The Big Lie IS Incitement

The Second Impeachment Trial for ex-President Trump has been a frustrating ordeal to watch. The Democrat House Managers made a very good case against the former president. They did an excellent job connecting the dots from Trump's refusal to concede losing the election, his continual telling of the Big Lie that the election was fraudulently lost, to intimidating elected officials in various states in an effort to overturn the election results, to bullying the Justice Department, and even publicly attacking his own VP. There is one point the House Managers make with which I don't completely agree - that Trump was purposely trying to get his followers to commit violence with his words in the speech on Jan 6. He did say things like "fight like hell" but the defense's point is well taken that politicians use this type of language all the time. Additionally, Trump used the word "peacefully" when describing the way in which the crowd should behave. This was a point of considerable discussion during the trial. However, looking solely at the language of the speech is, in my opinion, missing the mark.

One question of incredible importance regarding this trial is the definition of the word incitement. Does incitement require a direct command to violence (i.e. "Go to the Capitol and riot!"). The legal definition could suggest that it does. Per 18 US Code 2102 the definition of incitement is as follows: 

"to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts."

Given this definition, the argument could be made that Trump was simply advocating the idea that the election was stolen and expressing his belief of the same. However, combining Trumps advocacy of antidemocratic ideas AND his statements such as "fight like hell" makes a stronger case for incitement. Giving the majority of Republican senators who chose not to convict the benefit of the doubt (which, in my opinion, some of them do not really deserve) I can see they chose to acquit based on this strict legal definition and, at the end of the day, still feel that their integrity is intact.

However, an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial and criminal statutes do not necessarily hold as much power or importance because an impeachment trial is essentially a political trial. Additionally, the standard of proof needed to be set forth by the prosecution is not laid forth in the Constitution. Given this, a more liberal application of the term incitement is appropriate in an impeachment trial. Consider Mitch McConnell's statement after voting to acquit. He agreed with the House Manager's position, but voted to acquit based on a technical issue, but stated that the former president could be held accountable before a criminal court for his role in the January 6th insurrection. This is troubling because the case could be made in a criminal court where precise statutes of criminal codes hold the day that Trump did not incite violence based on the strict criminal code. An impeachment trial is precisely the place to hold government leaders accountable for such high crimes and misdemeanors against the public. This is why, in context, the vote to acquit is such an abuse of the public trust in this case.

It is my belief that the incitement to insurrection and incitement to violence was the Big Lie itself and the months long fostering of that lie by Donald Trump. Trump repeatedly, publicly, and forcefully stated the election was rigged, fraudulently stolen by the Democrats, and that the voice of the American people was being subverted. Trump started telling this lie even before the election began. In a democratic republic like the United States where the power of government is derived from the voice of the people, this lie is one that could easily cause violence if told long enough and loud enough. 

The political right is very open and vocal about their distrust of the government. They proudly discuss the absolute necessity of the Second Amendment to protect against government overreach and government corruption, and generally speaking there is a good point in that argument. Violence may seem to be an appropriate tool when all else has failed in a system meant to protect and hold sacred the voice of the people. That is precisely why this lie about widespread fraud and a stolen election is so damning - it almost demands violence, especially if it is believed that there is no recourse or process for grievance. But, there is a process for recourse or grievance - the courts. The vast majority of news outlets covered the outcomes of these legal cases in the months between the election and inauguration. However, many Trump supporters believe the "mainstream" media is against them (there is some left-leaning bias in the news media, not as much as typically argued, but it's there). Thus, they did not believe the overwhelming reporting of the evidence that the election was not rife with widespread fraud, because it was labelled "fake news." Trump supporters may also have come to believe the courts are in on this fraud, and many Trump supporters and Republicans believe the Democrat majority is willing to lie and cheat... so what other choice do they have than to riot or mob when they are told by the most powerful man in the country that the system is completely broken and democracy is dead? As Dr. Martin Luther King stated, "A riot is the language of the unheard." That is and was true for the Trump supporters. on January 6. The President - the man in power who has access to the most intelligence and information from the entire force of the federal government - was telling them that their voices were not heard, were not counted, were stolen, that the other side cheated and the whole system is in on it. That lie, which has and was disproven repeatedly, is what caused this violence. 

Ask yourself this: If, after all of the court cases and recounts had been completed, President Trump had conceded and congratulated Joe Biden, do you think that there would have been violence at the Capitol? I significantly doubt it. But, if there was violence and Trump had conceded, there would not be this question of whether Trump is somehow to blame, and this impeachment trial most certainly would not be happening. The Big Lie is the incitement. Let's not get distracted by deciphering whether "fight like hell" or "peacefully march" meant that Trump intended the crowd to be violent or to just be strong in conviction. Honestly, we'll never know what he intended because he didn't testify and, even if he did, we still wouldn't get the truth. Without the Big Lie, there would be no violence, but with the Big Lie, violence was almost certainly a consequence - whether Trump intended for it or not. 

As the man in the most powerful position in the country, and possibly the world, it is his responsibility to understand the power of his words and to realize the fragile nature of democratic institutions to powerful antidemocratic rhetoric from a sitting president. If he did understand the power of this lie and didn't care, then Rep. Cheney was correct that "There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution." If he didn't understand the power of his lie, his lack of understanding and ignorance is frankly astonishing. Trump, then, is either a demagogue or a fool. Regardless, a demagogue or a fool is not one who should hold the highest office in the land - ever.