This is why you fail. You have no academic and/or professional experience in the legal arena to know any better.
Lol. You are an unemployed, disabled former army enlisted guy. You refuse to cite your credentials because you don’t have any.
Should trump be disqualified as president for rebellion against the constitution?
Posts
Total:
288
-->
@Double_R
Because of this I predict it will go up to the supreme court and fail on those grounds.
Trump watched the insurrection on TV from the White House. Many people in person and by phone implored him to take action to stop it, He did nothing for 3 hours.
It is not a question that he helped the insurrection with his inaction. He should be banned from office under Article 14.
He was impeached and should have been convicted by the Senate but there were too many cowards who put their own political careers ahead of the country.
I have the academic and professional training/experience that equips me with the requisite knowledge, intellect and experience with the subject matter. You don’t.
Lol, talk about delusions of grandeur
-->
@n8nrgim
then it boils down to originalism v living constitution.
That's not at all what I just argued.
It doesn't matter whether we look at this from an originalist approach or not, the amendment does not restrict it's own usage anywhere near as specifically as TWS is claiming. And ironically, he is the one arguing for a living document with his ever evolving definition of arms.
Again, the passage as written is extremely vague and it is so on purpose. No constitutional amendment is intended to be all encompassing and/or to have the foresight to consider every possible circumstance. That's what laws are for. Anyone who has ever written a law or a policy would know this.
The point of a constitution and it's amendments is to convey ideas. TWS's entire argument is based on the notion that the amendment was intended to be all encompassing and using that notion to justify absurd techinal disqualifications regardless of whether the idea in question applies. That's not how it works. He claims to have the credentials to argue the law yet he doesn't understand it's most basic concepts.
again, it depends on if you think he should be responsible for that or not.
It's not debatable whether he was responsible. The rioters themselves all said they were there because Trump told them to be there, and we had been saying his actions were going to result in something like this for months beforehand. Arguing he's not responsible is no more logically defensible than arguing the earth is flat.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Trump watched the insurrection on TV from the White House. Many people in person and by phone implored him to take action to stop it, He did nothing for 3 hours.It is not a question that he helped the insurrection with his inaction. He should be banned from office under Article 14.He was impeached and should have been convicted by the Senate but there were too many cowards who put their own political careers ahead of the country.
I agree with every word of this. Again, my issue is the mechanism for it isn't in place, so at this point the question is who gets to decide. Secretaries of state cannot just unilaterally decide their voters don't get to pick Trump and even if they do, all that's going to happen is Trump will get left off the ballot in the states he had no chance of winning anyway, giving him and his crazy supporters more of a reason to pretend the next Democratic candidate is guilty of the same. This will only send us further down the path of ruin as a country. And a 6-3 conservative SC is not going to vote to keep Trump off the ballot.
It's too late in the game to set the rules. This needs to be litigated in the court of public opinion, culminating in November 2024.
-->
@Double_R
so do you agree that the real issue is 'proximate v general' causation? you argue that trump in some detached sense caused the riot therefore he should be responsible for it. should the policeman that murdered george floyd also be responsbible for all the riots that happened afterwards? you have to draw a line some where. the rioters did their own thing. if trump isn't gonna be found liable for insurrection i dont see why you'd be happy making responsble for a rebellion. it's the same idea. if the government doesn't think he's guilty of the first thing, they shouldn't do a bunch of gymnastics to make him guilty of the second. that's what you're doing you're doing a bunch of gymnastics and loop de loops. i mean, you're super smart and usually right on most issues, but it's pretty clear on this issue you are too covered in bias, to think objectively.
-->
@n8nrgim
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>you're doing what everyone has been telling you that you've been doing most of this thread, and deflecting instead of engaging in debate. if everyone else sees it but you, you might want to ask yourself if its not really you that's the crazy person.
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAA!!!!
Wrong. I already explained to you in a previous engagement with you when you asked about whether or not the definition of rebellion was the correct one. I proved to you it was.
I do not deflect, I put my foot down and cease wasting my time further with the blind, deaf and dumb among you. As there is no sense in beating a dead horse, it won't get up. And Double_R has proven himself/herself/iteself time and time again for the dead horse they so clearly are.
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>How is it that a reasonable person can't read the word rebellion in the constitution and conclude trump rebelled?
Reading [a] word =/= objective fact-based material evidence that Trump did anything in relationship to that word.
A word that needs to be placed into legal context and within a charging document accordingly. Laymen's terms and laymen's structured language (i.e., grammar) are not used in charging documents. The terms and structured language of the law is mutually exclusive from laymen's terms and structured language.
Reasonable people don't have to agree with originalism like we do. You r just being dogmatic and insisting an artificial standard of absolute truth.
In order for "innocent until proven guilty" to have any real true meaning, the justice system must be held to a higher standard (burden) of proof when it attempts to take away the freedom of the accused. So yeah, there must be absolute truth in the fair and impartiality of the correct reading, interpretation and application of the law.
Since you so hyper focused on the term rebellion, going to school you on it for a second time.
Etymology of rebellion
"war waged against a government by some portion of its subjects" (originally especially against God or Church authority), mid-14c.
M-W Definition of rebellion
"opposition to one in authority or dominance"
"2a: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government"
Black Law's Dictionary Definition of rebellion:
"1. Open, organized, and armed resistance to an established government or ruler.
2. Open resistance or opposition to an authority or tradition.
3. Hist. Disobedience of a legal command or summons."
Legal Definition of rebellion
"crim. law. The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued."
Statutory regulation of rebellion
"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, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Notice the statute doesn't define the meaning of either term "rebellion or insurrection."
It's also not defined within the Constitution itself, why? Clearly the understanding of the meaning of that term(s) is concrete, historically (i.e., etymology of the term), is unequivocally clear. As such, it did not need to be defined within the Constitution no more than it needs to be clearly defined now, as the meaning of the term has never changed within the context it was used in the Constitution, to include the Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment, Section 3.
January 6th was not an armed "war against a government."
January 6th was not an "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government"
January 6th was not an "open, organized, and armed resistance to an established government or ruler."
January 6th was not "the taking up arms traitorously against the government"
The government knows this is a fact of reality, which is precisely why the FBI clearly stipulated that J6 was NOT [an] insurrection. It is also a fact of reality that has resulted in ZERO persons being charged with rebellion (or insurrection).
Once again, ad nauseum, the 14th Amendment, Section 3 does not and will never apply (or be applied) to Donald J. Trump. Period.
-->
@Double_R
-->@n8nrgimthen it boils down to originalism v living constitution.That's not at all what I just argued.It doesn't matter whether we look at this from an originalist approach or not, the amendment does not restrict it's own usage anywhere near as specifically as TWS is claiming.
And yet it does with a very clear set of specific demarcated criteria in order to employ it.
And ironically, he is the one arguing for a living document with his ever evolving definition of arms.
WRONG! I have never changed my definition of arms; it has been utterly consistent.
Again, the passage as written is extremely vague and it is so on purpose.
Nope. It is unequivocally clear as the sky is blue. To laymen like you it's as you describe because you just do not know how to read it, let alone understand it.
No constitutional amendment is intended to be all encompassing and/or to have the foresight to consider every possible circumstance.
And yet many to most are intended to be all encompassing with the foresight to consider every possible circumstance. Absolute terms like "shall" are used for a reason, but you simply will not acknowledge that, let alone comprehend that fact.
The point of a constitution and it's (sic) amendments is to convey ideas.
Wrong. That is NOT what a Constitution of a government is created to do, "create ideas." Such an ignorant statement on your part. Demonstrates that you clearly know nothing about the law, let alone how to properly read it, interpret it, and apply it soundly.
TWS's entire argument is based on the notion that the amendment was intended to be all encompassing and using that notion to justify absurd techinal (sic) disqualifications regardless of whether the idea in question applies. That's not how it works. He claims to have the credentials to argue the law yet he doesn't understand it's most basic concepts.
It is to YOU who doesn't understand the law and its basic concepts in theory, argument (i.e., legislative), passage, and implementation.
again, it depends on if you think he should be responsible for that or not.It's not debatable whether he was responsible. The rioters themselves all said they were there because Trump told them to be there, and we had been saying his actions were going to result in something like this for months beforehand. Arguing he's not responsible is no more logically defensible than arguing the earth is flat.
Yes, it is debatable, because the accusation has been incitement.
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
Trump's speech fails to meet this definition and is in fact protected by it.
Who gives a flying fuck what the rioters say. They could say the green ferry in the Absinthe bottle told them to be there, what they say is subjective and wholeheartedly ignorant. If Trump said to his followers, jump off the nearest bridge to your death, I highly doubt there will be a line at the nearest bridge lining up to jump off because "Trump told us to."
Comparing legal culpability to incitement of a riot to arguing the earth is flat is absurd. Just further demonstration of your penchant for the Dunning Kruger Effect.
-->@IwantRooseveltagainTrump watched the insurrection on TV from the White House. Many people in person and by phone implored him to take action to stop it, He did nothing for 3 hours.It is not a question that he helped the insurrection with his inaction. He should be banned from office under Article 14.He was impeached and should have been convicted by the Senate but there were too many cowards who put their own political careers ahead of the country.I agree with every word of this
Proving once again your flagrant ignorance of the subject matter at hand.
-->
@n8nrgim
that's what you're doing you're doing a bunch of gymnastics and loop de loops. i mean, you're super smart and usually right on most issues, but it's pretty clear on this issue you are too covered in bias, to think objectively.
First truly intelligent thing you've said so far, and I cannot help but agree with this 110%.
-->@Double_RBecause of this I predict it will go up to the supreme court and fail on those grounds.Trump watched the insurrection on TV from the White House. Many people in person and by phone implored him to take action to stop it, He did nothing for 3 hours.
Wrong. Trump offered the National Guard to protect the Capitol and Pelosi said no.
During the riots the National Guard was requested by an Ex-Capitol Police Chief (forced to resign at Pelosi's request) 6x and was denied.
No Congressional official requested the use of the National Guard.
J6 was an internal government operation designed to discredit Trump even further, and it worked as they intended/hoped it would.
Trump did what he could before J6 happened, so what the fuck was he going to do that just wouldn't be shot down anyways.
It is not a question that he helped the insurrection with his inaction. He should be banned from office under Article 14.
It most certainly is as it is a stipulated criterion of the 14th, and given the fact that he did not "shall have engaged in" the rioting, he is not liable, period. The people present made their own choice to do what they did, they are personally accountable for those choices. Trump isn't. Your claim here is ignorant and a laughable joke.
He was impeached and should have been convicted by the Senate but there were too many cowards who put their own political careers ahead of the country.
So, what if he was impeached. So have many before him. Doesn't mean shit nor does it have any relevance to the 14th claim.
You're just too stupid to realize how stupid you truly are on this subject matter.
THIS ARGUED POSITION STANDS 100% FACTUALLY ACCURATE TO DATE OF THIS THREAD:
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
First key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I. emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riot and/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Wrong. Trump offered the National Guard to protect the Capitol and Pelosi said no.
That’s a lie. Trump didn’t offer the National Guard and Pelosi didn’t say no because it was not offered.
Trump did what he could before J6 happened, so what the fuck was he going to do that just wouldn't be shot down anyways.
That’s ridiculous. He sat and watch it on TV and did nothing to stop the attack
which is precisely why the FBI clearly stipulated that J6 was NOT [an] insurrection.
That’s a lie. The FBI never stipulated, declared or announced J6 was not an insurrection.
Wrong. Trump offered the National Guard to protect the Capitol and Pelosi said no.That’s a lie. Trump didn’t offer the National Guard and Pelosi didn’t say no because it was not offered.
Easy to claim, harder to prove.
Trump did what he could before J6 happened, so what the fuck was he going to do that just wouldn't be shot down anyways.That’s ridiculous. He sat and watch it on TV and did nothing to stop the attack
How was he, one man, going to stop the riot? Please, enlighten us all with your gastly wisdom on what effective strategy would have put the breaks on J6 via Trump. Well?
which is precisely why the FBI clearly stipulated that J6 was NOT [an] insurrection.That’s a lie. The FBI never stipulated, declared or announced J6 was not an insurrection.
Yes, they did, and it is cited within my comment discrediting the claim 14/3 can be uses against Trump.
You're just being an intellectual coward denialist.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI. Reuters reports:
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
…
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
".....but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”
Easy to claim, harder to prove.
You are the one claiming Trump “offered” the National Guard to protect the Capital.
Prove it. You are a liar.
“The Army major general testified that the day before the insurrection, he received a letter with an "unusual" restriction on deploying any quick-reaction force service members unless granted explicit approval by then-Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy”
How was he, one man, going to stop the riot?
You are being ridiculous. He was asked (by his own daughter, Kevin McCarthy and several others) to call off the attackers. He refused.
Yes, they did, and it is cited within my comment discrediting the claim 14/3
Your citation doesn’t say the FBI declared J6 was not an insurrection. You are lying.
“The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials”
This is meaningless. It’s subjective. It’s anonymous. And it certainly doesn’t quote the FBI saying anything like what you are proposing.
Since this Washington Examiner fish wrapper article, several people have been convicted of seditious conspiracy and given long prison sentences.
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI.
That’s another lie. The FBI doesn’t look at the dictionary definition of insurrection and they never said what you say they said.
Easy to claim, harder to prove.You are the one claiming Trump “offered” the National Guard to protect the Capital.Prove it. You are a liar.“The Army major general testified that the day before the insurrection, he received a letter with an "unusual" restriction on deploying any quick-reaction force service members unless granted explicit approval by then-Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy”
You made an unsubstantiated counterclaim; the burden of proof is on you to prove that counterclaim.
Who sent the letter?
How was he, one man, going to stop the riot?You are being ridiculous. He was asked (by his own daughter, Kevin McCarthy and several others) to call off the attackers. He refused.
No, you are being ridiculous in your fallacious characterization of what Trump did (or did not do) that day.
Where is the evidence to back of your claim he was asked by those people, and documented evidence that he refused.
Easy to make these claims, harder to prove.
Yes, they did, and it is cited within my comment discrediting the claim 14/3Your citation doesn’t say the FBI declared J6 was not an insurrection. You are lying.“The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials”This is meaningless. It’s subjective. It’s anonymous. And it certainly doesn’t quote the FBI saying anything like what you are proposing.
It's not subjective, it is specific to the investigation. Again, no one has ever been charged with insurrection or rebellion. Period.
Since this Washington Examiner fish wrapper article, several people have been convicted of seditious conspiracy and given long prison sentences.
Oh, how cute, a genetic fallacy. Pathetic.
Where is the evidence to back of your claim he was asked by those people, and documented evidence that he refused.
JC you are in LALA land. You are completely ignorant or feigning ignorance of well documented events of J6 which was studied and reported in depth by the televised J6 committee
If it’s so well studied and documented, then link to the evidence to support YOUR claim. The burden of proof is in you to prove YOUR claim, not me. So JC all you want Mr FanDick.
“Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows corroborated Cipollone’s recollections about Trump’s eldest daughter on Jan. 6.
“White House counsel’s office wanted there to be a stronger statement out to condemn the rioters. I’m confident in that,” Hutchinson testified. “I’m confident that Ivanka Trump wanted there to be a statement to condemn the rioters.”
“Ivanka Trump, former President Donald Trump's daughter and senior adviser, was among those who gathered at the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, to try to pressure her father to issue a stronger statement to get the rioters at the Capitol to disperse, aides testified during a House hearing Thursday”
It was documented in testimony by several people around Trump at the time of the riot.
-->
@TWS1405_2
WRONG! It was NOT my definition. It was a LEGAL definition provided by "TheFreeDictionary" for rebellion
Genius, "your" definition doesn't mean you wrote it, it means you provided it and are more importantly using it to make your case.
You do not have to be a law professor or constitutional scholar to recognize basic plain English.And yet the law is never written in "basic plain English."
That part wasn't about the law, I was breaking down your definition.
You do believe basic English applies to English definitions right?
Proportionality makes a huge difference when establishing when an action is merely a riot vs an insurrection. Which is precisely why none of the 2020 riots were ever declared an insurrection despite the glaring fact they targeted government buildings, offices, policies, procedures and threatened the lives of civil and federal employees.
The 2020 riots were never declared an insurrection because they don't meet the definition.
"insurrection. noun [ C/U ] /ˌɪn·səˈrek·ʃən/ an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government or ruler and take control of the country, usually by violence."
It had nothing to do with proportionality. Whether it is an insurrection depends on the motivations and goals of the offenders. The 2020 rioters had no intentions of "defeating their government" or to "take control of the country". They weren't out there because their cult leader told them to be, not one single person who was arrested for their actions tried to claim they were only listening to Maxine Waters. This was a matter of civil unrest sparked by a viral video, not an organized plot driven by the president of the United States. Two entirely different things.
The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy.
"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"
Do you know what "or" means?
it was meant for both Americans AND foreigners from infiltrating our government to destroy it.
The point, or inspiration for the amendment was to stop Americans, of course they would not exclude foreigners.
But I'm glad that's settled, you can now stop arguing that Trump is excluded because he is not a foreigner.
Your ignorant sophistry proves you an ignorant narcissist. That's all.Live with that.Loser.
You haven't proven a thing except how childish you are. Not one argument you made stands.
-->
@n8nrgim
so do you agree that the real issue is 'proximate v general' causation?
No. The only issue here is whether Trump's responsibility for J6 meets the legal criteria.
you argue that trump in some detached sense caused the riot therefore he should be responsible for it. should the policeman that murdered george floyd also be responsbible for all the riots that happened afterwards? you have to draw a line some where. the rioters did their own thing.
The rioters absolutely were not doing their own thing, and Trump is not responsible in some detached sense, he is directly responsible.
The J6 rioters were not there by chance. They didn't all just look at the calendar and decide January 6th would best great day to go to DC and protest. They were there because Trump told them to be, and this was part of a months long concerted effort to actualize this very outcome.
- It began months before the election with Trump telling his supporters that the democrats were going to rig the election
- Continued on election night as Trump declared victory stating that they were in the process of rigging it
- In the weeks following the election Trump would go on to push every conspiracy theory out there
- Finally after months of telling his supporters that their country was being stolen from them, he tells them all to come to the capitol on J6
By this point, there was no reasonable person who was not deeply concerned about the prospect of violence.
- Then on J6 Trump holds a rally telling his supporters to March down to the capitol and fight like hell. His speech was preceded by Rudy Giuliani among others telling the crowd "let's have trial by combat"
This is when the violence began. It would already be absurd to suggest Trump was unaware of the prospect of violence yet decided to proceed anyway. Bit let's just assume for a second he really was that dumb and didn't think it would come to that... What would he have done over the next 3 hours as the country watched in horror? Not what he did...
- Over the next 3 hours as the attack unfolded Trump did absolutely nothing to stop the attack. He did however have Rudy call a few senators trying to get them to align themselves with the J6 rioters cause and stop the certification.
And that's just the basics. You cannot possibly pretend Trump was just some got on the outside of this. And let me say it again...
The J6 rioters themselves told everyone they were there because Trump Todd them to be.
Please explain what part of all of this refutes that Trump was directly responsible.
it's pretty clear on this issue you are too covered in bias, to think objectively.
I think you need to ask yourself which one of us this applies to.
-->
@Double_R
By this point, there was no reasonable person who was not deeply concerned about the prospect of violence.
I agree, Nancy Pelosi was not reasonable when she thought 200 officers was plenty.
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>WRONG! It was NOT my definition. It was a LEGAL definition provided by "TheFreeDictionary" for rebellionGenius, "your" definition doesn't mean you wrote it, it means you provided it and are more importantly using it to make your case.
That's not how the grammar works when you use a possessive pronoun (or even possessive adjective) like 'your.'
You should have said, "The definition for rebellion that you cited (or provided) via the FreeDictionary.com is..." instead how you poorly worded it using a possessive pronoun/adjective version of 'your.'
You do not have to be a law professor or constitutional scholar to recognize basic plain English.And yet the law is never written in "basic plain English."That part wasn't about the law, I was breaking down your definition.
Again, not "my" definition.
You do believe basic English applies to English definitions right?
Circle jerk.
Proportionality makes a huge difference when establishing when an action is merely a riot vs an insurrection. Which is precisely why none of the 2020 riots were ever declared an insurrection despite the glaring fact they targeted government buildings, offices, policies, procedures and threatened the lives of civil and federal employees.The 2020 riots were never declared an insurrection because they don't meet the definition."insurrection. noun [ C/U ] /ˌɪn·səˈrek·ʃən/ an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government or ruler and take control of the country, usually by violence."
The definition of insurrection that you provided is factually inaccurate where the 2020 St Floyd Riots are concerned. This is a more accurate layman definition:
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
And the factually accurate legal definition:
A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
3. By.... And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.
4.-2 That, whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of congress.
The riots of 2020 were directed specifically at civil authority and the established government in each respective state affected by said violent uprising/revolt against said authority and government(s). "No Justice, No Peace!" Remember.
It had nothing to do with proportionality. Whether it is an insurrection depends on the motivations and goals of the offenders. The 2020 rioters had no intentions of "defeating their government" or to "take control of the country".
Or defeating a civil authority. Capitol Hill Occupied Protest - Wikipedia
A rose by any other name...
They weren't out there because their cult leader told them to be, not one single person who was arrested for their actions tried to claim they were only listening to Maxine Waters. This was a matter of civil unrest sparked by a viral video, not an organized plot driven by the president of the United States. Two entirely different things.
They didn't need a cult leader to do what they organized and executed. You're pulling straws out of thin air with the Maxine Waters reference, but having brought her into it, what she did, on more than once occasion, meets the definition of incitement.
"In the days after Rep. Maxine Waters told demonstrators in Minnesota that they should “get more confrontational” if Derek Chauvin was acquitted, Republicans have called for her censure or outright removal from Congress — claiming she was inciting violence."
Her rhetoric was loud and clearly inciting violence whereas Trump's speech to protest outside the Capitol peacefully and with dignity failed to meet the definition of incitement.
There is no basis in fact to substantiate such an asinine claim as "an organized plot driven by the president of the United States." Just stupid. Utterly stupid of you to say.
The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy."shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"Do you know what "or" means?
Do you know what the middle finger means?
What part of this did you fail to comprehend?
The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy.
For example:
"The suit accuses Trump of inciting and aiding the mob that stormed the Capitol two years ago."
Do you know what "and" means?
it was meant for both Americans AND foreigners from infiltrating our government to destroy it.The point, or inspiration for the amendment was to stop Americans, of course they would not exclude foreigners.
You DAFT!?!
Redundantly:
What does Aid and Comfort to the Enemy mean?
What does Aid and Comfort to the Enemy mean?
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
FFS, how many times do I have to keep posting this POINT OF FACT before you will grasp the truth of it??????
But I'm glad that's settled, you can now stop arguing that Trump is excluded because he is not a foreigner.
What in the flying fucktard special needs crap are you babbling on about here!??!
Trump being a foreigner or not has what to do with the price of tea in China, exactly!?!
Your ignorant sophistry proves you an ignorant narcissist. That's all.Live with that.Loser.You haven't proven a thing except how childish you are. Not one argument you made stands.
That's EXACTLY what an intellectual coward denialist would say.
Every single argument I made is legally factually accurate and undisputed.
I've proven you wrong over and over again within this thread.
You're just butt hurt that I have wiped the virtual floor with your idiocy and simply refuse to admit it.
Mr. Dunning_Kruger. That is your name from now on. And that is how I will address you going forward.
so do you agree that the real issue is 'proximate v general' causation?No. The only issue here is whether Trump's responsibility for J6 meets the legal criteria.
It doesn't and I have firmly established that incontestable legal fact.
you argue that trump in some detached sense caused the riot therefore he should be responsible for it. should the policeman that murdered george floyd also be responsbible for all the riots that happened afterwards? you have to draw a line some where. the rioters did their own thing.The rioters absolutely were not doing their own thing, and Trump is not responsible in some detached sense, he is directly responsible.
No, he is not.
Maxine Waters is more culpable for inciting leftists who have accosted innocent people trying to force them to adhere to the Burn Loot Murder mantra if Chauvin would be acquitted. That rhetoric was specific and meets the legal criteria, Trump telling people to fight like hell (i.e., protest sternly) but peacefully and with dignity =/= incitement to violence. He never said get confrontational and in their faces like Waters did. You are delusional.
It would already be absurd to suggest Trump was unaware of the prospect of violence yet decided to proceed anyway.
Did he have some magical crystal ball no one else did to be so aware of such a prospect? Where is this crystal ball? Have you seen it? Used it? Has any study been conducted upon said ball to determine its usage during the days leading up to J6 that would conclusively prove Trump, as you claim, was fully aware of the pending violent riotous behavior of over 1,000 different people from all walks of life that day at the Capitol. Please, share with us all your know-it-all Sauron knowledge and legal expertise. (ROTFLMAO)
Over the next 3 hours as the attack unfolded Trump did absolutely nothing to stop the attack
Oh, prey tell Mr Dunning Kruger know-it-all Security Expert. What was Trump supposed to do to collectively stop over 1,000 people with individual thoughts, emotions, motives and choices to cease and desist on the spot, like the flip of a switch. Well??
“Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows corroborated Cipollone’s recollections about Trump’s eldest daughter on Jan. 6.“White House counsel’s office wanted there to be a stronger statement out to condemn the rioters. I’m confident in that,” Hutchinson testified. “I’m confident that Ivanka Trump wanted there to be a statement to condemn the rioters.”
Unsure recollections without anything factual to back it up, especially when the others from whom they claim to have heard the statements being conveyed from, are not present to affirm or deny said statements = hearsay.
Unsure recollections without anything factual to back it up, especially when the others from whom they claim to have heard the statements being conveyed from, are not present to affirm or deny said statements = hearsay.
Bullshit. First hand testimony under oath is called evidence .
Maxine Waters is more culpable for inciting leftists who have accosted innocent people trying to force them to adhere to the Burn Loot Murder mantra if Chauvin would be acquitted. That rhetoric was specific and meets the legal criteria, Trump telling people to fight like hell (i.e., protest sternly) but peacefully and with dignity =/= incitement to violence. He never said get confrontational and in their faces like Waters did. You are delusional.
People from J6 who were arrested and went to trial testified, and their lawyers argued, they were there specifically because Trump told them the election was stolen and to come to Washington DC. “It will be wild”
Unsure recollections without anything factual to back it up, especially when the others from whom they claim to have heard the statements being conveyed from, are not present to affirm or deny said statements = hearsay.Bullshit. First hand testimony under oath is called evidence
No, it is not. It is called HEARSAY and for good reason.
Educate yourself.
No, it is not. It is called HEARSAY and for good reason.
Wrong. It takes 3 people to create hearsay evidence genius.
The person who said or did something
The witness who heard or saw the person say or do something
A third person the witness relayed the evidence to.
In this case both Hutchinson and Cipolone witnessed Ivanka imploring her father to act. Those are both first hand accounts. Their testimony is also first hand.
The two statements support (or corroborate) each other.
An example of hearsay would be where person A sees someone climbing into the window of a house. If A later tells person B that the person he saw was C, evidence from B of what A told him is hearsay.
And you claim to have legal training, Lol. You are such a dummy you can’t figure out hearsay
You are an unemployed, disabled former army enlisted guy. You refuse to cite your credentials because you don’t have any.
Citing my credentials gives away personal information. I wasn’t born yesterday, and certainly not as stupid as you. If I really truly wanted to find you and what a real life prick that you are, I could with all the personal info you’ve given at DART. Thing is, you’re jsut not that special enough for me to waste my time on the liberal low life narcissist pompous pos that you are.