They spent no time at all in connecting legally.

他們根本沒有花時間去合法地聯繫。

The attack on the capital to the 45th president of the United States, which is the Onley question that needs to be answered is, was Donald Trump responsible for inciting the violence that came to this building on January 6th?

襲擊首都到美國第45任總統，這是昂利需要回答的問題是，唐納德-特朗普是否對1月6日來到這座大樓的暴力事件負有責任？

The Supreme Court of the United States over 50 years ago laid out a clear test to determine whether speech is incitement.

美國最高法院在50多年前就提出了一個明確的檢驗標準，以確定言論是否屬於煽動行為。

Under that test, the Brandenburg vs Ohio Test there are three elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a preponderance of the evidence.

根據該測試，"布蘭登堡與俄亥俄測試 "有三個要素，必須以優勢證據排除合理懷疑。

Whatever the Senate considers, I suggest beyond a reasonable doubt.

無論參議院如何考慮，我建議排除合理懷疑。

First, the speech in question must explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action.

首先，有關言論必須明示或暗示鼓勵使用暴力或不法行為。

But here the president's speech called for peaceful protest.

但在這裡，總統的演講呼籲和平抗議。

Second, the speaker must intend that his speech will result in the use of violence or lawless action.

第二，發言者必須打算其言論將導致使用暴力或非法行動。

Finally, the third element under the Brandenburg Test is the imminent use of violence, imminent use of violence.

最後，"勃蘭登堡測試 "下的第三個要素是即將使用暴力，即將使用暴力。

In other words, right then, the imminent use of violence or lawless action must be that the likely result of the speech the likely result of the speech?

換句話說，對的，那麼，即將使用暴力或不法行為，一定是該言論的可能結果是該言論的可能結果？

Well, that argument is completely eviscerated by the fact that the violence was preplanned, as confirmed by the FBI, Department of Justice and even the House managers, not the result of the speech at all.

好吧，這個論點完全被這樣的事實給否定了，暴力事件是有預謀的，這一點得到了聯邦調查局、司法部甚至眾議院管理人員的證實，根本不是演講的結果。