i mean, i would definitely be going hard in the paint on the "the cops let us in and told us to go in, how can that possibly be trespassing" angle..

Good luck with that defense.

it's gotta be better than saying "i'm not a magician" on national tv in standing in front of your client.

Well, they apparently have a good lawyer. I have two degrees of separation from this guy on several fronts and have met him a few times many years ago. Suffice to say he makes ambulance chasers look like saints.

its not? its certainly mitigating.

wasnt there a guy who beat a murder rap bc he was under the influence of rap music? this seems more influential.

Peter Navarro is an idiot.

I watched him go through the most convoluted 'results based thinking' exercise and rationale for why he knew more and was smarter that Dr Fauci, when it comes to the pandemic and he seemed to have no clue why that is wrong.

lol no actually that guy got executed lethal injection

Mitigating? They either committed the offense or they did not.

If a cop tells you that it is cool with him if you steal a car, you are still going to be convicted of stealing the car.

I think the case is, at least, interesting.

If the rioters go with some combination of the "POTUS asked us to rise up and act' and 'the police aided and abated', and lean more on the former than the latter, I think it poses an interesting question.


Imagine leaders throughout history (Churchill, Abe Lincoln, etc) telling the citizens 'our Democracy is at risk of insurrection from within and you 'the citizens' are the last stand and must rise up and fight or we will lose our country', and the citizens believing do rise up.

Is there not some mitigation to their liability if the call by the leader, turns out to be fraudulent? How would a jury see it?

What if a cop told you he was using his authority to commandeer a vehicle and he needed your help?

You help, and it turns out the cop was actually going rogue and stealing it?

Do you have a defense against assisting the theft because you believed his authority and believed him?

No. Just plain No. As a moderator here in Politics, it is sometimes difficult to find a balance you (and all) should want. When deciding Yea or Nay...... facts are often THE factor ....as it should be, no?

Not the fables made by Navarro, Rudy, LizardLadies...... what did they bring into the court room AND STAND BEHIND? Last I heard, the election Fraud claims outside the courts were NEVER argued in the courts because....the claims were fraudulent.

You have been claiming election fraud. What is your proof? OPINIONS by Navarro etc.... without THEM proving proof is simply opinion. And their opinions about election fraud have been proven false over and over again. The FACT that 'they' NEVER claim fraud inside a courtroom should be a warning flag to you to maybe...put on the brakes of your runaway train?

i mean the stealing for sure, but trespassing is normally something like "without the express invitation of the person in lawful control of the premises." the capitol police opening the door and ushering people through into the capitol videos certainly look as if they are in lawful control of the premises.

Those that try to use that defense here will have to be pretty convincing that they were actually just there for the organized tour of the building and had no idea the drooling screamers around them changed that dynamic in the slightest.

Yeah, it was a normal situation with a normal tour group. The security assumed it was the 2:00 tour and let them in. After the tour they all went for the early bird at Dennys.

Definitely possible people will try to use that argument. Then again a lot of these guys have been saying stuff like oh well they broke the law tough luck and if someone told you to jump off a bridge would you do that too? for our entire lives

I agree.

But what you are saying is 'it comes down to how convincing those arguments are' and not 'there really is no defense', and I am arguing the former, as well.


What I am not arguing is that a jury will buy it, but I do think there is some argument, if positioned by enough of the accused, that they saw it a "POTUS call to arms' and they felt they were doing their citizen duty in responding.

Whether that ends up in a 'not guilty' verdict or just as a 'mitigating consideration in sentencing', I guess is what we might find out.

But the evidentiary value of potentially 100's of accused all saying under oath and in court 'we acted on our POTUS call to arms' is not insignificant, even if delusional.

If that is their only defense en masse then they should continue betting on Trump to win as that is a better math play for them in terms of expected results.

Perhaps some specific individuals who have some documented mental medical condition might be able to parlay that better with that type of defense, like the guy dressed as a water buffalo, but that would be case specific as to how someone with that type of condition would react to the type of stuff Trump and his lackeys spewed (with documentation).

I will not be surprised if a few specific people have a reasonable defense and receive minimal punishment, though they will have to be people who have no history of violence and no documented violence on all the videos. Dudes with videos of them with zip ties or breaking windows and of course hitting the cops are pretty much donezo. Those Trumpderps likely have a documented violent past as well, so no chance the tour group/following the cops orders to enter thing will go too far for them.

I believe that police in most U.S. states can commandeer your vehicle under very limited circumstances. But it almost never happens.

And if the police officer orders you to break a car window or drag a driver out of the driver seat, you would be well advised not to comply unless the officer is threatening you. I would be shocked if police officers are allowed to do that sort of thing when commandeering a vehicle.

First of all, almost none of these people will be testifying in their own defense because they would get crucified on cross. And some of the arguments that you all are imagining would be the subjects of motions in limine and probably would not be allowed by the court.

This argument probably would be allowed on a trespass charge. But everyone should remember that:

• Most people will be charged with other crimes in addition to trespass. There is no way the police were giving people permission to damage government property, enter private offices, steal stuff, etc.
• Many people were breaking windows, trying to force doors, and doing other things that were entirely inconsistent with being given consent to enter and run around the Capitol.
• Many people refused to leave after being ordered to do so by law enforcement. In other words, if Mr. Viking Helmet wants to argue that he was given permission, his lawyer would have to explain why it was reasonable for Mr. Viking Helmet to believe that the permission was unrevocable. Otherwise, Mr. Viking Helmet is back to trespassing.
• Police officers are going to testify that they did not give people permission to entry but rather made a tactical decision not to prevent entry by force. And the police will say that they made that decision because they were badly outnumbered and the alternative would have been widespread use of deadly force.
• Juries tend to believe police officers.

When these charges get to trial . . . would there be a jury? Peers?

Would a Def. Lawyer want a jury?

Guess it would depend on which jurisdictions these trials take place in?

Damn, man. If/when I ever end up back in court, I don't want to be up against you.

Well if i am the DC AG or any of the other prosecutors considering charging Trump and Co, with the incitement of this mob, I would certainly be looking at getting as many of the 'accused rioters' via deposition to state what they thought POTUS was asking or demanding they do.

These laws are difficult to prosecute as they rely on 'intent' of the speaker but there is another important component which is 'what the person heard and assumed was meant'. That is tested on a 'reasonable man' test and the question of would a reasonable man hearing the same thing assume the same and act the same. If you have a 100 more saying they 'assumed the same' and 'acted the same' I think that if pretty strong evidence of that part of the proof needed to convict.

"...It's law in DC since 2011. It makes illegal the statements of individuals that clearly encourage, cajole, and otherwise,...get people motivated to commit violence,"

Legal Eagle put out a very detailed video on this subject.



(I didn't mean for this to start at a timestamp, but it does for me. Not sure if that's a problem with the link or something in my cache).

I assume that most or all rioters will be tried in federal court in DC, so jurisdiction isn't really a question. In federal court, a criminal case can be tried to a jury only if the defendant waives his right to a jury trial and the government consents to the waiver.

As a defense lawyer, I would want a jury, but that's true in almost any criminal case.

And as I'm sure you realize, jury of your peers just means a jury of your fellow citizens. It doesn't mean a jury of your fellow believers in a bunch of Q Anon horseshit.

I'm not following the bolded. Should that read "can be tried by the bench only if the defendant waives his right to a jury trial", or am I missing something?