01-07-2024, 11:13 PM
(01-07-2024, 09:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't, but I also did qualify my statement with "pretty much everything." There is a reason for that. The number of definitions that would call it an insurrection far outweighs those that don't.
It's not defined in the statute, however you should look for the intent on the criminal side with how it should be viewed or defined.
And clearly I think we all intuitively know, and the connotation, that "insurrection" is a much higher bar and seriousness than a riot. The words are not interchangeable, especially in this context. I believe the DOJ said they found little to no evidence of planning a rebellion with the Oathkeepers, or even what they would do if they got inside the Capital. Nor of Trump's involvement/coordination. And it's problematic to claim Trump's speech incited the riot, when the Oathkeepers admitted they planned to exploit the rally. We see that a lot at fiery protests, where a few people exploit it and an angry mob blindly follows.
If you don't have those elements, among others, you don't have an insurrection. You can't non-criminally participate in an "insurrection", which is what you're arguing when you call it an insurrection but no one was charged for that. If you're not going to have due process, it better be very cut and dry across the board. And when you have legal scholars on both sides having serious disagreement, then it's clearly anything but cut and dry.
I think I'll revert to "I know an insurrection when I see it", and the fact initial reports called it a riot, and even today many do even with looser definitions of insurrection, kind of crystallizes the point that wasn't an insurrection.
There's a point here that seems to continue to elude people: the only remedy for removal from office is Impeachment, or incapacity. Not even a felony conviction will suffice. That's not by accident Section 3 was intended to prevent Confederates from holding office, but 4 years later they were granted amnesty. I'd also add that the reason neither a charge or conviction was required is likely because of the urgency and that dragging out the case in the courts would defeat the purpose. But Jan.6 was 3 years ago - there was plenty of time to pursue charges. And, obviously, hundreds have been convicted for their involvement in Jan.6
Disqualification needs to be expanded and codified, but that's not an excuse for twisting and obfuscating the law no matter how well-intentioned, ESPECIALLY when it involves a Presidential election. I find people who advocate such because "Democracy is at stake!" to be missing the forest through the trees.
--------------------------------------------------------
