[ad_1]
Donald Trump is currently on trial in the Supreme Court, accused of inciting the uprising in Congress.
This incitement – and in English “incitement” – and the interpretation of it, will be absolutely central in the process that is now taking place in the United States Senate.
Chief Prosecutor Jamie Raskin thinks Trump’s remarks on Jan. 6, where he said, among other things, “fight like hell,” fit well. Lawyers for Trump, and several Republicans, on the other hand, strongly disagree.
– In the sense of criminal law, there is a practice of “incitement”, but in the sense of national law it can be something completely different, explains Dagbladet Geir Stenseth, professor of law at UiO.
He continues:
– The Supreme Court process is called a political process rather than a judicial process. Although the procedure is similar to that of a lawsuit, the assessment of what Trump has done will lead to a conviction will not depend, in principle, on the interpretation of any ordinary legislation. It will depend more on whether the senators believe that the president has seriously abused or violated the public trust that should apply to the office, and if we are dealing with actions that directly harm society itself and the social order, says Geir Stenseth, professor. of the law., to Dagbladet.
– It should be the base
Among other things, Stenseth cites a case in which the leader of the Ku Klux Klan, Clarence Brandenburg, was convicted in 1969 of inciting rebellion, before being acquitted on appeal, because they believed that his statements did not incite action. immediate violent.
– This also applies not only to the incitement itself, but the person saying it must understand that this will immediately turn into violent acts. There must have been an intention, or understanding, for the person in question that it would end in violence. So we are exactly in a borderline case here, Stenseth says.
Trump was right
But that applies to criminal law, which is somewhat different from federal law in the United States, he emphasizes.
“Incitement” often falls within freedom of speech. Princeton University Politics Professor Keith E. Whittington believes that a distinction must be made between criminal cases and a Supreme Court when it comes to defending free speech. He writes in a blog post that it will be difficult to see Trump’s statements end on the line for the criminal.
– But it can and should be the basis of the Supreme Court for an American president, believes Whittington.
The context
The Constitution allows a president to be convicted in a higher court if he has committed treason, bribery, or other criminal acts or crimes. Many consider that an incitement to an attack on Congress is like that.
– It is common to understand this for Trump to have violated the constitution, without necessarily having to have done something criminal. Most people who investigate this believe that they can be convicted in state court, without having to be convicted in ordinary court. After all, the purposes are different: In criminal law, someone who has committed a crime must be punished, while in federal law, the American state must be protected against leaders who do not deserve the public trust, Stenseth says.
New information
And this is where the word “incitement” comes in.
– Here is the question of whether any decent person who holds the presidency, and who takes the oath of allegiance to protect the constitution seriously, would refrain from making speeches and everything that led up to the speech, such as using every possible means to try . to be elected he failed. So the context of the clause must be established: if the speech had not been delivered, would the attack on Congress have occurred? This is what I have a feeling the prosecution is trying to establish, says Stenseth.
Languages
Trump has made numerous allegations of election fraud following the defeat of the November elections.
On January 6, the day Joe Biden was formally declared the next president of the United States, Donald Trump delivered a speech to supporters in Washington DC. This is what many have reacted to.
Trump said, among other things:
“We are fighting like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you will no longer have land,” Trump said in the speech.
However, the defense clings to the fact that Trump also said that I know that everyone here will soon march to the Capitol to “make yourself heard in a peaceful and patriotic way.”
For the record: Very few believe Donald Trump will be convicted in the Supreme Court case. To be so, two-thirds of the Senate must vote in favor. Half of them are Republicans, most of whom will not turn to their own party partners.
