Name: Impeachment: Capitol riot 'not the result' of Trump's speech, says lawyer
Uploaded: 2021-02-13T18:10:38.000Z
Duration: 2 min 20 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Participle clauses

And yet the House managers, knowing it was not contested at all, chose to spend 14 plus hours showing you pictures of how horrific the attack on the United States Capitol Waas.

Adverbs of manner

They spent no time at all in connecting legally.

The attack on the capital to the 45th president of the United States, which is the Onley question that needs to be answered is, was Donald Trump responsible for inciting the violence that came to this building on January 6th?

The Supreme Court of the United States over 50 years ago laid out a clear test to determine whether speech is incitement.

Under that test, the Brandenburg vs Ohio Test there are three elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a preponderance of the evidence.

Whatever the Senate considers, I suggest beyond a reasonable doubt.

First, the speech in question must explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action.

But here the president's speech called for peaceful protest.

Second, the speaker must intend that his speech will result in the use of violence or lawless action.

Finally, the third element under the Brandenburg Test is the imminent use of violence, imminent use of violence.

In other words, right then, the imminent use of violence or lawless action must be that the likely result of the speech the likely result of the speech?

 Well, that argument is completely eviscerated by the fact that the violence was preplanned, as confirmed by the FBI, Department of Justice and even the House managers, not the result of the speech at all. 