After the first day of the impeachment trial an interesting question has emerged. It is pretty obvious that there was a riot, and the riot was pretty darned scary. It was in fact a really big deal. It is also pretty obvious that the riot would not have happened if Trump hadn’t done all that he had done on that day and the weeks beforehand. His insistence that the election was a fraud, his insults, his working up “his base” for weeks, months and years all contributed to and eventually led to the riot. His order to match on the capitol and fight like hell created the set and setting for what followed. His failure to do something once it was started perhaps let it go on for too long, which is hard to actually know because he didn’t try to stop it therefore there is no way to know if he had the power to do that or not.

So now the question is did he “incite” it, or was it just political theater that went crazy? If it was political theater, while it was really obscene and stupid, that might not equate to “incite”. If it was within the definition of “inciting a riot,” then it looks to me like most of the Republicans were at least partly to blame since they kept up the fake election drumbeat with him, they supported all of his claims of being cheated and his claims that the future of America was at stake. The only real difference is what was done on that stage, and Trump was only a small part of that – his lawyer and family were as involved as he was.

It is going to be an interesting couple of days to see how this unfolds, and if he is eventually impeached how the Republicans get their dirty hands out of it. My guess is that they can’t find a way to wash their hands of their culpability, and thus will stand united behind him. However, we will see. It is clear that it happened, it is clear that it would not have happened but for his actions and words, that it was really bad, that he knew that it was probably going to happen when he told them to march to the capitol, he knew what was happening throughout the afternoon, and it is also clear that he did next to nothing to attempt to stop it. In addition to this, it was a planned event (including the plans to violently attack the capitol), and Trump almost certainly knew about the details of the plans because they were posted in plain sight on the social platforms that Trump is known to monitor. He knew they were dangerous, he knew that they planned on a violent confrontation at the capitol, and he specifically “invited” (ordered?) them to attend. He then proceeded to tell them to march to the capitol and fight like hell. Not only was that all true, but the people following his orders understood that they were explicitly following his orders. He told them that they were his soldiers and they accepted the role (and he knew that was the case).

But does this all add up to something other than the lies, insults, crazy political rhetoric that had become the norm during his Presidency? Does “inciting a riot” involve more than getting a bunch of people together, get them worked up into a frenzy and then telling them to fight like hell? Does inciting a riot mean giving explicit, detailed, orders to do bad things in the frenzy of a riot, or is it enough to set it up, light the fuse, and let it take whatever course is taken after that? Is the crime one of being responsible for the outcome, or is it in the very act of setting the mob into motion? Is it necessary for there to be a prior conspiracy between the inciter and the rioters? I think not, I think the riot can be completely extemporaneous (which clearly was not the case in this event) and the charge of inciting the riot be valid. If a conspiracy was involved, is that a separate crime for a future date?

It should be an interesting few days.