Although a couple of members of Congress got confused and thought that President Trump was being impeached for being a white supremacist, the actual impeachment charge was “incitement of insurrection” — in other words, his speech to the crowd gathered for his Jan. 6 rally convinced people to breach the Capitol Building and, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez puts it, try to kill half of Congress.
Michael Tracey has had a look at the impeachment article and it’s easy to tell it was drawn up quickly. He’s highlighted the one example the authors used to prove their point:
He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Thus incited by President Trump …
That’s what they’re using to tie his rally speech to the storming of the Capitol?
This is the one quote cited in the impeachment article to demonstrate Trump's "incitement" of the mob. It's an unremarkable line that he could've used in about a thousand different contexts over the past five years pic.twitter.com/sKXgCx4UoL
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 14, 2021
Trump also said in the speech, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." I've said for months that Trump's fraud theories were garbage, but so is this newly-invented "incitement" doctrine
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 14, 2021
Of course not a word from the @ACLU about the speech-chilling ramifications of this impeachment — nor would you expect any, given their full transformation into an anti-Trump left/liberal advocacy org. Still six days left to squeeze that for all it's worth
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 14, 2021
A lot of conservatives — and we get this — wanted to see Trump impeached, seeing the rioting as the fruit of his refusal to accept the election results and concede defeat. But this is seriously the quote they’re using to try to remove him from office with less than a week left in his term?
In order to draw the conclusion he was inciting riots, one would need to hold the absurd position that his figurative speech ("fight like Hell") is literal and his literal speech (walk "peacefully and patriotically") was figurative.
— Covid Koresh of the Branch Covidians (@ethologos) January 14, 2021
It's almost like context matters
— K. (@NKSlyder) January 14, 2021
The context is that it was in a speech where he asked those in attendance to go to the Capitol "peacefully and patriotically."
— Funicular (@funicular1) January 14, 2021
Exactly the sort of language routinely, endlessly, used by the ‘resistance’ against Trump for the last 4 years too. Again, don’t have to excuse Trump anything to point out both sides created this febrile environment, now one side wants to pretend they are innocent victims.
— Soily Sound (@soilysound) January 14, 2021
The same people who take this literally are the ones who thought Trump was referring to literal coyotes.
— David H (@jokesondavid) January 14, 2021
The complaint is similar to those made on college campuses, violations of decency degrading hypothetical 'safe spaces' and triggering unwanted reactions to past trauma embodied in present and past racial and ethic identities.
— John Shaplin (@johnshaplin) January 14, 2021
It’s also completely open to numerous interpretations. Calling this incitement is setting a standard that I’m not sure we can come back from anytime soon.
— Matthew Barcikowski (@BigMatt_the_Cat) January 14, 2021
Exactly. Is “fight like hell” going to get you suspended from Twitter?
— Dirk Matter (@Dirk_Matter) January 14, 2021
Yeah, this was the closest thing I could find, too. It depends not only on what we now know was a factually erroneous propter hoc fallacy, but depends on a ludicrous construction of "fight." Dems, by contrast, quite explicitly supported specific riots.
— Laure Martel (@LaureMartel) January 14, 2021
"Incitement" is always a horrible standard. The same rhetoric will be used a million times with no violence, but the 1 time violence occurs they justify why the State should be allowed to limit what is essentially unremarkable speech.
— AtlasShruggedTreeFiddy (@5toeGimp) January 14, 2021
For speech to be considered incitement of illegal acts and not protected it must be very specific. "You must fight" is vague hyperbole. The whole thing is ridiculous.
— Larry Fine (@loanman619) January 14, 2021
Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" level stupid
— Midwest Thinker (@PoliticaLowlife) January 14, 2021
Impeached for an idiom
— wakka wakka (@wakkawakka1980) January 14, 2021
If we are to hold people responsible, then perhaps the Democrats should be held to account as well. For they surely have incited violence over the past several years. Creating a normalcy of political violence was their doing. Not excusing what happened, but they share the blame.
— R Blowers?? (@r_blowers) January 14, 2021
You realize that Trump would have been blamed and likely impeached even if he hadn't said a word to the mob. This is a purely political play by the Dems who have despised him for years.
— Airish1 (@airish1) January 14, 2021
Your first mistake was taking anything Democrats do seriously.
Just look at who Pelosi chose to be impeachment managers.
— Officer Don Keedic ✪ (@donald_keedic) January 14, 2021
It's really more about preventing him from running again in 2024. They are terrified that he would run and win again. It's really pathetic.
— BHSails (@BhSails) January 14, 2021
Unfortunately for Trump, it doesn’t seem like he can find a defense team to represent him in an impeachment trial, but disproving incitement shouldn’t be a difficult task.
Related:
It’s happening? House Dems make it official, release resolution to impeach Donald Trump for ‘incitement of insurrection’ https://t.co/DqYhjaEJrF
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) January 11, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member