Has anyone yet pointed out that the "clear intent" defense shouldn't matter at all?

[Silent3]

I have heard many a pundit repeat the line that incitement can be difficult to prove, because "clear intent" is difficult to prove.

So the fuck what? Why accept such pathetically low standards for presidential conduct?

Impeachment is about suitability to serve in government and fulfill the duties of your office. When the office in question is President of the United States, the standards should be incredibly high.

Even if we hypothetically allow that Trump did not "knowingly" incite violence, why should that matter?

Anyone capable of spewing the rhetoric that came out of Trump's mouth without knowing the kind of violence it could provoke would be so grossly incompetent and unsuited to the duties of the presidency that he should certainly be convicted and barred from holding office ever again.

[The Magistrate]

1. Hear Hear, Sir!

[onecaliberal]

2. His intent is and has been clear from the start.

To hold power. /end

[Silent3]

5. Of course intent is clear, but all avenues of defense should be explicitly block nevertheless n/t

[Grins]

3. Intent is not required and I have proof.

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds.” - Lindsey Graham, 16 Jan 1999.

Back then a simple blow job was sufficient.

[Silent3]

6. Yes, but we need to keep throwing that in the Republican Senators faces

It probably still won't be enough to get sufficient Republican votes, but we make their craven defense of Trump as explicit and humiliating as possible.

[PurgedVoter]

4. Agreed!

Actual result and predictable result are clear. If a CEO repeatedly does the same thing and profits go down, or the stock keeps dropping, no one with voting shares is going to stand behind the CEO's intent to make a profit and grow the company.
If the share holders continue to support such a CEO, it becomes clear that there is another game going on.

[struggle4progress]

7. His activities during the riot clearly exhibit his intent;

and his intent was corrupt under 18 USC 1505 and other statutes

And any reasonable person would have foreseen the harms