Question: Will Donald Trump publicly provoke another deadly riot in the United States before January 21st, 2025?

Resolution Criteria:

This question will resolve to "YES" if, after this question opens, but before 12:00 AM Pacific Time, January 21st, 2025, Donald Trump makes a public statement that provokes a group of his supporters to engage in violent or unlawful actions, and this statement is followed by a deadly riot within 72 hours. The statement must meet the detailed criteria outlined below, and all conditions must be satisfied for a "YES" resolution.

1. Trump’s Public Statement:

• Attribution of the Statement:

  • The statement must be publicly attributable to Donald Trump. This can be through a public speech, televised interview, social media post, written statement, or any other medium where Trump directly communicates to a wide audience.

  • The existence of the statement must be documented and reported by at least three credible sources, such as major news outlets, official transcripts, or verified social media accounts.

  • Anonymous sources or statements made by Trump’s associates, campaign staff, or proxies will not count toward this criterion.

• Provocation of Violent or Unlawful Action:

  • The statement must include language that, based on reasonable interpretation, could provoke supporters to engage in violent or unlawful actions. While it does not need to explicitly advocate violence, it must meet at least one of the following criteria:

  1. Emotionally Charged and Confrontational Language:

     • The statement contains highly emotional language that escalates political tensions and could provoke individuals to act violently. Examples include:

       • Describing opponents as "criminals," "enemies," "traitors," or other terms that dehumanize or suggest they are engaging in unjust or unlawful behavior.

       • Phrases like "This is a war," "We are under attack," "We cannot let them get away with this," "They are trying to destroy our country," or similar rhetoric that portrays the situation as existential or requiring immediate, forceful action.

  2. Encouraging Defiance or Resistance:

     • The statement implies or directly states that supporters should disrupt, defy, or resist political or legal outcomes, including through unlawful means. Examples include:

       • "We need to take back the government," "Don’t let them steal this from us," "You need to stop them from taking away your rights," or other phrases that suggest the need for supporters to intervene or disrupt outcomes.

       • Calls to resist authority or disobey the law without specifying legal or peaceful recourse. For instance, "You need to stand up and stop this," "Do not let them proceed," without clarifying peaceful methods of doing so.

  3. Calls for Large-Scale Mobilization:

     • The statement encourages a large gathering or mobilization of supporters at a specific place or time, particularly in situations where large crowds have historically escalated into riots or unlawful behavior. For example:

       • "Everyone needs to show up in force," "Be there or you’re complicit," "Come out and show them we won’t back down," or similar language encouraging the assembly of large groups.

       • Statements like "We need to make sure they hear us," "Let’s gather and show them who’s in charge," especially if made during politically tense moments, may be seen as a precursor to potential violence.

  4. Implying Consequences for Inaction:

     • The statement conveys that failure to act will result in dire consequences for supporters or the nation, which could reasonably provoke individuals to take extreme measures. For example:

       • "If we don’t act now, we’ll lose everything," "This is our last chance," "They’ll destroy America if we don’t stop them," or other language that suggests immediate, forceful action is required to avoid catastrophe.

       • Emphasis on urgency and high stakes, such as "Now or never," "This is a fight for our lives," without reference to legal or peaceful forms of protest.

  5. Clarification: Contradictory Qualifiers:

     • Peaceful language qualifiers, such as “peacefully” or “lawfully”, will not disqualify the statement from consideration if they are contradicted or diluted by other language that implies or encourages confrontation. For instance:

       • A statement like "We need to march peacefully, but we have to fight or we will lose everything," would still count, as the qualifier is undermined by the subsequent escalation in tone.

       • Similarly, phrases such as "We need to be peaceful, but if they push us, we need to push back harder" will still count if the overall tone suggests confrontation or resistance.

2. Occurrence of a Deadly Riot:

• A deadly riot must occur within 72 hours of Trump’s public statement. The riot must meet all of the following conditions:

  • Size of the Riot: The riot involves at least 50 individuals engaging in violent or unlawful acts, such as assault, vandalism, property destruction, looting, or clashes with law enforcement.

  • Significant Law Enforcement Response: Law enforcement must respond with riot control measures, such as the deployment of police, the National Guard, or other security forces. This includes situations where officers or guards are dispatched specifically due to violence or unlawful activity.

  • Death: The riot must result in the death of at least one person, documented through police reports or medical records. This death must occur within 48 hours of the recognized end of the riot, which occurs when law enforcement announces that they have secured control of the relevant areas. The death must be directly and unambiguously attributable to violence during the riot, rather than occurring incidentally.

  • Credible Reporting: The riot must be widely reported by at least three credible news sources, with descriptions of the violence or illegal behavior involved.

3. Causal Link Between Statement and Riot:

• There must be direct and documented evidence linking Trump’s statement to the riot. This can include:

  • Social Media Posts or Messages: Riot participants or organizers reference Trump’s statement in online posts (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, message boards) or communications (texts, emails, etc.) discussing the reason for their participation.

  • Testimonies or Interviews: Riot participants explicitly cite Trump’s statement in testimonies, interviews with law enforcement, or media outlets, indicating they were provoked or motivated by his words.

  • Coordinated Planning: Documentation or investigative reporting shows that Trump’s statement led to planning or organizing of violent activities (e.g., specific calls to action on social media or encrypted messaging platforms).

  • Investigative Findings: Independent investigations, law enforcement reports, or expert analyses confirm that Trump’s statement played a significant role in provoking the riot, based on collected evidence from participants, communications, and other data.

• Reasonable Provocation: Even if the statement does not explicitly call for violence, it must be shown to have reasonably provoked violent or unlawful actions. Evidence should demonstrate that Trump’s rhetoric or tone was interpreted by some participants as justification or motivation for their actions, based on the content of his statement and its timing relative to the riot.

4. Verification and Review:

• The resolution of this question will rely on publicly available evidence by January 21st, 2025. Evidence may include police reports, journalistic investigations, and expert testimony from scholars or analysts specializing in political violence.

• If the causal connection between Trump’s statement and the riot remains ambiguous or unproven, or if there is insufficient documentation to establish a clear link, the question will resolve to "NO."

• The final resolution will take into account the totality of the evidence, and all relevant factors must be objectively met for a "YES" resolution.