Not an insurrection? The State of New Mexico disagrees. (1 Viewer)

[Athanasius68]

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!

Already have.
Federal code is what controls.
Not Merriam-Webster.

 

[AGENT J]

Already have.

no you havent one single time lol

Federal code is what controls.Not Merriam-Webster.

nope federal controls has nothing to do with anything i posted and factually said, thanks for proving your own claims wrong AGAIN
so here we are in the same spot: 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!

 

[Athanasius68]

no you havent one single time lol

nope federal controls has nothing to do with anything i posted and factually said, thanks for proving your own claims wrong AGAIN
so here we are in the same spot: 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!

Already did. Insurrection is a federal crime, defined in the federal criminal code
That's what controls to make an impartial and draw a fair conclusion.

 

[AGENT J]

Already did. Insurrection is a federal crime, defined in the federal criminal code
That's what controls to make an impartial and draw a fair conclusion.

Please quote me saying anything about a federal crime . . .

oh wait i didnt hence why your deflection post continues to fail.
once again zero facts have changed and 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!

 

[Athanasius68]

Please quote me saying anything about a federal crime . . .

That is how insurrection is defined.
Under the law.

oh wait i didnt hence why your deflection post continues to fail.
once again zero facts have changed and 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!

 

[AGENT J]

That is how insurrection is defined.Under the law.

Translation you cant quote me saying anything about federal law, that's what i thought
usage of the word insurrection for the nutters on 1/6 is still 100% accurate usage by facts and definitions
facts, English, definitions and reality > than deflections

 

[Athanasius68]

Translation you cant quote me saying anything about federal law, that's what i thought
usage of the word insurrection for the nutters on 1/6 is still 100% accurate usage by facts and definitions
facts, English, definitions and reality > than deflections

That's right.
The only definition of 'insurrection' that matters when seeking to attach that term to the 14th Amendment, is the statute that Congress wrote.

 

[AGENT J]

That's right.

yes i know, using the word inssurection is 100% accurate usage based on facts reality and defintions

The only definition of 'insurrection' that matters when seeking to attach that term to the 14th Amendment, is the statute that Congress wrote.

false, once again you prove how your posts have nothing to do with what i said, that they are factually wrong and they change ZERO facts that i posted

maybe you forgot what was actually said, here ill quote it for you"

calling 1/6 and insurrection is an accurate usage of the word.

nothing in your posts have changed the fact above
let us know when that changes

 

[Athanasius68]

yes i know, using the word inssurection is 100% accurate usage based on facts reality and defintions

false, once again you prove how your posts have nothing to do with what i said, that they are factually wrong and they change ZERO facts that i posted

maybe you forgot what was actually said, here ill quote it for you"


nothing in your posts have changed the fact above
let us know when that changes

It continuous to be inaccurate definition of the term.
As the only definition that matters is what Congress has said what is the definition of insurrection.

 

[AGENT J]

It continuous to be inaccurate definition of the term.

false the definitions based on what i actually said was proven, linked and posted

As the only definition that matters is what Congress has said what is the definition of insurrection.

This is your feelings about something i never posted about and meaningless to my post just like congress is 100% meaningless to what i posted
keep trying the facts one change and proof in the thread is going no where lol

so my post stands

calling 1/6 and insurrection is an accurate usage of the word.

 

[Athanasius68]

false the definitions based on what i actually said was proven, linked and posted

All that matters is how Congress defines 'insurrection.'
And how they define insurrection, the DOJ found no facts to support such a charge against anyone.

This is your feelings about something i never posted about and meaningless to my post just like congress is 100% meaningless to what i posted
keep trying the facts one change and proof in the thread is going no where lol

so my post stands

 

[AGENT J]

All that matters is how Congress defines 'insurrection.'
And how they define insurrection, the DOJ found no facts to support such a charge against anyone.

your feelings are still 100% meaningless to the facts I posted

calling 1/6 and insurrection is an accurate usage of the word.

 

[Athanasius68]

your feelings are still 100% meaningless to the facts I posted

No feelings at all.
Of course, it's all moot if you also agree that dictionary definitions are irrelevant when it comes to defining 'insurrection' for purposes of the 14th amendment

 

[AGENT J]

No feelings at all.

When it comes to what i actually posted its 100% feelings, as i proved multiple times.
What i actually posted remains 100% factually true.

 

[Peacenik]

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.

Wow. Thank you for saying so. It really looks like his 'teflon' is wearing out.

Plenty of conservatives want him gone. He is making the Republican party look very petty.

I hope it doesn't get destroyed. We need the Republican party to keep the Democrats from going too far.

Republicans need more credibility to do that.

 

[Peacenik]

This is true.



Yep.




True


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


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

He is not president any more.

And the 14th does not require being charged in a court of law.

 

[Peacenik]

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


Except of course the principle of due process.


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


Ok. Nothing illegal with it.


Ok. Nothing illegal with that.


Ok-- Nothing illegal with that.


Not sure what you mean by this.


Ok. And...


No. It didn't.


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


Ok. And...




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


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


Yep. People sctually did storm the building.


Not even close.

Maybe the SCOTUS will agree with you. It wouldn't surprise me. I hope not; for the good of America.

 

[DarkWizard12]

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!

is it though?

All these trumpers show up to overthrow a nuclear-armed government with a flagpole and a baseball bat?

thats what you're calling an insurrection? just ignoring the part were police knowingly waved them into the capital and started taking selfies with the crowd?

forgetting the fact that the capital belongs to the people?

sounds like your definition has to an unreasonable amount of heavy lifting to qualify this as any sort of insurrection.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

He incited the insurrection. Check.

Therefore, in order to disqualify anyone I don't like from being re-elected to public office, all I need to do is find a post-oath video of them exhorting their followers to "fight" for something they support.

Sure thing!

 

[humbolt]

So does reality.

…but only if you live on Neptune.

 

[AGENT J]

is it though?

yes as proven many times here at DP over the years based on definitions, facts and reality

All these trumpers show up to overthrow a nuclear-armed government with a flagpole and a baseball bat?

Stupidity has to sway on the on definitions, facts and reality
you trying to assault mike tyson doesnt make it not assault because you lose

thats what you're calling an insurrection?

nope not me, has nothing to do with me lol
its based on definitions facts and reality

just ignoring the part were police knowingly waved them into the capital and started taking selfies with the crowd?

Also meaningless to definitions facts and reality

forgetting the fact that the capital belongs to the people?

not a fact and also
meaningless to definitions facts and reality

sounds like your definition has to an unreasonable amount of heavy lifting to qualify this as any sort of insurrection.

I never supplied any definition that was mine, so it sounds like your post just got exposed making up lies.
If you disagree then simply quote me using "my" definitions
once again 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.

 

[roberthughey]

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

No.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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.

It was written to prevent someone who had given aid and comfort to those who had participated in an insurrection from becoming president. At the time it meant anyone who had so much as served a meal to a confederate soldier during the Civil War. That was a failed insurrection. January 6 was a failed insurrection. Trump gave aid and comfort to those who participated. What was it he said? "You're very special. We love you."

While people were being beaten and killed in the Capitol, aids, family, and members of his cabinet begged him to do something to stop the violence, Trump refused and did nothing. That alone is grounds to invoke the 14th.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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.

You agree with him BECAUSE you want to see Trump pushed out?
Really? Why don't you agree with his points just because they are factual, true, accurate, and logical?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

This is true.



Yep.




True


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


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

And that might be relevant if Trump were president at this time. However, Trump is currently a private citizen, and as such he is disqualified from becoming president due to his behavior and actions leading up to and on 1/6. The Constitution says so.