01-06-2024, 11:23 PM
(01-06-2024, 02:57 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm old enough to remember when Democrats mockingly said "LOL your guns are useless - the government has tanks!". Yet, somehow, a few hundred rioters armed with a couple of guns, a few knives and a bunch of sign posts between them is an insurrection.
Yes, the language is pretty clear that one need not be convicted, or even charged with, insurrection. However, any reasonable and objective person knows that was a riot and nothing remotely close to an "insurrection". Additionally, I don't believe ANYONE has been charged or convicted with insurrection. A handful were charged with sedition, but I've not seen any links or evidence of communication or coordination with Trump. And apparently sedition and insurrection are separate and distinct charges.
So while Trump doesn't need to be charged or convicted, certainly SOMEONE would have if there actually was an insurrection. Otherwise we're just back to making up words or changing the definition to suit an agenda, which should surprise no one. Just calling it an insurrection doesn't make it so, much less establishing Trump's participation or culpability. The entire thing is almost as ridiculous as calling the border crisis an insurrection and saying it disqualifies Biden (which, yes, was proposed mockingly to highlight the absurdity of all this).
The correct and lawful remedy was impeachment over his words and actions after the election. Changing the definition of words and then using courts (or less) to boot him off ballots is, sadly, pretty un-democratic. And while impeachment is not a criminal proceeding or exactly an impartial jury, there remains the problem Trump WAS impeached (a.k.a "charged") and acquitted. So there was some degree of due process. Which is very problematic for all this, unless you're a banana republic.
So what do you call it when the leader of a government tries to illegally remain in power?
