Could Trump be charged with inciting the actions of 6th January 2021? The Daily Mail claims in a recent article about the incident on January 6th: And he [Trump] could face prosecution in state court in Washington DC for inciting the mob to violence. Could Trump be charged with inciting the actions of 6th January 2021?
Charged: yes. Another answer has mentioned incitement to riot in 18 USC 2101. There is also incitement to insurrection in 18 USC 2383. This carries with it upon conviction a prohibition on holding office under the United States, both in the federal law itself and also via Amendment 14 of the Constitution of the United States. There are laws under which charges could be brought, and there is certainly no impediment to bringing them after M. Trump's term of office ends. Bringing them before then raises questions of presidential immunity, but I strongly doubt that speaking at the start of a &quot;Save America March&quot; can be construed as an action in any official Presidental capacity. Convicted: only maybe. M. Trump's statements have to extend beyond what is protected by Amendment 1 and actually be incitement to insurrection. Although there is a strong case that seeking to kill the Vice President of the United States (&quot;Where's Mike Pence?&quot; as people shouted) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives (&quot;Tell Nancy we're coming for her!&quot;), seeking to obstruct the function of the Congress, and seeking to remove the Electoral College certificates, are indeed insurrection; as possibly is whatever the woman who refused to stop brandishing a knife at the door of the building was intending to do; reading the transcript of the whole speech given at the start of the &quot;Save America March&quot;, it is difficult to point to where M. Trump specifically incited any of those things. One can make circumstantial arguments, but the words actually uttered then and there merely encouraged marchers on a &quot;Save America March&quot; to march to the Capitol and cheer people on, &quot;demand&quot; that congresspeople &quot;do the right thing&quot;, and &quot;make your voices heard&quot;. This is in contrast to M. Trump's son and daughter in law who explicitly mention &quot;fight&quot;, &quot;fighter&quot;, and &quot;fighting&quot;, 7 times by Eric Trump by my count and 4 times by Lara Trump. And of course Rudy Giuliani not only said &quot;fight&quot; but also proposed &quot;trial by combat&quot;. In more potential criminal trouble than even them is lawyer and prominent Trump supporter, L. Lin Wood, who explicitly called, without equivocation, several times over a period of days, on Twitter and on Parler, for the Vice President of the United States to be executed by firing squad. There will certainly be mixed fortunes in the Trump family from this. Whilst there may be a case against Eric and Lara, and possibly Donald Sr.; Ivanka Trump did not speak beforehand that I know of, and is reported afterwards to have asked her father to go and speak to the mob about stopping, which she also did directly, albeit ineptly (&quot;American Patriots — any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable. The violence must stop immediately. Please be peaceful.&quot;), herself via Twitter for a short while.
There’s some truth in it When a matter, particularly a criminal matter, is before a court or sub judice, public comment is forbidden and may be contempt of court unless they are “a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith.” Technically, it only applies to media reporting (probably including social media) and only while the proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there is an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons. Notwithstanding, there is nothing preventing an organisation having a “no comment” policy on any matter once there is police involvement.
In short, no, that cant be a pardon for those police officers who would be now influenced to take more violent actions towards those they detain. Pardons are only applicable to past actions. You may be pardoned before charges are filed, but the actions must have already occured. Though I less certain about this, simply because Ive never heard such a thing proposed, I would also note that it is highly improbable that the actual statement he made - generic and during a speech - could everbe interpreted as an affirmative act intending to grant pardons to anyone who may act in that manner in the future.
US troops deployed to Germany would be covered by the Status of Forces Agreement, which governs jurisdiction. Your question also ignores the nature of the prosecution services in Germany, which do not allow a rogue junior official to file charges at a whim. You would have to assume that at least a state government, if not the federal government, actively pushes the case. (And the federal government could probably take the case away from any state which had such ideas.) If you look for precedents of legal jeopardy, look at the case of Anwar Raslan, a Syrian official convicted of torture in Germany. It is also a closer parallel to the Pinochet case. Finally, the principles underlying such prosecutions were established in Germany but not by Germany. I'm talking of the Nuremberg trials. If German courts were to find the US Army to be a criminal organization, then individual members would be at risk. But as a political scenario, that is absurd.
The general rule is that force may be legally used in defense of self. I will draw on RCW 9A.16.020, other jurisdictions say essentially the same thing. The relevant parts are: (3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary Curated internet videos don't tell the whole story, but for the sake of argument I will assume that Mr X chucked a bottle at Tyson, and Tyson proceeded to punish him with his fists. Both parties thus committed a crime. The new report indicates that there will be no prosecutions &quot;based on 'the circumstances surrounding the confrontation'&quot;, which I take to include all of the available evidence. Prosecution for a crime is discretionary. There is no requirement at a prosecutor file charges in every instance where (in the prosecutor's professional opinion) a conviction can be secured. The abstract law is clear: both parties committed a crime. The abstract law is also clear that a prosecutor has discretion to decide whether to prosecute.
The definitive answer to the question "could I be charged" is always YES. I refer you to the Manassas City teen charged with child pornography. Child pornography laws were put in place to protect children and prevent them from being exploited by having sexual pictures of them taken and distributed. In this case, the picture in question is of the young man’s own genitals, which would make him both the perpetrator and the victim. Apparently the lead detective in the Manassas City teen's case was himself a pedophile and just wanted an excuse to use force to photograph the teen's erect penis. Why would you assume this "girl" is a "17 year old girl" or a "15 year old girl" and not a 39 year old pedophile Manassas police officer?
It is not a crime to say, &quot;The people want to bring down the regime.&quot; This specific tweet is almost certainly not illegal. Even if this guy is subjectively trying to overthrow the government, this would probably be an impossible prosecution for a lot of reasons. First: 18 USC 2385 deals with &quot;overthrow or destruction of the government.&quot; Does &quot;regime&quot; mean the government or does it just mean the Trump administration? I'm guessing it just means the administration, and if that's the case, you're dealing with a matter of public concern rather than a true threat of overthrow. Especially because this comes right after the election, you've got strong arguments that this is commentary on a matter of public concern, e.g., &quot;the people want to end the Trump regime,&quot; or maybe &quot;the people wanted regime change and therefore voted for Trump, or that you need a change in the constitutional form of government to do away with the Electoral College.&quot; Whatever it means, commentary on a matter of public concern cannot be punished under Section 2385. Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987). Second: 18 USC 2385 deals with overthrow by &quot;by force or violence.&quot; To say you want to bring down the regime says nothing about how you want to bring down the regime. Third: The invocation of the Arab Spring could sort of cut in either direction, as it involved regime changes effected both through nonviolent protest and violent revolution. Fourth: Even if we interpret this as Ayloush saying that regime change would be good, that he personally wants regime change, or that other people should want or work toward regime change, that's still not enough to get you into the conduct prohibited by Section 2385, which does not prohibit &quot;doctrinal justification of forcible overthrow.&quot; Here's some relevant language from Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290 (1961): [T]he mere abstract teaching of Communist theory, including the teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action. There must be some substantial direct or circumstantial evidence of a call to violence now or in the future which is both sufficiently strong and sufficiently pervasive to lend color to the otherwise ambiguous theoretical material. This seems like pretty solidly First Amendment-protected political speech.
Carl may not do this, as he would be prohibited from making this argument at trial. At trial, evidence must be relevant, meaning that it makes a fact of consequence more or less likely to be true. Because the trial is meant to determine whether Carl is or is not guilty, his promises of future philanthropy have no bearing on the matter. And even if they somehow did, Carl still would not be able to tell the jury about them because they would be blocked under Rule 403, which excludes evidence because its probative value is substantially outweighed by its risk of biasing or confusing the jury. If Carl attempts to make these statements anyway, he risks a mistrial, which means he has to start over with with a new jury. In some jurisdictions, Carl may, however, be permitted to make this argument during the sentencing phase, where the court can properly consider the societal effects of whatever punishment it imposes. At this point, though, it's obviously a little late for Carl, as it presumes he has been convicted.