On the recordFebruary 12, 2021
I send a question to the desk directed at both sides. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas has a question for both sides. The clerk will read the question, and the House managers will go first for 2\1/2\ minutes. The legislative clerk read as follows: Out of their 16 hours, the House managers devoted all of 15 minutes to articulating a newly created legal standard for incitement: 1, was violence foreseeable; 2, did he encourage violence; 3, did he do so willfully? Is this new standard derived from the Criminal Code or any Supreme Court case? While violent riots were raging, Kamala Harris said on national TV: They're not gonna let up--and they should not. And she also raised money to bail out violent rioters. Using the managers' proposed standard, is there any coherent way for Donald Trump's words to be incitement and Kamala Harris' words not to be incitement? Mr. Manager RASKIN. Thank you, Mr. President and Senators. I am not familiar with the statement that is being referred to with respect to the Vice President, but I find it absolutely unimaginable that Vice President Harris would ever incite violence or encourage or promote violence. Obviously, it is completely irrelevant to the proceeding at hand, and I will allow her to defend herself. The President's lawyers are pointing out that we have never had any situation like this before in the history of the United States, and it is true.…
Source
govinfo.gov




