Thread by @MaajidNawaz

After looking carefully, I am unable to conclude that Trump - though culpable - legally “incited” violence

In fact, he specifically caveated his words with “legally & patriotically”

Words *must* matter

And these speeches - from the summer - appear worse

Listeners will recall that I said “culpable but not incitement” multiple times on my @LBC show last weekend

I hadn’t read the below but I am glad Andrew Koppelman, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University, Illinois, confirms my assessment
apnews.com/article/can-do…

“It looks to me like Trump was culpably reckless. But it seems to me the Brandenburg standard requires intention,” Koppleman said

He said Giuliani’s exhortation sounded more like a metaphor than an incitement to violence. “It’s like the word fight. It’s often used as a metaphor”

Here is a different clip from that same @LBC show of mine last weekend, decrying Big Tech’s hypocrisy in banning the President over this “incitement” charge

https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1347948972346912771

No fair assessment - and crucially no fair journalist - can ignore the below words of the President. Especially when they are contrasted against words that appear *far worse* (in the first video above) uttered by those who are now alleging “incitement”

“Trump didn’t even come close to incitement”
I suspect that top US constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ders…) would know that of which he speaks.

Many misunderstand whatabouttery:

I ask why you don’t like apples, you say “but Adam doesn’t like apples either”
= whatabouttery

I ask why you say you don’t like apples when I offer, yet you accept some when Adam offers
= pointing out hypocrisy

Let’s try not to be hypocrites.