Conspiracy to Incite Violence

A man stands accused of inspiring, inciting, prompting (insert your word of choice) his followers to act, and their actions lead to violence and death. The accused man is not physically present during the violence, but he is arrested based upon his alleged influence over the perpetrators.

Does this sound familiar?

As I listen to the proceedings against Donald Trump, I'm struck by the parallels with Manson's case.

And Manson, as we know, helped to convict himself by virtue of his enormous ego, arrogance, and disdain for the court system. That seems to be another notable parallel. Could history repeat itself?

Both cases were national news and will span months.

This is obviously a gross oversimplification of the two cases, but there are similarities.

In my humble opinion, when the date for "transfer of power" arrived, Trump should have conceded defeat graciously. I think it was okay for Trump to challenge the election results up to that point, but if he couldn't prove election fraud before the "transfer of power" date, it should have been "game over". That should have been his deadline to admit defeat. 

Even if Trump was still convinced that there WAS election fraud, at that point, the peaceful transfer of power supersedes all else (for the good of the nation). At that point, the time for challenging the results had expired.

Do I think Trump belongs in prison over this situation? 

I think Trump exercised poor judgement. I think Trump is an extremist. His use of "social media" is unprofessional and detrimental to himself, and arguably others. But as of now, I don't think he belongs in jail. He probably belongs on a psychiatrist's couch, but not jail. (In his mind, I think he truly believed that the election had been stolen. That of course, is subjective speculation on my part). I say "as of now", because the legal proceedings have just begun, and I have no idea what further evidence the prosecution will submit. In short, I'm presuming Trump is innocent, until I'm convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality.

Context:

I think it should be noted, that Liberal Left "activists" have rioted, burned cities to the ground, looted stores, obstructed traffic, etc, etc,... all in the name of justice and protest (for various reasons, including outside Trump rallies), and no political figurehead has ever been held personally responsible for those actions. In fact, to my knowledge, no Democratic figurehead has ever publicly discouraged or condemned such actions (which obviously, would be the right thing to do). In reality, Democrats have condoned such actions repeatedly. It seems to me, the issue is not about what's being done (wrong), but who's doing it. We need a consistent standard of behavior and justice system for everyone. Unfortunately for Trump and the Republicans, from a legal standpoint, they probably chose the wrong venue and event to finally vent their spleen.

To vent one's spleen means to air one's grievances, to make enraged complaints, or to express one's anger.

I think the perpetrators of January 6th were complete whack jobs. I would never support or condone such activity. However, up until now, I haven't seen anything concrete which proves that Trump had specifically ordered those specific actions beyond reasonable doubt. Words such as "We have to fight for our Freedom. We have to fight for our country" can mean many things to many people. We'll see what the prosecution submits as evidence going forward. The prosecution may produce evidence that will convince me of Trump's direct participation and intent.

This situation does prove one thing however...

Our Department of Justice is definitely partisan along party lines, and that's bad for everyone. The Judge presiding over Trump's case is a hardcore Democrat, and any fool knows that will work to his disadvantage. In contrast, some of the Republican candidates for Presidency have already said they will pardon Trump if they are elected. What does that tell you? Our system has become an absolute joke.

If you're a Republican politician, you're innocent with a Republican Judge, and guilty with a Democratic Judge. If you're a Democratic politician, you're innocent with a Democratic judge, and guilty with a Republican judge. 

If you're a Republican politician, you're impeached by the Democrats, and pardoned by your own Republicans. If you're a Democratic politician, you're impeached by the Republicans, and pardoned by your own Democrats. This nonsense isn't good for anyone. We've become a 3rd-world nation.

Maybe Charles Manson's opinion of our justice system was more accurate than we care to admit. Don't get me started on the disparity of justice for rich men versus poor men...

Kangaroo court is an informal pejorative term for a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc. A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion.

Trump would do himself a HUGE favor if he simply stopped insulting and threatening the Judge, Prosecutor and potential witnesses on social media. It's like watching Charles Manson screw himself all over again. Manson lost his right to defend himself because of his antics, and Trump may get his bail revoked for the same reasons. Where is Irving Kanarek when you need him?? LMAO!!!