Take Down the Words
More Than a Breach of Decorum
Trump has his knickers all knotted, in a twist as it were. As painful as that sounds, one would suppose that even with one’s knickers knotted and twisted around one’s knockers, a seasoned leader would count to ten before ranting like a childish, ill-tempered lout. But, alas, that is not the case.
As we march towards a celebration of the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from the monarchistic State which oppressed us, as optimistic idealists imbued with a sense of decency, we cling to the hope that a person holding the highest office in this land of ours would exhibit a modicum of decency and diplomacy in public remarks.
With Trump, however, such hope has been frustrated time and time again. Just when we thought “He can’t go lower…This really is the bottom of his barrel”, we are delivered from our naivety by a fusillade of ever more fulsome claptrap, a barrage of verbiage spewing from the twisted mind of a would-be king.
The most recent low-ball blizzard of babble emerged when Trump called for the execution of Democratic members of Congress, all veterans with military or intelligence service, who had put together a video reminding member of the military of the provisions of the Military Code of Justice which require refusal to follow unlawful or illegal orders. The military’s “highest obligation” is to the US Constitution and the rule of law, not to orders which are illegal or unlawful. It is no surprise, therefore, that Trump, who flagrantly flouts the rule of law and would establish a despotic government where loyalty to the despot displaces fealty to the Constitution as guiding light, would lash out.
To be precise, Trump wrote in a post to Truth Social on Thursday that those lawmakers engaged in “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He wrote, “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT.” He then reposted “a post saying “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”
First, as to the charge of Sedition. Sedition involves “inciting insurrection against lawful authority”. The law defines sedition as an attempt to overthrow the government.
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both,” the law on sedition reads.
The purportedly seditious video does not call for insurrection. Rather, it reminds members of the armed forces that they do not have to follow unlawful orders. Given the public musing by Trump about turning the armed forces loose against protestors, against cities where voters cast their votes for Democrats, and imposing an armed federal force which has committed blatantly illegal acts of terror in pursuit of immigration enforcement, the video is timely and accurate.
It goes without saying that Trump’s original post and subsequent repost calling for execution of Democratic members of Congress, is serious business, misstating the law, ignoring the Constitution, and constituting, at the very least reckless, destructive, and wrong stuff, and, at most, arguably criminal conduct.
Stoking the flames of political violence is de rigeur for this petty tyrant. From the inception of his political career, to Charlottsville, through January 6, and throughout his reign, the spectre of political violence has suffused the Presidency. He has celebrated dictators as “strong”. He casually defends murder orchestrated by Heads of State with whom he has business saying “things happen”. He orders unlawful drone strikes on fishermen in the Caribbean. It’s clearly a short step to calling for the execution of elected Democrats whom he has characterized as traitors.
Words have consequences. The words of a President carry tremendous weight. We live in a time of fractious politics and increasing political violence. On January 6, 2020, the President’s words incited a mob to sack the Capitol. His words are proven to incite his followers to violence.
In an appearance on CNN, Senator Mark Kelly, one of those who participated in the video, discussed threats of violence, pointing out that my former colleague, his wife, Gabby Giffords, was the victim of political violence. What then, of the dog whistle by the President of the United States calling for the execution of Democratic member of Congress? Are threats of violence protected speech? Do the President’s words constitute a crime?
Whether speech is protected requires a detailed, fact specific analysis. In general, the First Amendment does not protect individuals from engaging in violence, true threats, the incitement of violence and harassment.
Federal solicitation charges usually involve solicitations to commit acts of violence. Most violations are dealt with under 18 U.S. Code § 373, which explicitly concerns “solicitation to commit a crime of violence.”
Section 373 of Title 18 describes and penalizes the offense of solicitation to commit a federal crime of violence. This statute was enacted by Congress as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and stated:
“any person who makes a serious effort to induce someone to commit a crime of violence is a dangerous person, and their act deserves criminal sanctions whether or not the crime of violence is committed.”
Under the solicitation statute, the Government has to prove two primary elements.
First, the prosecutor has to establish that the defendant had the intent that someone else engage in conduct constituting a felony crime of violence that violates federal law. The intent has to be shown to be serious by strongly corroborative circumstances.
Next, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant commanded, induced, or otherwise endeavored to persuade someone to commit the felony crime.
A prosecution for inciting violence clearly must meet a very high bar. And, given that the Supreme Court has given Trump immunity for committing crimes in his official capacity, the social media posts, his preferred method of communicating, whether criminal or not, are arguably official statements. There will be no prosecution.
We are left with the ugliest American in our history, sinking to a new low. Let’s hope that universal condemnation of the remarks is heard., Let’s hope that even MAGA and elected Republicans disavow the remarks in the strongest terms. Let’s hope that voices of reason stand up and speak out against the words.
As a member of Congress, one can request that another member be sanctioned for remarks that violate decorum. Most often, such remarks might include profanity or words that cast personal aspertions upon another member. When a request to “Take down the words” is made, the member against whom the request is directed must immediately be seated and await the ruling of the Speaker of the House. A member whose words have been ruled out of order may not speak again on the same day without express permission of the House.
If a member of Congress called for the death of a fellow member in debate, I suppose that would qualify as words that breach decorum. I suppose, common sense would require sanctions to be imposed. Would that I could request the words of the POTUS be taken down…day after day after day until the stain on the Presidency he represents is ended.
Keep The Faith.