| > Hate speech inciting violence Interesting, but what I don't understand is ... if Trump clearly incited violence, why was he not convicted? Would you say that the American justice system is not fair? *edit: responding to comment from zimmerman below, I watched the full trial, but have not seen any clear arguments made in favor of proving incitement. The legal scholar Jonathan Turley explains it better: "The reason is that while the crime is not clear, the case law is. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Trump never called for violence and instead told his followers to go to the Capitol peacefully to “cheer” on those challenging the electoral votes. Such protests at capitals are common and, while reckless, Trump’s speech could as easily be interpreted as a call for protest rather than violence." https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/19/want-to-prosecute-trum... *edit: Here's an informative video on House managers presenting fake evidence (as foolinaround explains below) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW3I3wXrBoo |
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-yes-mccon...
Which, if you paid attention to the trial was extremely well reported, so either you genuinely didn't pay attention at all or you're trying to imply anyone in Congress seriously believed he wasn't culpable.
So to answer your question simply, he wasn't convicted because it wasn't politically expedient to the rest of his political party.