Not an insurrection? The State of New Mexico disagrees.

[mrjurrs]

An American court has already found 1.6.21 to be an insurrection.

CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) is an advocacy group. I just learned this while reading about the 14th Amendment case in CO that CREW is also a part of.

"While Section 3 has not been tested often in the last 150 years, due to lack of insurrections, last year CREW represented residents of New Mexico who sued to remove county commissioner Couy Griffin from office, the only successful case to be brought under Section 3 since 1869. The judge in that case determined January 6th was an insurrection under the Constitution and that someone who helped to incite it–even if not personally violent–had engaged in insurrection and was disqualified from office."

Lawsuit filed to remove Trump from ballot in CO under 14th Amendment - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Having disqualified himself from public office by violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump must be removed from the ballot.

www.citizensforethics.org

New Mexico has decided.
"NEW MEXICO (KRQE) – The state Supreme Court dismissed a final motion for former Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin to reconsider his appeal. The Cowboys for Trump founder said this won’t stop his efforts."

New Mexico Supreme Court maintains Couy Griffin office removal

“I feel like I have a state that’s against me right now, and they used the court system to try to destroy me,” Griffin added. “I’m still a firm believer that the good …

www.krqe.com

 

[Lursa]

An American court has already found 1.6.21 to be an insurrection.

CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) is an advocacy group. I just learned this while reading about the 14th Amendment case in CO that CREW is also a part of.

"While Section 3 has not been tested often in the last 150 years, due to lack of insurrections, last year CREW represented residents of New Mexico who sued to remove county commissioner Couy Griffin from office, the only successful case to be brought under Section 3 since 1869. The judge in that case determined January 6th was an insurrection under the Constitution and that someone who helped to incite it–even if not personally violent–had engaged in insurrection and was disqualified from office."

Lawsuit filed to remove Trump from ballot in CO under 14th Amendment - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Having disqualified himself from public office by violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump must be removed from the ballot.

www.citizensforethics.org

New Mexico has decided.
"NEW MEXICO (KRQE) – The state Supreme Court dismissed a final motion for former Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin to reconsider his appeal. The Cowboys for Trump founder said this won’t stop his efforts."

New Mexico Supreme Court maintains Couy Griffin office removal

“I feel like I have a state that’s against me right now, and they used the court system to try to destroy me,” Griffin added. “I’m still a firm believer that the good …

www.krqe.com

Seems like the federal courts have done so as well. Previously posted, regarding the recent convictions for Jan 6:

Then why were so many people convicted of sedition, which is inciting and enabling insurrection?

sedition​

Sedition is language intended to incite insurrection against the governing authority. Edward Jenks, in The Book of English Law, contends that sedition is “perhaps the very vaguest of all offences,” and attempted to define it as “the speaking or writing of words calculated to excite disaffection against the Constitution as by law established, to procure the alteration of it by other than lawful means, or to incite any person to commit a crime to the disturbance of the peace. . .” Currently, the federal government criminalizes seditious conspiracy in 18 U.S.C. § 2384, which states, “f two or more persons in [the U.S.], conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” link

 

[jaypatriot]

An American court has already found 1.6.21 to be an insurrection.

CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) is an advocacy group. I just learned this while reading about the 14th Amendment case in CO that CREW is also a part of.

"While Section 3 has not been tested often in the last 150 years, due to lack of insurrections, last year CREW represented residents of New Mexico who sued to remove county commissioner Couy Griffin from office, the only successful case to be brought under Section 3 since 1869. The judge in that case determined January 6th was an insurrection under the Constitution and that someone who helped to incite it–even if not personally violent–had engaged in insurrection and was disqualified from office."

Lawsuit filed to remove Trump from ballot in CO under 14th Amendment - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Having disqualified himself from public office by violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump must be removed from the ballot.

www.citizensforethics.org

New Mexico has decided.

Please note: Presidential candidates (and VP candidate) are not electors. The 14th Amendment does not apply to a former president.

Some of Donald Trump’s opponents are seeking to bar him from the presidential ballot in 2024 under the Insurrection Clause, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides: “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, . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . ., 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.”

Commentators have noted that this provision specifically bars such people from serving in Congress or as presidential electors but not from the presidency or vice presidency. The anti-Trump interpretation of the clause assumes that the authors of the amendment expected the two most important offices to be included in the generic term “any office.” That’s implausible—an example of hiding elephants in mouseholes, to borrow a phrase from Justice Antonin Scalia.
Electors are chosen in individual states, but the president and vice president are elected only after the votes of electors from every state are tallied together.

Opinion | Robert E. Lee Could Have Been President

Lawmakers had a good reason to exclude the highest office from the Insurrection Clause.

www.wsj.com

 

[Mycroft]

Not an insurrection? The State of New Mexico disagrees.​

The State of New Mexico?

Isn't that where their governor is trying to suspend the 2nd Amendment?

Figures they would be the ones to make shit up about insurrection.

 

[Lycanthrope]

AND THAT'S WHY NEW MEXICO IS THE NEW CALIFORNIA GRRR ARRRGH

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Please note: Presidential candidates (and VP candidate) are not electors. The 14th Amendment does not apply to a former president.

Some of Donald Trump’s opponents are seeking to bar him from the presidential ballot in 2024 under the Insurrection Clause, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides: “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, . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . ., 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.”

Commentators have noted that this provision specifically bars such people from serving in Congress or as presidential electors but not from the presidency or vice presidency. The anti-Trump interpretation of the clause assumes that the authors of the amendment expected the two most important offices to be included in the generic term “any office.” That’s implausible—an example of hiding elephants in mouseholes, to borrow a phrase from Justice Antonin Scalia.
Electors are chosen in individual states, but the president and vice president are elected only after the votes of electors from every state are tallied together.

Opinion | Robert E. Lee Could Have Been President

Lawmakers had a good reason to exclude the highest office from the Insurrection Clause.

www.wsj.com

So, you're suggesting that the phrase "any office" specifically excludes the presidency. Interesting.

I would think that if the purpose was to exclude the presidency, they would have included the phrase to read "any office, civil or military, under the United States, . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . ., to support the Constitution of the United States, excepting the presidency. . . " but they didn't write the amendment that way.

 

[jaypatriot]

So, you're suggesting that the phrase "any office" specifically excludes the presidency. Interesting.

I would think that if the purpose was to exclude the presidency, they would have included the phrase to read "any office, civil or military, under the United States, . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . ., to support the Constitution of the United States, excepting the presidency. . . " but they didn't write the amendment that way.

The purpose of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was to keep Confederate officers from holding office in the South.
It assumed the President and VP were already in office.
It was not written to keep a former president from becoming president.

 

[Peacenik]

Please note: Presidential candidates (and VP candidate) are not electors. The 14th Amendment does not apply to a former president.

Some of Donald Trump’s opponents are seeking to bar him from the presidential ballot in 2024 under the Insurrection Clause, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides: “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, . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . ., 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.”

Commentators have noted that this provision specifically bars such people from serving in Congress or as presidential electors but not from the presidency or vice presidency. The anti-Trump interpretation of the clause assumes that the authors of the amendment expected the two most important offices to be included in the generic term “any office.” That’s implausible—an example of hiding elephants in mouseholes, to borrow a phrase from Justice Antonin Scalia.
Electors are chosen in individual states, but the president and vice president are elected only after the votes of electors from every state are tallied together.

Opinion | Robert E. Lee Could Have Been President

Lawmakers had a good reason to exclude the highest office from the Insurrection Clause.

www.wsj.com

"Or hold any office"

Such as the office of president.

Whoopsie. It applies.

 

[jaypatriot]

"Or hold any office"

Such as the office of president.

Whoopsie. It applies.

That's why we have a Supreme Court.
And they won't use "whoopsie" in their final decision.
I would like to see Trump out of the race.
But, I believe the 14th Amendment, as it was created to counter former insurrectionists, is not the answer to keeping him out.

 

[DarkWizard12]

An American court has already found 1.6.21 to be an insurrection.

sure bud, and my paper airplane is a boeing.

 

[Peacenik]

That's why we have a Supreme Court.
And they won't use "whoopsie" in their final decision.
I would like to see Trump out of the race.
But, I believe the 14th Amendment, as it was created to counter former insurrectionists, is not the answer to keeping him out.

Everyone is entitled to their on interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Looks like very clear definitive English to me.

All the boxes are checked to disqualify DT from the presidency.

He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Check.

He incited the insurrection. Check.

The presidency is any office. Check.

Therefore, DT is ineligible to hold any office, including the presidency, unless 2/3 of both houses of Congress vote to allow him to hold the office.

 

[jaypatriot]

Everyone is entitled to their on interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Looks like very clear definitive English to me.

All the boxes are checked to disqualify DT from the presidency.

He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Check.

He incited the insurrection. Check.

The presidency is any office. Check.

Therefore, DT is ineligible to hold any office, including the presidency, unless 2/3 of both houses of Congress vote to allow him to hold the office.

Why do you think Jack Smith DID NOT indict Trump for his role in inciting an insurrection? If you are so certain of that crime, then why isn't Jack Smith?
What does Jack Smith know that millions of anti-Trumpers do not know?

 

[Peacenik]

Why do you think Jack Smith DID NOT indict Trump for his role in inciting an insurrection? If you are so certain of that crime, then why isn't Jack Smith?
What does Jack Smith know that millions of anti-Trumpers do not know?

I am merely one of millions of Americans who are completely certain that DT caused the insurrection. The whole world saw it. They weren't doing it for Hunter Biden.

Jack Smith would have to prove it to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury. He's already got plenty he can prove to put DT away. It is possible that one prejudiced juror could slip past jury selection and stand between such charges and a guilty verdict. Prosecutors prefer to bring charges they feel very confident in winning a guilty verdict. It is easily understandable why Smith brought the charges he did, the ones he felt the most confident in being able to prove.

The 14th does not require that level of proof. There is no requirement that it be proven at all, much less in a court of law.

We millions of Americans are certain DT incited the insurrection because we paid attention to the J6 Committee hearings. The evidence they presented is overwhelmingly in support of DT having caused the insurrection:

1. He improperly cast doubt on the security of the election in the months leading up to it, knowing that he was trailing in the polls. That set the stage for the lie that the election 'was fraudulent,' even though every precaution had been taken to ensure a secure election, and one of DT's campaign team even acknowledged that the 2020 election was the most secure in history. It had been scrutinized up one side and down the other over months of anticipation and preparation for the highest election security possible amid DT's unsupported claims of doubt.

2. He refused to acknowledge he would participate in a peaceful transition of power. He refused to acknowledge there might even be a transfer of power.

3. He refused to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election. Instead, he claimed it was stolen. His followers, who hang on his every word, believed they were 'saving America' by believing his lies because he told them incorrectly if they didn't prevent the certification "they would not have a country any more."

4. He undertook at least 7 different efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The insurrection was the final most desperate resort after all the others failed.

5. He called the crowd to a rally saying: "It will be wild," at the Ellipse where he had a permit to hold a rally. He wanted the magnetometers removed from the gates but the SS refused to do it. Some of the crowd stayed outside because of the mags. He knew the crowd was armed. People nearby had been spotted with weapons.

6. His incendiary speech at the Ellipse whipped the crowd into a pissed-off frenzy.

7. He illegally sent the known armed crowd to the Capitol, even though he had no permit to have them assemble there.

8. He fought with SS agents in the car after they refused to take him to the Capitol.

9. He sent a tweet down-talking Pence during the insurrection, further endangering the VP, who narrowly escaped the angry crowd.

10. He resisted repeated efforts to get him to send the mob home. Instead, he sat there doing nothing but watching it unfold on TV for hours.

Anybody who paid attention to the Bipartisan J6 Committee hearings knows all of this. That is why DT is ineligible to hold any office in the USA under the 14th Amendment. There is no requirement in the 14th for anything to be proven in a court of law.

11. Every one of his followers who has been tried in connection with the J6 insurrection has either plead guilty or been judged guilty, including the Proud Boys who certainly did not stand back nor stand by.

DT is ineligible to hold any office in the United States. The 14th Amendment prevents him.

 

[mrjurrs]

Seems like the federal courts have done so as well. Previously posted, regarding the recent convictions for Jan 6:

Then why were so many people convicted of sedition, which is inciting and enabling insurrection?

sedition​

Sedition is language intended to incite insurrection against the governing authority. Edward Jenks, in The Book of English Law, contends that sedition is “perhaps the very vaguest of all offences,” and attempted to define it as “the speaking or writing of words calculated to excite disaffection against the Constitution as by law established, to procure the alteration of it by other than lawful means, or to incite any person to commit a crime to the disturbance of the peace. . .” Currently, the federal government criminalizes seditious conspiracy in 18 U.S.C. § 2384, which states, “f two or more persons in [the U.S.], conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” link

Seems clear to me. Thanks

 

[mrjurrs]

Please note: Presidential candidates (and VP candidate) are not electors. The 14th Amendment does not apply to a former president.

Some of Donald Trump’s opponents are seeking to bar him from the presidential ballot in 2024 under the Insurrection Clause, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides: “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, . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . ., 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.”

Commentators have noted that this provision specifically bars such people from serving in Congress or as presidential electors but not from the presidency or vice presidency. The anti-Trump interpretation of the clause assumes that the authors of the amendment expected the two most important offices to be included in the generic term “any office.” That’s implausible—an example of hiding elephants in mouseholes, to borrow a phrase from Justice Antonin Scalia.
Electors are chosen in individual states, but the president and vice president are elected only after the votes of electors from every state are tallied together.

Opinion | Robert E. Lee Could Have Been President

Lawmakers had a good reason to exclude the highest office from the Insurrection Clause.

www.wsj.com

"Commentators have noted..."

And that is supposed to mean something. Reread the 14th and tell me how they came to that decision, because it sure isn't clear from your source.
"...or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States..."

The framers were most concerned about a powerful central government. You think they would exempt the President, the person most likely to become King through supporting an insurrection?

I don't.

 

[mrjurrs]

sure bud, and my paper airplane is a boeing.

What did the sources posted say about it?

 

[AGENT J]

An American court has already found 1.6.21 to be an insurrection.

CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) is an advocacy group. I just learned this while reading about the 14th Amendment case in CO that CREW is also a part of.

"While Section 3 has not been tested often in the last 150 years, due to lack of insurrections, last year CREW represented residents of New Mexico who sued to remove county commissioner Couy Griffin from office, the only successful case to be brought under Section 3 since 1869. The judge in that case determined January 6th was an insurrection under the Constitution and that someone who helped to incite it–even if not personally violent–had engaged in insurrection and was disqualified from office."

Lawsuit filed to remove Trump from ballot in CO under 14th Amendment - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Having disqualified himself from public office by violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump must be removed from the ballot.

www.citizensforethics.org

New Mexico has decided.
"NEW MEXICO (KRQE) – The state Supreme Court dismissed a final motion for former Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin to reconsider his appeal. The Cowboys for Trump founder said this won’t stop his efforts."

New Mexico Supreme Court maintains Couy Griffin office removal

“I feel like I have a state that’s against me right now, and they used the court system to try to destroy me,” Griffin added. “I’m still a firm believer that the good …

www.krqe.com

the best part is, even with debate of charges or legality etc etc

the term insurrection has a definition and there is no logical, honest, objective, topically educated person that denies calling 1/6 and insurrection is an accurate usage of the word. Only nutters deny that.

.

 

[jaypatriot]

I am merely one of millions of Americans who are completely certain that DT caused the insurrection. The whole world saw it. They weren't doing it for Hunter Biden.

Jack Smith would have to prove it to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury. He's already got plenty he can prove to put DT away. It is possible that one prejudiced juror could slip past jury selection and stand between such charges and a guilty verdict. Prosecutors prefer to bring charges they feel very confident in winning a guilty verdict. It is easily understandable why Smith brought the charges he did, the ones he felt the most confident in being able to prove.

The 14th does not require that level of proof. There is no requirement that it be proven at all, much less in a court of law.

We millions of Americans are certain DT incited the insurrection because we paid attention to the J6 Committee hearings. The evidence they presented is overwhelmingly in support of DT having caused the insurrection:

1. He improperly cast doubt on the security of the election in the months leading up to it, knowing that he was trailing in the polls. That set the stage for the lie that the election 'was fraudulent,' even though every precaution had been taken to ensure a secure election, and one of DT's campaign team even acknowledged that the 2020 election was the most secure in history. It had been scrutinized up one side and down the other over months of anticipation and preparation for the highest election security possible amid DT's unsupported claims of doubt.

2. He refused to acknowledge he would participate in a peaceful transition of power. He refused to acknowledge there might even be a transfer of power.

3. He refused to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election. Instead, he claimed it was stolen. His followers, who hang on his every word, believed they were 'saving America' by believing his lies because he told them incorrectly if they didn't prevent the certification "they would not have a country any more."

4. He undertook at least 7 different efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The insurrection was the final most desperate resort after all the others failed.

5. He called the crowd to a rally saying: "It will be wild," at the Ellipse where he had a permit to hold a rally. He wanted the magnetometers removed from the gates but the SS refused to do it. Some of the crowd stayed outside because of the mags. He knew the crowd was armed. People nearby had been spotted with weapons.

6. His incendiary speech at the Ellipse whipped the crowd into a pissed-off frenzy.

7. He illegally sent the known armed crowd to the Capitol, even though he had no permit to have them assemble there.

8. He fought with SS agents in the car after they refused to take him to the Capitol.

9. He sent a tweet down-talking Pence during the insurrection, further endangering the VP, who narrowly escaped the angry crowd.

10. He resisted repeated efforts to get him to send the mob home. Instead, he sat there doing nothing but watching it unfold on TV for hours.

Anybody who paid attention to the Bipartisan J6 Committee hearings knows all of this. That is why DT is ineligible to hold any office in the USA under the 14th Amendment. There is no requirement in the 14th for anything to be proven in a court of law.

11. Every one of his followers who has been tried in connection with the J6 insurrection has either plead guilty or been judged guilty, including the Proud Boys who certainly did not stand back nor stand by.

DT is ineligible to hold any office in the United States. The 14th Amendment prevents him.

I think you have a pretty good handle on Trump's pre-1/6 calculations. Also, your rationale behind Jack Smith not indicting Trump for leading an insurrection makes sense.
As a Progressive, you do make sense.
I don't often write that.

Since I want to see Trump pushed out of the race, I agree with your points.

 

[Helix]

Not an insurrection? The State of New Mexico disagrees.

So does reality.

 

[Athanasius68]

Everyone is entitled to their on interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

This is true.

Looks like very clear definitive English to me.

Yep.

All the boxes are checked to disqualify DT from the presidency.

He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Check.

True

He incited the insurrection. Check.

False. He wasnt even charged with incitement.
Which is an element of insurrection.
whoopsie.

The presidency is any officwhoops ie.

Not really. The president has his own clause for disqualification from office-- a conviction in the Senate subsequent to an impeachment in the House.

Therefore, DT is ineligible to hold any office, including the presidency, unless 2/3 of both houses of Congress vote to allow him to hold the office.

 

[Athanasius68]

the best part is, even with debate of charges or legality etc etc

the term insurrection has a definition and there is no logical, honest, objective, topically educated person that denies calling 1/6 and insurrection is an accurate usage of the word. Only nutters deny that.

.

That's right. Insurrection has a definition.
It's in the federal statute.
The DOJ didn't think the facts of Jan 6 supported such a charge against Trump.
Or against anyone else.

 

[AGENT J]

That's right. Insurrection has a definition.

Correct and using the word insurrection to describe 1/6 has already been proven over and over again to be factually accurate usage of the word.

It's in the federal statute.

meaningless to anything i actually said and changes zero facts

The DOJ didn't think the facts of Jan 6 supported such a charge against Trump.

meaningless to anything i actually said and changes zero facts

Or against anyone else.

meaningless to anything i actually said and changes zero facts

so here we are in the same spot
Calling the attack on the capitol on 1/6 an insurrection is 100% proper usage of the word based on facts and definitions, nothing will change that fact

An insurrection is violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country, usually in order to remove them from office.

Insurrection definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Insurrection definition: An insurrection is violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: insurrection

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: insurrection

ahdictionary.com

an attempt by a large group of people to take control of their country by force

Welcome to Macmillan Education Customer Support

A violent uprising against an authority or government.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.lexico.com

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of INSURRECTION

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:

insurrection

1. an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Athanasius68]

Jack Smith would have to prove it to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury. He's already got plenty he can prove to put DT away. It is possible that one prejudiced juror could slip past jury selection and stand between such charges and a guilty verdict. Prosecutors prefer to bring charges they feel very confident in winning a guilty verdict. It is easily understandable why Smith brought the charges he did, the ones he felt the most confident in being able to prove.

So in other words, Trump is an insurrectionist because Smith would have a difficult time to proving it.

The 14th does not require that level of proof. There is no requirement that it be proven at all, much less in a court of law.

Except of course the principle of due process.

We millions of Americans are certain DT incited the insurrection because we paid attention to the J6 Committee hearings. The evidence they presented is overwhelmingly in support of DT having caused the insurrection:

Presumably, Mr. Smith listened to the J6 hearings as well.
He was not convinced by the 'overwhelming' evidence.
Else he would have charged him.

1. He improperly cast doubt on the security of the election in the months leading up to it, knowing that he was trailing in the polls. That set the stage for the lie that the election 'was

Ok. Nothing illegal with it.

2. He refused to acknowledge he would participate in a peaceful transition of power. He refused to acknowledge there might even be a transfer of power.

Ok. Nothing illegal with that.

3. He refused to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election. Instead, he claimed it was stolen. His followers, who hang on his every word, believed they were 'saving America' by believing his lies because he told them incorrectly if they didn't prevent the certification "they would not have a country any more."

Ok-- Nothing illegal with that.

4. He undertook at least 7 different efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The insurrection was the final most desperate resort after all the others failed.

Not sure what you mean by this.

5. He called the crowd to a rally saying: "It will be wild," at the Ellipse where he had a permit to hold a rally. He wanted the magnetometers removed from the gates but the SS refused to do it. Some of the crowd stayed outside because of the mags. He knew the crowd was armed. People nearby had been spotted with weapons.

Ok. And...

6. His incendiary speech at the Ellipse whipped the crowd into a pissed-off frenzy.

No. It didn't.

7. He illegally sent the known armed crowd to the Capitol, even though he had no permit to have them assemble there.

Nothing illegal about petitioning the government for the redress of grievances.

8. He fought with SS agents in the car after they refused to take him to the Capitol.

Ok. And...

9. He sent a tweet down-talking Pence during the insurrection, further endangering the VP, who narrowly escaped the angry crowd.

10. He resisted repeated efforts to get him to send the mob home. Instead, he sat there doing nothing but watching it unfold on TV for hours.

Ok-' he was derelict in enforcing the law.
Should have been impeached for it.

Anybody who paid attention to the Bipartisan J6 Committee hearings knows all of this. That is why DT is ineligible to hold any office in the USA under the 14th Amendment. There is no requirement in the 14th for anything to be proven in a court of law.

Anyone who pays attention to the DOJ knows that is rot.
The DOJ relies upon FACTS not political narratives.

11. Every one of his followers who has been tried in connection with the J6 insurrection has either plead guilty or been judged guilty, including the Proud Boys who certainly did not stand back nor stand by.

Yep. People sctually did storm the building.

DT is ineligible to hold any office in the United States. The 14th Amendment prevents him.

Not even close.

 

[Athanasius68]

Correct and using the word insurrection to describe 1/6 has already been proven over and over again to be factually accurate usage of the word.

The definition that matters is found in the federal code.

meaningless to anything i actually said and changes zero facts

meaningless to anything i actually said and changes zero facts

meaningless to anything i actually said and changes zero facts

so here we are in the same spot
Calling the attack on the capitol on 1/6 an insurrection is 100% proper usage of the word based on facts and definitions, nothing will change that fact

An insurrection is violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country, usually in order to remove them from office.

Insurrection definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Insurrection definition: An insurrection is violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: insurrection

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: insurrection

ahdictionary.com

an attempt by a large group of people to take control of their country by force

Welcome to Macmillan Education Customer Support

A violent uprising against an authority or government.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.lexico.com

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of INSURRECTION

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:

insurrection

1. an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Given that Trump has not been indicted for what the rioters did on j6, or that his indictments have nothing to do with violence, even your dictionary definitions fail when applied to Trump.

 

[AGENT J]

The definition that matters is found in the federal code.

another post that changes nothing and is 100% factually false to anything i actually said LOL
Fact remains calling the attack on the capitol on 1/6 an insurrection is 100% proper usage of the word based on facts and definitions. Please let us know when there's one single fact to change that. thanks!