https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-trump-isnt-guilty-of-incitement-11610303966?mod=hp_opin_pos_3

The president’s critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense, and therefore his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.

This the conclusion of former asst. atty. general of the District of Columbia, who as a prosecutor has been there, done that.

As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. . . .

Dems barking up no tree at all . . .

Authored by Jonathan Turley, reprinted at Zero Hedge:

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on my concerns over the planned “snap impeachment” this year. In my view, impeaching on the speech alone would raise serious concerns over the use of impeachment in the future. Many Democrats, including members of Congress, refused to accept Trump as the legitimate president when he was elected and refused to do so as rioting broke out at the inauguration. Many of the same members have used the same type of rhetoric to “take back the country” and “fight for the country.”

The concern is that this impeachment will not only create precedent for an expedited pathway of “snap impeachments” but allow future Congresses to impeach presidents for actions of their supporters. The point of this column is to call for greater caution and deliberation before we take this step to consider the basis and implications of this impeachment. As with the calls to use the 25th Amendment, there are real dangers to any opportunistic or hurried use of this option. There is also the alternative of a joint and bipartisan condemnation of both houses, which would be both justified and unassailable.

As I have said, there could be evidence to support impeachment on the proposed incitement article but it would have to be found before or after the speech to show an intent to spark rioting or to allow it to continue. As with the 25th Amendment claim, such evidence would be found from within the White House and through a traditional impeachment inquiry.

Calmer head, which will not prevail.

Mysteriously held back:

President Trump’s last days in office offer a final opportunity to declassify critical information on the Russia investigation that engulfed his lone term.

Already voluminous public records – including investigative reports from Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Congress and the Justice Department’s inspector general – have established that Trump and his associates were targeted with a baseless Russian collusion allegation. The fraudulent claim originated with the Hillary Clinton campaign, was fueled by a torrent of false or deceptive intelligence leaks, and was improperly investigated by the FBI, potentially to the point of being criminal. Despite these disclosures, key questions remain about the origins and the spread of the conspiracy theory. And with a Biden administration set to take office and Democrats taking control of both chambers of Congress, there are no guarantees that the ongoing probe of Special Counsel John Durham will fill in the remaining gaps.
Both the CIA and FBI have been slow to produce much material that Trump reportedly wants declassified. They argue that disclosure would reveal sources and methods vital to national security. Such claims arouse skepticism because they have been used in the past to cover up malfeasance – as the public learned when deceptive FISA warrant applications used to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page were finally released.

Before he leaves office on Jan. 20, Trump could use his declassification authority to help clear up some of the following critical issues of the Russiagate saga: . . .

more more more here . . .

No excuses.

From the estimable Turley:

This week, President-elect Joe Biden made a highly commendable decision to nominate Judge Merrick Garland as the next United States Attorney General. Like many, I praised Garland as an outstanding choice and a move that advanced Biden’s earlier pledge to seek unity. That is why I was so disappointed in Biden refusing to take a position on the effort to impeach Donald Trump next week. As with his equally inexplicable refusal to take a stand on court packing, Biden’s silence on this clearly unsupportable “snap impeachment” was a missed opportunity to show real leadership when it matters most. It is not popular to oppose this impeachment, but leadership often demands that presidents take unpopular but correct positions.

Biden:

Biden stated on Friday that President Trump “isn’t fit to hold the job” and said that he did not want Trump to attend the inauguration. I have no problem with that statement. Indeed, Trump himself has said far worse about Biden and he has also stated that he does not want to attend the inauguration. I also have no problem with calls for Trump’s resignation or a bipartisan statement of condemnation from Congress. However, critics want to push through an impeachment will little discussion or deliberation on highly dubious constitutional grounds.

When asked, Biden stated:

“I’m focused on the virus, the vaccine, and economic growth. What the Congress decides to do is for them to decide,” Biden answered when asked if he supported such moves. … We’re going to do our job and the Congress can decide how to proceed with theirs. That’s a decision for the Congress to make. I’m focused on my job.”

A fateful dodge:

The defense of the Constitution is “his job” and this would gut both the process and the standard for impeachments. This was an opportunity to take a principled stand to unify the country by asking his party to stand down and not pursue a “snap impeachment.” As I discuss in my column today, this impeachment not only threatens principles underlying impeachment but also free speech in our Constitution.

As with court packing, this is not the time for good people to stand silent even in the face of such unhinged anger. Indeed, Democrats may loathe the day that they embraced the concept of a “snap impeachment” — a contradiction in constitutional terms. Impeachments are designed for deliberative, not impulsive, acts.

As leader-elect, what?

Indeed, Biden’s reference to more pressing matters is preciously the point. He should have asked Congress to focus on those issues and not [on] an impeachment that will not succeed in removal but will succeed in undermining our constitutional system.

Turley a Democrat, hoping for more from his choice:

This was the type of “Say It Ain’t So, Joe” moment that I was hoping for after the election. Biden could have refused to go along with this plan or to remain silent in the face of a clearly improper use of the impeachment power. He could still have condemned the speech and the President, as many have done. He could then have asked for his party not to do greater damage byrampaging through the Constitution to try to remove Trump in his final days. That was a presidential moment missed by the President-elect.

One of many, in my view, to come.

From a longtime, firm supporter, a condenmation:

Nearly two hours after events had spun way out of control, the president gave his second speech close to 4:30 pm, but it was too little and too late. The man who had many times forcefully and rightly denounced Black Lives Matter and Antifa rioters used kid gloves to deal with the rioters on his side.

“I know your pain,” he began in brief remarks taped in the Rose Garden. He again insisted “we had an election that was stolen from us” but said “we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. We love you, you are very special . . . but go home and go in peace.”

A few minutes earlier, Biden had spoken and hit the right notes, calling the situation a “God-awful display.” In tones more sad than angry, he bemoaned that “our democracy is under unprecedented assault” and that the nation “has come to such a dark moment.”

On this day of infamy, he was more presidential than the president.

It’s “say it ain’t so” time, unfortunately.

After a stellar performance as POTUS.

Thou shalt not hear or read or watch such things.

Joe can’t leave those headlines for those other people.

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
We’re starting to see a lot of craziness in reaction to the Capitol protest. Or perhaps I should say, using that as an excuse to crack down on the right and on their speech.

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other social media are cracking down on any non-approved narratives.

Twitter locked President Donald Trump’s account and then released it after about a day or so. Then Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and others are calling for Trump to be pulled. Now as we just reported, Twitter has banned the president permanently. Twitter is now literally doing the bidding of the Democrats.

Which we have gotten used to, actually.

Facebook and Instagram already suspended Trump for at least two weeks and possibly permanently. Shopify even pulled MAGA goods from their online stores. Because MAGA hats are apparently evil now.

Democrats and media are also blaming Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and calling on them to resign or be expelled.

Going overboard.

This is crazy. It was a riot. With thousands of peaceful people and some who were not. Yet it’s being used to shut down the opposition and to shut down any election questions.

Objecting to the electoral count is not illegal, it’s not “sedition” or whatever craziness Democrats want to spread. It’s exactly part of the Constitutional order, which was something Democrats understood when they in fact objected over the last three Republican presidents, as we previously reported here and here.

Now word comes from Joe Biden that he is working on a bill to go after “domestic terrorism” with a redefinition of the term, to go after the “ideologically-inspired.”

His instincts have served him well over the years. Bad sign.

With friends and relatives in Portland and elsewhere in Oregon, I feel better already.