Not ONE of the defendants charged on the DOJ prosecution page is charged with insurrection under 18 U.S.C. 2383. "Insurrection" is a legal term with specific elements.
Let me repeat - NONE of the defendants is charged with "insurrection." Not one!
Not ONE of the defendants charged on the DOJ prosecution page is charged with insurrection under 18 U.S.C. 2383. "Insurrection" is a legal term with specific elements.
Let me repeat - NONE of the defendants is charged with "insurrection." Not one!
Yet
Look at the DOJ prosecution page. 100s of charges have already been filed. NOT ONE has been for "insurrection."
From this I gather that you think that anything short of Mike Pence's and Nancy Pelosi's, heads being lopped off doesn't qualify.
I suspect, you'd be quick with an apology, for that as well.
Jan. 6 was a ragtag group of Bozos, most carrying flags, and protesting at the Capitol. Most insurrections are not something that transpired over a few hours and then everyone went home.
I suspect you'd feel differently, had a ragtag group of Democrat Bozos, stormed the Capitol, carrying flags beating a cops and took a sh!t on the Senate floor after the 2016 election.
Look at the DOJ prosecution page. 100s of charges have already been filed. NOT ONE has been for "insurrection."
What are you getting at? the 14th Amendment? There's a lot of ambiguity in the term insurrection, allowing for interpretation. Your "definition" is no more accurate than anyone else's. You're spinning circles here.
Again we go back to the presumption of innocence, a concept that our Founding Founders loved. If you have not been convicted of a crime, then you did not commit that crime.
You simply keep ignoring the fact - which you have been told again and again - that the leaders of the Confederacy were deemed insurrectionists without being charged or convicted as such. You continue to ignore what you cannot refute.
The presumption of innocence for Trump only applies to the actual offences he has been charged with. It does not apply to whether he was party to an insurrection - in the same way it didn't apply to Jeff Davis and co. There is no doubt Jan 6 was an insurrection - the House has even ruled so - and that Trump invited and aided it - which it also found. The events of Jan 6 were also described by the FBI as "acts of terrorism". But Republicans are ok with an insurrectionist and domestic terrorist (and rapist, fraudster and God knows what else) representing them. Still - the convictions keep rolling in and the creature will eventually have nowhere to hide. You and his supporters will then reel about like headless chickens.
i wanna say the CO "insurrection" conclusion is their supreme court based on hearing evidence and appeals, while ME's was the secretary of state fact finding after holding a hearing.
it's also ironic to say he has to get a court charge, trial, and conviction when (a) the constitution doesn't say it and (b) i thought the GOP standard issue argument was this was for congress to decide.
personally i don't like where this has headed because the GOP response to such things is to take what democrats do to try and restore order, and stretch the rubber band beyond breaking, and to ignore the facts. i mean, y'all weren't letting us appoint a supreme court justice, not letting us make military appointments, filibuster everything and not just matters of principle. the russian witness against the bidens implodes? who cares.
i personally think this generation of pols has lost it, but they won't go away or admit they lost. so we're looking up various constitutional language about incapacity or insurrection or whatnot.
i've been internally debating whether nixon did us a solid resigning or whether the absence of legal accountability or impeachment has set the stage for today. i do think his resignation reflects a sense of shame not around at the moment. right now we're just in an absurd place where it's like crazy insurrectionist guy is coming back ergo the doddering old fart has to keep running. between that and the polarization this should be begging for a third party to run and by that i don't mean a kennedy or cornel west or manchin or sinema.
anyhow, point being, what trump did is beyond the pale and the issues of the moment are a mix of his legal issues catching up to him -- cohen has already pled guilty, gone to jail, and come home on similar charges -- and what happens when someone who committed crisis level misdeeds just wants to play pretend and keep doubling down. the choice is either let them man flout the electoral process and all sorts of civil laws, not good, or be charging the guy with the kitchen sink, not good. but the man refused to just go into nixonian retirement and give any sort of "resignation"-type olive branch.
Look at the DOJ prosecution page. 100s of charges have already been filed. NOT ONE has been for "insurrection."
For the 10th or so time, none of the Southern insurrectionists were charged with insurrection either. But they were deemed insurrectionists under the 14th Amendment and barred from office. And so Colorado and now Illinois have decided the same about the leading Jan 6 insurrectionist.
You simply keep ignoring the fact - which you have been told again and again - that the leaders of the Confederacy were deemed insurrectionists without being charged or convicted as such. You continue to ignore what you cannot refute.
The presumption of innocence for Trump only applies to the actual offences he has been charged with. It does not apply to whether he was party to an insurrection - in the same way it didn't apply to Jeff Davis and co. There is no doubt Jan 6 was an insurrection - the House has even ruled so - and that Trump invited and aided it - which it also found. The events of Jan 6 were also described by the FBI as "acts of terrorism". But Republicans are ok with an insurrectionist and domestic terrorist (and rapist, fraudster and God knows what else) representing them. Still - the convictions keep rolling in and the creature will eventually have nowhere to hide. You and his supporters will then reel about like headless chickens.
i wanna say the CO "insurrection" conclusion is their supreme court based on hearing evidence and appeals, while ME's was the secretary of state fact finding after holding a hearing.
it's also ironic to say he has to get a court charge, trial, and conviction when (a) the constitution doesn't say it and (b) i thought the GOP standard issue argument was this was for congress to decide.
personally i don't like where this has headed because the GOP response to such things is to take what democrats do to try and restore order, and stretch the rubber band beyond breaking, and to ignore the facts. i mean, y'all weren't letting us appoint a supreme court justice, not letting us make military appointments, filibuster everything and not just matters of principle. the russian witness against the bidens implodes? who cares.
i personally think this generation of pols has lost it, but they won't go away or admit they lost. so we're looking up various constitutional language about incapacity or insurrection or whatnot.
i've been internally debating whether nixon did us a solid resigning or whether the absence of legal accountability or impeachment has set the stage for today. i do think his resignation reflects a sense of shame not around at the moment. right now we're just in an absurd place where it's like crazy insurrectionist guy is coming back ergo the doddering old fart has to keep running. between that and the polarization this should be begging for a third party to run and by that i don't mean a kennedy or cornel west or manchin or sinema.
anyhow, point being, what trump did is beyond the pale and the issues of the moment are a mix of his legal issues catching up to him -- cohen has already pled guilty, gone to jail, and come home on similar charges -- and what happens when someone who committed crisis level misdeeds just wants to play pretend and keep doubling down. the choice is either let them man flout the electoral process and all sorts of civil laws, not good, or be charging the guy with the kitchen sink, not good. but the man refused to just go into nixonian retirement and give any sort of "resignation"-type olive branch.
We are where we are because a former President has no sense of shame about what he does and his supporters think he can do no wrong. There is no consensus today between left and right about the rules - written and unwritten - that should apply in government. That wasn't so in Nixon's era. The American experiment with democracy shows it is nearing a conclusion - aided by a partisan SCOTUS. It is called a debacle.
i wanna say the CO "insurrection" conclusion is their supreme court based on hearing evidence and appeals, while ME's was the secretary of state fact finding after holding a hearing.
it's also ironic to say he has to get a court charge, trial, and conviction when (a) the constitution doesn't say it and (b) i thought the GOP standard issue argument was this was for congress to decide.
personally i don't like where this has headed because the GOP response to such things is to take what democrats do to try and restore order, and stretch the rubber band beyond breaking, and to ignore the facts. i mean, y'all weren't letting us appoint a supreme court justice, not letting us make military appointments, filibuster everything and not just matters of principle. the russian witness against the bidens implodes? who cares.
i personally think this generation of pols has lost it, but they won't go away or admit they lost. so we're looking up various constitutional language about incapacity or insurrection or whatnot.
i've been internally debating whether nixon did us a solid resigning or whether the absence of legal accountability or impeachment has set the stage for today. i do think his resignation reflects a sense of shame not around at the moment. right now we're just in an absurd place where it's like crazy insurrectionist guy is coming back ergo the doddering old fart has to keep running. between that and the polarization this should be begging for a third party to run and by that i don't mean a kennedy or cornel west or manchin or sinema.
anyhow, point being, what trump did is beyond the pale and the issues of the moment are a mix of his legal issues catching up to him -- cohen has already pled guilty, gone to jail, and come home on similar charges -- and what happens when someone who committed crisis level misdeeds just wants to play pretend and keep doubling down. the choice is either let them man flout the electoral process and all sorts of civil laws, not good, or be charging the guy with the kitchen sink, not good. but the man refused to just go into nixonian retirement and give any sort of "resignation"-type olive branch.
We are where we are because a former President has no sense of shame about what he does and his supporters think he can do no wrong. There is no consensus today between left and right about the rules - written and unwritten - that should apply in government. That wasn't so in Nixon's era. The American experiment with democracy shows it is nearing a conclusion - aided by a partisan SCOTUS. It is called a debacle.
We are where we are because a former President has no sense of shame about what he does and his supporters think he can do no wrong. There is no consensus today between left and right about the rules - written and unwritten - that should apply in government. That wasn't so in Nixon's era. The American experiment with democracy shows it is nearing a conclusion - aided by a partisan SCOTUS. It is called a debacle.
Why do you call it a partisan Supreme Court?
Are you saying the SC would have more unanimous decisions if not for the partisanship of the liberal members?
The definitions below are from a New York Times article. My takeaway is the crime of seditious conspiracy is easier to prove than insurrection, and the sentence of up to 20 years in prison for seditious conspiracy is greater than up to 10 years for insurrection. Additional criminal charges against those responsible for the attack also include assault (over 100 police officers injured), destruction of property , entering and remaining in a restricted federal building, obstructing an official government proceeding, etc.
It is a federal crime found in Section 2384 of Title 18 of the United States code. That law makes it a crime for two or more people to actively plot to overthrow by force the federal government, to levy war against it, to unlawfully seize federal property or “by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” A conviction carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.
In the Oath Keepers case, prosecutors marshaled text messages, videos and other evidence to argue that Mr. Rhodes and other militia members had agreed to take steps to block Congress from certifying Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s Electoral College victory, a crucial step in the constitutional system for the normal transfer of power. Mr. Rhodes received 18 years in prison, and one of his top deputies was sentenced to a 12-year term. Is sedition the same thing as insurrection?
While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.
That said, the federal law against insurrection, Section 2383, slightly blurs that line. It says that “whoever incites, sets on foot, assists or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto” is guilty of that offense. Its penalty is up to 10 years in prison and disqualification from holding federal office.
Insurrection charges are considered difficult to prove and are exceedingly rare. While many people have called the events of Jan. 6 an “insurrection,” the Justice Department has not charged any rioters with that crime. In addition to the handful of seditious conspiracy charges against members of two militias, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, prosecutors have charged various rioters with such crimes as assaulting police officers, obstructing an official congressional proceeding and trespassing.
If mainstream media and all you Libs are claiming a certain event but no one is charged with the crime (that being "insurrection) then maybe it was not an insurrection? Yes?
If you were to make a movie about an insurrection, what would it look like? Where would it take place? What would the scripts read?
The definitions below are from a New York Times article. My takeaway is the crime of seditious conspiracy is easier to prove than insurrection, and the sentence of up to 20 years in prison for seditious conspiracy is greater than up to 10 years for insurrection. Additional criminal charges against those responsible for the attack also include assault (over 100 police officers injured), destruction of property , entering and remaining in a restricted federal building, obstructing an official government proceeding, etc.
It is a federal crime found in Section 2384 of Title 18 of the United States code. That law makes it a crime for two or more people to actively plot to overthrow by force the federal government, to levy war against it, to unlawfully seize federal property or “by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” A conviction carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.
In the Oath Keepers case, prosecutors marshaled text messages, videos and other evidence to argue that Mr. Rhodes and other militia members had agreed to take steps to block Congress from certifying Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s Electoral College victory, a crucial step in the constitutional system for the normal transfer of power. Mr. Rhodes received 18 years in prison, and one of his top deputies was sentenced to a 12-year term. Is sedition the same thing as insurrection?
While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.
That said, the federal law against insurrection, Section 2383, slightly blurs that line. It says that “whoever incites, sets on foot, assists or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto” is guilty of that offense. Its penalty is up to 10 years in prison and disqualification from holding federal office.
Insurrection charges are considered difficult to prove and are exceedingly rare. While many people have called the events of Jan. 6 an “insurrection,” the Justice Department has not charged any rioters with that crime. In addition to the handful of seditious conspiracy charges against members of two militias, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, prosecutors have charged various rioters with such crimes as assaulting police officers, obstructing an official congressional proceeding and trespassing.
Exactly!
This has come up repeatedly with Trumpers. Prosecutors select charges that are easy to prove. That tell a simple story for the jury. That can’t be overruled on appeal.
none of that means they aren’t guilty of other things.
This entire idiotic thread is founded on the belief that it if you aren’t charged with something you are innocent of everything.
And this thread was started by a poster that thinks the current president is guilty of everything even though he is charged with nothing.
We are where we are because a former President has no sense of shame about what he does and his supporters think he can do no wrong. There is no consensus today between left and right about the rules - written and unwritten - that should apply in government. That wasn't so in Nixon's era. The American experiment with democracy shows it is nearing a conclusion - aided by a partisan SCOTUS. It is called a debacle.
Why do you call it a partisan Supreme Court?
It has a right-wing majority which is dictating their decisions in accordance with the agenda of the right.
If mainstream media and all you Libs are claiming a certain event but no one is charged with the crime (that being "insurrection) then maybe it was not an insurrection? Yes?
If you were to make a movie about an insurrection, what would it look like? Where would it take place? What would the scripts read?
It would come from inside of the military and the leaders wouldn’t be wearing buffalo horns.
If mainstream media and all you Libs are claiming a certain event but no one is charged with the crime (that being "insurrection) then maybe it was not an insurrection? Yes?
If you were to make a movie about an insurrection, what would it look like? Where would it take place? What would the scripts read?
This is a great question. Thanks for asking.
My movie about an insurrection would take place in Lilliput. Lilliput is ruled by an Emperor, Golbasto Momarem Evlame Gurdilo Shefin Mully Ully Gue.
He is a very bad dude. The citizens whine about taxation without representation but he doesn't give a squat about what the citizens want. The citizens of Lilliput decide to usurp the emperor and take up flags and banners to express their disdain for the guy. Just joking - that is for another movie. The Lilliputians take up pitchforks and AK-47s and head to the palace.
If you were to make a movie about an insurrection, what would it look like? Where would it take place? What would the scripts read?
It would come from inside of the military and the leaders wouldn’t be wearing buffalo horns.
That guy wasn’t a leader. He was a useful idiot. The leader has more of an orange hue, wears baggie suits with a red tie that reaches his thighs and reportedly smells bad.
If you were to make a movie about an insurrection, what would it look like? Where would it take place? What would the scripts read?
It would come from inside of the military and the leaders wouldn’t be wearing buffalo horns.
The “leader” in the case was a president who lost the election and refused a peaceful transition of power for the first time in United States history. I admit his hair is confusing and might look like buffalo horns.
It has a right-wing majority which is dictating their decisions in accordance with the agenda of the right.
So if the ruling goes in favor of the SC-majority conservatives it is partisan. But what if it was a good ruling? The jurists voting against the ruling - are they not partisan hacks?
If you were to make a movie about an insurrection, what would it look like? Where would it take place? What would the scripts read?
It would come from inside of the military and the leaders wouldn’t be wearing buffalo horns.
Trump and his lawyers did not even dispute or contest that there was an insurrection at the Capitol on 1/6/21. They have admitted it. Their only factual argument regarding the insurrection was that Trump had nothing to do with it, and all the dangerous idiots who attacked the Capitol cops and busted into the Capitol building threatening various people (Pence, Pelosi, etc.) were incited by people other than Trump. Uh huh.
It is HIGHLY unlikely the Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado courts on the grounds that there was no insurrection. Again, Trump admitted there was in the face of overwhelming evidence.
