• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

DC Attorney General Reportedly Looking at Charging Trump for Inciting Capitol Riots

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
33,413
45,373
2,510
California
manabyte.com

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine is weighing charges for the president stemming from the Jan. 6 siege on the Capitol. CNN correspondent Evan Perez reported on the news, but says that Racine is taking an “expansive view of his powers” by claiming that charging the president is within his purview — rather than that of federal prosecutors.

“There is a limitation on what the attorney general’s office can really do here in Washington, D.C,” Perez said. “All criminal prosecutions generally are handled by the U.S. attorney.”

On Saturday, Racine told Fox News, ““My office [has] jurisdiction for a charge called ‘inciting violence’ … [we’re] going to be thorough … we’re going to go where the facts lead. If any individual incited violence, then we’ll go there

“In any criminal investigation, I don’t care if it’s a drug trafficking conspiracy case, a human trafficking case or the Capitol — all persons will be looked at, OK?” Sherwin said. “If the evidence is there, great. If it’s not, you move on. But we follow the evidence. If the evidence leads to any actor that may have had a role in this and if that evidence meets the four corners of a federal charge or a local charge, we’re going to pursue it.”

Drunk Star Trek GIF
 

Maiden Voyage

Gold™ Member
Sep 5, 2014
7,724
10,251
1,175
USA
Not too surprising but this will be almost impossible to convict or prove in court.

Here's an article from a few days ago that was speculating whether there could be a case or not:

Incitement can take place anywhere and anytime – both online and in-person and over the course of minutes, days or more. So anything said by Trump or his associates at rallies, through the media or online, can be used as evidence against them.

“Things that Trump or his associates said on Twitter or Facebook or social media generally could certainly count as incitement,” Ohlin said.

Pursuing incitement charges is “particularly compelling as a criminal law case because there was a specific political rally, there were speeches by Giuliani and by Trump and others – and then the crowd went from that rally to the Capitol, stormed into it and rioted and committed acts of violence,” Ohlin said. “There’s such a specific connection between those speeches and you can point to particular phrases.”

To be sure, Trump, Giuliani and others would almost surely argue that they are not legally culpable because they did not specifically instruct their supporters to barge into the Capitol building and commit violent acts.

But Ohlin said that prosecutors don’t necessarily have to prove that the accused person made a specific call for criminal activity – only that the person had an intent to spark such actions.

“He doesn’t have to explicitly say, ‘Break down the doors,’ or, ‘Go kill people.’ His intent does matter, but his intent can be inferred from the overall situation,” Ohlin said. “If you take the whole content, it’s clear that he wanted them to take action.”

What’s more, Trump’s behavior behind the scenes during the riots could lend evidence to prosecutors seeking to prove that he intended for his supporters to commit acts of violence, experts said.

“If there were somebody in the room with him who can verify under oath that he was giddy, absolutely that goes to supporting his … intent to see this criminal conduct,” said Steven Morrison, a University of North Dakota law professor who has written about criminal conspiracy law.

A jury could also rule that “any reasonable person would know that if Trump said what he said on Twitter, said what he said at the rally, that the likely response would be his supporters going to the Capitol, which he asked them to do, and committing acts of violence, which, history has shown, they are willing to do,” Morrison added.
 
Last edited:

Kreen101

Member
Sep 4, 2019
875
1,776
355
Even before the Capitol incident, it was widely assumed that the Establishment would try to sue or imprison or somehow punish Trump. The message is: let nobody ever cross us again. And also: he scared the heck out of us and we’re terrified he might come back.

Basically Trump is Napoleon, the Establishment is England, and they’re looking for some judicial Saint Helena they can send him to, lest he mounts a comeback.
 
  • Thoughtful
  • Like
Reactions: Kerlurk and haxan7

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,624
16,733
830
I wouldn't be surprised if they try, but I would be surprised if anything actually came from it.
 

lefty1117

Member
Mar 20, 2017
1,096
737
415
Even before the Capitol incident, it was widely assumed that the Establishment would try to sue or imprison or somehow punish Trump. The message is: let nobody ever cross us again. And also: he scared the heck out of us and we’re terrified he might come back.

Basically Trump is Napoleon, the Establishment is England, and they’re looking for some judicial Saint Helena they can send him to, lest he mounts a comeback.
I think what's actually going to happen is Trump will be prosecuted for legitimate fraud crimes regarding tax and real estate valuations - that's probably his most likely path to prison (if any).