Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

john asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 2 months ago

in a court of law do you think Donald Trump would have been found guilty of inciting a insurrection ?

25 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes and he soon will be

  • Aspen
    Lv 4
    2 months ago

    Yes. By Republicans saying not guilty, it was as if they were saying that petty drug dealers should be arrested and charged, but the big bad drug cartel boss must not be touched. Justice does not apply to Trump apparently... thanks Trumpublicans. 

  • 2 months ago

    I don’t think so now that the senate didn’t impeach him. If he would have been I would say yes.  He has too many supporters. The courts will look at that.

    Democrats need to stop with the insurrection claim.  It’s beginning to turn on them.  Kamala Harris bailing out rioters Which I didn’t realize until recently. These rioters bashed someone’s head open which can be considered an insurrection. Democrats have such a dangerous precedence with both of these impeachment trials end it has turned on them. She is an elected official which makes this constitutionally valid. I don’t agree with spite and hate but it has become a 2 Way St.

  • 2 months ago

    Of course. The jury of Senate Republicans were unindicted co conspirators. They helped sell the Big Lie.

    Can you imagine Mike Pence testifying? How about his family? After that, he would have been convicted easily. 

    This is why they didn't want witnesses. The last thing on Earth they wanted was for Pence to testify while the tape of him and his family being led to safety.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2 months ago

    It would have been an exceptionally solid case. The principle contrast is that Trump might have been summoned, addressed, and interviewed. There are likewise many insurrectionists who have openly expressed they were following Trump's requests when they assaulted the Capitol. Their declaration would make this a close certain conviction on the off chance that it were in a court.

  • David
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Not a snowball's chance at the equator.

  • ?
    Lv 6
    2 months ago

    No, I don't think he would have. The evidence only existed in the minds of the leftys

  • 2 months ago

    We may still find out.  Stand down and stand by. 

  • 2 months ago

    It would have been a very strong case. The main difference is that Trump could have been subpoenaed, questioned, and cross-examined. There are also dozens of insurrectionists who have publicly stated they were following Trump's orders when they attacked the Capitol. Their testimony would make this a near-certain conviction if it were in a courtroom. 

  • ?
    Lv 5
    2 months ago

    Based on the case the House managers brought, in a real court the judge would have thrown this case out as being without merit and lacking evidence.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.