following definition :

« To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion as in to incite a riot. Also, generally, in Criminal Law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with abet »

You claim that :

« … to meet the legal definition for the crime of "incitement" the main requirement is that there is a clear and unambiguous instruction to commit a particular act »

You did not indicate the source of information that justifies your claim. Would you kindly do so ?

In my post of Saturday, 13 February 2021 5:17:16 AM, I cited the following case in law :

« Charles Manson … incited his followers to commit a series of murders in 1969. The Los Angeles County district attorney believed that Manson intended to start a race war. He convicted him of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people, including the film actress Sharon Tate. The prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy »

I added :

« It seems to me that a parallel could be drawn between the responsibility of Charles Manson and that of Donald the dictator in respect of the grave criminal accusations brought against them. Both were instigators of crimes in which they did not participate directly themselves »

If you are aware of cases that contradict this principle, would you please provide the references ?

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Also, in my post on Monday, 15 February 2021 12:59:12 AM, I quoted the senate republican leader, Mitch McConnell, who declared on the senate floor, less than half an hour after having voted in favour of the acquittal of Donald the dictator :

« There’s no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day, which left five people dead, US Capitol Police officers injured, and parts of the building damaged. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president »

All this seems to indicate that a clear and unambiguous instruction to commit a particular act is not a “conditio sine qua non” for incitement to apply in the eyes of the law.

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, shadowminister, I am inclined to think that proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” based on circumstantial evidence is sufficient to legally establish “the crime of incitement”.

Your second point, that “much of the "evidence" presented by the Democrats rested on clips of his speech that were edited (segments spliced together) to convey a message that neither existed nor was intended”

That may be so, shadowminister, but it could also be argued that Donald the dictator’s defense team presented a similar type of evidence themselves.

As for the procedural issues you mention (points 3,4 and 5), such as not providing the defence with any evidence prior to the proceedings etc., these were decried and repeated several times during the trial by Pat Cipollone who led Donald the dictator’s defence team.

Cipollone rebuked the Democrat impeachment managers for late communication of documents they should have provided before the trial began, but did not press the point any further. He left it at that, apparently considering that it was an indisputable breach of procedure, but did not have a determining influence on the final outcome of the impeachment trial.

.