US: Donald Trump is perhaps the most convicted man ever to be charged in America. Several reports have revealed that the Department of Justice has decided not to charge him with violations of the campaign funding related to the money paid to former stripper Stormy Daniels. What is considered by many experts to be a criminal charge has now joined a long list of alleged crimes that were once endless sensations.
The break between analysis and reality matters little in the media. Many of the same experts now cite the charge of criminal incitement in the riots in the Capitol. This is another open and closed matter in their minds. For four years, they provided a stream of accusations, all of which are described as conclusive, to feed the audience’s insatiable appetite. The charge for funding the campaign was one of the more credible claims, as former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty. But these crimes are difficult to prosecute, as evidenced by the failed prosecution of John Edwards in 2012.
Many of these allegations are reassuringly simple. Former prosecutor and Washington Post columnist Randall Eliason has demanded that Trump commit bribery in the Ukraine scandal. He said it was bribery “if the quid pro quo is being sought with corrupt intent” and “if the president does not pursue a legitimate policy but rather demands unlawful action from Ukraine that would personally benefit him. Yet, the Supreme Court has such interpretations of bribery, extortion, and related political corruption were rejected. Others think Trump committed bribery by raising funds for the Republicans of the Senate when he was on the verge of an indictment.
Former House Speaker Norman Eisen has claimed that Trump, by failing to respond to Russian aggression, was “collaborating” and that the criminal case against Trump was devastating due to obstruction of justice. Professor Richard Painter claims a clear case of treason. Professor Laurence Tribe has declared that the dictate of a misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting is witness tampering. Tribe also claimed to have found evidence of obstruction of justice, violations of criminal elections, violations of the Logan Act, and extortion by Trump or his family.
Now experts believe that Trump’s speech last month was a criminal incitement. Legal analyst Elie Honig said she would be happy to show his provocative remarks and “argue that they cross the line into crime.” Professor Richard Ashby Wilson said, ‘Trump crossed the Rubicon and incited a mob to attack the Capitol as Congress was voting on the Electoral College outcome. Trump must be criminally charged for inciting rebellion against our democracy. ”
Indeed, other experts quickly reiterated their certainty of another criminal charge. Tribe stated: ‘This man has incited not only threatening lawless actions but also the violent beheading of a government coordinate, which prevented this peaceful transition of power and placed a violent crowd in the Capitol as he applauded them has.’ District Attorney General of the District of Columbia Karl Racine has made such claims, announcing that he is investigating Trump for a possible incitement charge.
What is strange is that there is no word of an interview, let alone another indictment, for an alleged apparent crime committed more than a month ago. One possible reason is that it would collapse in court. It is so much easier to demand easy prosecution than to prosecute those charged with television charges. I do not blame these experts for speculating on such a case, but many claims that prosecution would be relatively simple. This is just not true.
The problem is freedom of speech. Last month, Trump’s remarks would not satisfy the test in Brandenburg when the Supreme Court ruled that ‘advocacy of the use of force or lawlessness’ is protected unless it is at hand. Trump did not call for violence. He urged supporters to go “peacefully” and encourage his allies in Congress. He repeated this after violence broke out and told the crowd to respect and obey the police.
Racine showed how connected these theories of jurisprudence are. He said Trump could not succeed in “calming down or emphasizing the peaceful nature of protest actions.” If he sets aside the fact that he does have to ask them to protest peacefully, his failure to calm them down is not criminal incitement by failure. Trump still faces liability for the same threats that existed before he became president, in the form of banking and business investigations. But the criminal crimes proposed over the past four years have gone without charges. Yet, several experts argue that there is no freedom of speech or legal obstacles to prosecuting Trump because of the incitement.
But there is no excuse that Trump can not be charged in office, which in my opinion is not valid, or that he will just forgive himself, which he did not do despite predictions he would make. What was conveniently hypothetical could be a real persecution today. If there’s really a strong case for criminal incitement, then appoint it and accuse Trump. However, the prosecutions can cost. Unless there is evidence of direct intent, Trump is likely to gain the upper hand during trial or appeal. He could then not only execute on a criminal charge but also his second charge.
Legal analysts who exaggerate or simplify criminal provisions are not imposed by prohibited incitement, not even because the public is sent into madness by allegations of slam dunk charges or easy prosecution. People are addicted to anger, and such ideas, even if they are illusory, feed this addiction. It’s all entertainment until someone tries to persecute, and that’s when reality sets in.