Enforcement of the 14th Admendment, Article 3

[Dill]

(01-07-2024, 06:17 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: There was no plan to take and maintain control with installing their own government.  The fact that it's even debateable if it's a riot or insurrection proves the point  It is an exceptional and complicated charge, and there are specific legal criteria and elements beyond the whim of someone parsing the definition of words.  That why NO ONE has been charged with insurrection.  

If it was actually an insurrection, why was NO ONE charged or convicted of it?  You don't think they would have done that, if there was any hope of success, to give this challenge a modicum of standing?  The election fraud and interference are just that - separate and distinct from insurrection.  And, unfortunately, not disqualifying.

This is nothing but a series of hailmary's - there are about 6 elements to this which nearly all seem pretty easily and likely to fail.  It would be nice if the "pro democracy" party would be a little less fascist with their political opponents.  And when the SCOTUS rightfully smacks this down, you can bet the "anti-fascist" party will renew cries to pack the court.

GEEZUS.  There was a PLAN TO THROW THE VOTE TO THE HOUSE. That would have meant "maintaining control" with the then-present government.  No need to "install" a new one.

This is only "debatable" in the sense, and for the same reasons, that some Republicans still debate whether the Capitol Breach was directed by the FBI or not. 

It is faulty logic to argue that if no one has been convicted of a crime one could not have been committed. Asking why there has been "NO ONE charged or convicted" of insurrection just illustrates how deeply you misrecognize the problem, the mismatch between the danger and our institutional/constitutional means of coping with it.

With the exception of those who lost standing and office for doing the right thing, you have an entire political party hindering investigations, and a massive
right wing news media effort to re-brand the insurrectionists as "patriots" and accountability as "weaponization"--thus framing accountability as merely
the effort of one party to get rid of a popular opponent by jailing him, as they do in banana republics. 

And that's the interpretation you appear to be pushing here and in the post immediately following, where you affirm "rule of law" to oppose accountability. 

The core of the issue, which you've yet to acknowledge, is whether Trump and cronies attempted to circumvent a legal election to remain in power. That his party "acquitted" him of wrongdoing is a part of the problem, why democracy is indeed at stake in the prosecution of Trump. That refusal to hold him accountable is precisely what undermines the rule of law by placing him above the law.