01-08-2024, 06:18 PM
(01-07-2024, 06:17 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Didn't read this one?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/insurrection
"an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:"
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.
The definition you provide is exactly what Trump and his band of Jan 6th insurrectionists did on Jan 6th, 2021. Trump sent these people to the Capitol in an attempt to stop hinder or delay the certification of the electoral college and the peaceful transfer of power. That would have resulted in him illegally staying in power in direct opposition to the laws of the Constitution.
Had Trump been successful in stopping the transfer, do you honestly think he would have just gone away? Hell No, he's still promoting the BIG LIE that over 60 courts tossed out as total BS. Trump still calls himself the president and will not accept he lost to Joe Biden and still promotes his BIG LIE. You still must not be aware of the fake electors scheme that Trump has his fingerprints all over the place. By itself, the fake elector's scheme is enough to prove insurrection. Capitol police officers lost limbs, had heart attacks from being tased, were blinded for life, and one eventually died as a direct and proximate result of Trump's orders to, "Go down to the Capitol and fight like HELL to take our country back and stop the steal!" You're not trying to suggest that doesn't qualify as violence are you?
You seem to not realize the difference between civil liability and criminal liability, and really in this instance, all that needs to be proven is PROBABLE CAUSE as it has to do with qualification under Administrative Law contained within the Constitution. The threshold is reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, not a conviction proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Just like a person under the age of 35, or a foreign national cannot be President, b/c the Constitution disqualifies them. Trump willfully chose to illegally stay in power by stopping Congress in the counting and certification of the electoral ballots, and by false accusations that he knew were not true. Willful ignorance is not a defense. That's all that needs to be said.
I started the thread by providing the history of how the enforcement of the 14A, Article 3 has taken place throughout history, and in no place has anyone ever been charged nor convicted of insurrection. You should take the time to educate yourself on this as it would address many of your concerns. All that needs to be shown is probable cause. Reliable, probative that's substantial. Probative is the probability of evidence reaching its proof purpose of a relevant fact in an issue. Trump's attempt to stop Congress in its official duties meets this requirement. Any first-year law student will tell you that is a very thin gauze. You accuse another poster of not knowing how the law works, but I don't think you know the procedures of administrative and/or civil Law.
You say this is undemocratic, when in fact it is the most democratic b/c the Constitution "We the people" ratified the amendments to reflect the will of the people. Donald Trump chose to violate the will of the people by illegally attempting to stay in power, willing to subvert the will of over 80 million voters, and it's very ironic that his supporters now want the "voters to decide" when they caused an insurrection when said voters did decide to elect Joe Biden as President in the first place. You are attempting to muddy the water with specious arguments that are irrelevant. You're grasping at straws.
Don't mock kids who believe in Santa, while adults still believe in Fox News.
