Not an insurrection? The State of New Mexico disagrees.

[Stealers Wheel]

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.

From the federalcriminalattorneys.com:

While the term "insurrection" is not explicitly defined by federal law, courts and legal scholars generally interpret it as a violent uprising or organized resistance against the government or its regulations.
Similar to insurrection, the term "rebellion" is not explicitly defined. Still, in legal contexts, rebellion is generally understood as an organized, armed, and often violent resistance or opposition to established government authority or its laws.

Rebellion typically connotates a more widespread and coordinated effort than insurrection, aiming to overthrow or undermine the existing governmental structure. To prove a violation of U.S.C. 2383, the prosecution must establish the following elements:

• The defendant knowingly incited, engaged in, or gave aid and comfort to a rebellion or insurrection.
• The rebellion or insurrection was against the authority of the United States or its laws.
• The defendant's actions were willful and intentional.

And since we are talking about whether states can individually exclude Trump from being on their ballot, no criminal charges have to be filed. Trump can appear and make his case as to why he should not be excluded from a given state's ballot. That is clearly due process. He can also sue in court. However, if he does that, he will be subject to all those pesky court rules regarding perjury. His lawyers, as officers of the court, are well aware of these rules and the potential consequences.

 

[Peacenik]

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!

Oh, it was more than that. The way the con worked, first the country was going to hell, being destroyed, etc, etc, etc. And then "know-it-all" Trump had to be president to prevent that.

It couldn't possibly be that we have national issues which need to be addressed together, (optimally.)

If Republicans are critical of the immigration policy, where is their great plan to address it?

Where is the proposed Republican Immigration Reform Act? How much does border security need to get increased? Who is going to pay for it? Just who should be deported? How big of a job is that? How is that getting paid for? Should people who were born in the USA, even of foreign parents, and spent their entire lives in the USA, be deported to a country they have never seen and might not even speak the language? Do Republicans want to repeal the 14th Amendment very badly right now because it not only allows birthright citizenship but it could prevent Trump from being on the ballot?

Or maybe Republican don't really want to do anything about immigration after all. Maybe they love it because they get to claim it's all Democrats' fault and their followers eat it up and direct hatred at Democrats over it? Trump had 2 years of a Republican Congress. They could have passed any new immigration policy bill they wanted. Why didn't they do it? Because their super-rich string pullers don't really want to do anything about immigration?

It is a prudent observation that by maintaining this horrible problem of immigration, and bitterly dividing the nation politically over it, attention is diverted away from how the rich are ripping us all off and robbing us blind.

Tell the most deplorable American voter that he's better than the best illegal immigrant and he won't notice while you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.

If that sounds familiar credit to LBJ who made the same observation about racism and culture wars that is still working for the Republican Party today:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

 

[jaypatriot]

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?

And you're the ultimate arbiter of what is "factual, true, accurate, and logical?"
And you are telling me who I should agree with?

What chutzpah!

 

[jaypatriot]

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.

Only one person was killed on 1/6.
She was an unarmed white female military veteran shot by a nervous black cop who was protecting the capitol building.
Not a story promoted by the Liberal press.

 

[AGENT J]

Only one person was killed on 1/6.
She was an unarmed white female military veteran shot by a nervous black cop who was protecting the capitol building.
Not a story promoted by the Liberal press.

she was a nutter domestic terrorist who got himself killed because of criminal actions and delusional stupidity

i dont know about the liberal press but it was promoted quite a bit because Lt. Michael Byrd was and is a hero. This past january he came up again in the media for the service he did that day.

It was also in the press when the multiple investigations pointed out that it was a clean shoot and also in the press when that nutters mom got herself arrested also

and then it was news when they promoted him to Captain

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Only one person was killed on 1/6.
She was an unarmed white female military veteran shot by a nervous black cop who was protecting the capitol building.
Not a story promoted by the Liberal press.

She was killed because she was violently trespassing and refused to stand down when ordered to do so by law enforcement.

BTW, the fact that you ignore the dozens of officers who were beaten and injured during the attack on the Capitol did not go unnoticed.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

And you're the ultimate arbiter of what is "factual, true, accurate, and logical?"
And you are telling me who I should agree with?

What chutzpah!

You stated you agreed with him. I simply questioned your reasons for doing so.

 

[jaypatriot]

You stated you agreed with him. I simply questioned your reasons for doing so.

I agreed with him because he was making sense.
Plain and simple.
I like when I can agree with a Progressive on such matters as preventing a dangerous sociopath from becoming president again.

 

[jaypatriot]

She was killed because she was violently trespassing and refused to stand down when ordered to do so by law enforcement.

BTW, the fact that you ignore the dozens of officers who were beaten and injured during the attack on the Capitol did not go unnoticed.

I repeat, only one defenseless person was killed on that day by a policeman who shot and killed an UNARMED WHITE FEMALE MILITARY VETERAN who was trespassing along with thousands of other misguided idiots that day.
I'm not blind. I saw others beaten by crazed rioters who had no business being violent and attacking policemen doing their job.

And how would you know what was said to that unarmed female by the cop who shot her? You have evidence of that exchange?

 

[Perotista]

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

Okay, the county commissioner was on the ground at the capital. There’s been several others in federal court convicted of participating in an insurrection who were also on the ground. But that leaves the elephant who wasn’t on the ground or near the Capital Building so far not convicted or not even charged as being an insurrectionist. Any idea when the lawsuit to remove Trump from the ballot will be heard? If the court, judge does decide that the removal of Trump from the ballot, one can expect immediate appeals. Probably all the way to the SCOTUS.

This is getting interesting, but I’ll continue to sit back and relax with another cup of coffee watching the events unfold.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I agreed with him because he was making sense.
Plain and simple.
I like when I can agree with a Progressive on such matters as preventing a dangerous sociopath from becoming president again.

You stated you agreed with him BECAUSE you want to see Trump out, too.

Here is what YOU wrote:

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

So, which is it? Do you agree with his points because they make sense, are logical, accurate and true?
Or do you agree with him simply because you want Trump out?

 

[jaypatriot]

You stated you agreed with him BECAUSE you want to see Trump out, too.

Here is what YOU wrote:

So, which is it? Do you agree with his points because they make sense, are logical, accurate and true?
Or do you agree with him simply because you want Trump out?

Two things can be true at the same time.
Live with it.
You can stop stalking me now.

 

[Cordelier]

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.

The Constitution isn't self-executing, though. For Trump to be considered an insurrectionist, would he not have to be tried and convicted for violating 18 USC § 2383? Until such a conviction is obtained, is he not entitled to a presumption of innocence?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The Constitution isn't self-executing, though. For Trump to be considered an insurrectionist, would he not have to be tried and convicted for violating 18 USC § 2383? Until such a conviction is obtained, is he not entitled to a presumption of innocence?

I don't think so. Each state can, through due process, determine who is eligible to be on their ballots. The federal government has no role in state affairs when it comes to state elections. If this were not the case, we could literally have hundreds, if not thousands, of independent candidates for president on the ballots in every state every four years. That would end up with the House of Representatives deciding who is president every time.

 

[Cordelier]

I don't think so. Each state can, through due process, determine who is eligible to be on their ballots. The federal government has no role in state affairs when it comes to state elections. If this were not the case, we could literally have hundreds, if not thousands, of independent candidates for president on the ballots in every state every four years. That would end up with the House of Representatives deciding who is president every time.

And how exactly is Trump afforded due process if he is deemed guilty without trial?

 

[jaypatriot]

The Constitution isn't self-executing, though. For Trump to be considered an insurrectionist, would he not have to be tried and convicted for violating 18 USC § 2383? Until such a conviction is obtained, is he not entitled to a presumption of innocence?

The bloodthirsty Democrats and Trump-haters don't give a hoot about guilty according to the law.
Mob rule dictates Trump is guilty for what happened on 1/6.
Reminds me of scenes from old movies where thousands of Medieval peasants are gathered in a town squared loudly cheering as four horses are pulling apart someone who is presumably guilty (without a trial) of an unknown crime.
At this stage of the ongoing political season, the mob does not care about a trial or who is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

And how exactly is Trump afforded due process if he is deemed guilty without trial?

He certainly doesn't want another trial. Further, a state cannot charge him with a federal crime, which aiding and abetting insurrectionists is. If a state chooses to disqualify him from their ballot, for whatever reason, there is an appeal process. He can avail himself of the appeal process if he so chooses, but he will have to make a compelling case UNDER OATH and you know that won't go well. People are denied getting their name on state ballots all the time, for any number of reasons. Being a convicted criminal is almost never the reason.

 

[mrjurrs]

No.

Yes

 

[mrjurrs]

Okay, the county commissioner was on the ground at the capital. There’s been several others in federal court convicted of participating in an insurrection who were also on the ground. But that leaves the elephant who wasn’t on the ground or near the Capital Building so far not convicted or not even charged as being an insurrectionist. Any idea when the lawsuit to remove Trump from the ballot will be heard? If the court, judge does decide that the removal of Trump from the ballot, one can expect immediate appeals. Probably all the way to the SCOTUS.

This is getting interesting, but I’ll continue to sit back and relax with another cup of coffee watching the events unfold.

It has to go to SCOTUS, it is a direct ruling on the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[Cordelier]

The bloodthirsty Democrats and Trump-haters don't give a hoot about guilty according to the law.
Mob rule dictates Trump is guilty for what happened on 1/6.
Reminds me of scenes from old movies where thousands of Medieval peasants are gathered in a town squared loudly cheering as four horses are pulling apart someone who is presumably guilty (without a trial) of an unknown crime.
At this stage of the ongoing political season, the mob does not care about a trial or who is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Cordelier]

He certainly doesn't want another trial. Further, a state cannot charge him with a federal crime, which aiding and abetting insurrectionists is. If a state chooses to disqualify him from their ballot, for whatever reason, there is an appeal process. He can avail himself of the appeal process if he so chooses, but he will have to make a compelling case UNDER OATH and you know that won't go well. People are denied getting their name on state ballots all the time, for any number of reasons. Being a convicted criminal is almost never the reason.

Trump was a Federal official and the allegations of insurrection levelled against him pertain to the Federal Government. No State has jurisdiction to charge him with the crime of insurrection. So far as §3 of the 14th Amendment goes, Trump is either disqualified from the ballot in all 50 States or he is not in any of them. True, every State has it's own criteria for ballot access - but those criteria exist for all candidates on an equal basis. It would be unconstitutional for any State to deny Trump access to the ballot on the basis of insurrection unless or until he is convicted of the crime in a Federal court.

 

[jaypatriot]

Are you saying you would give the devil the benefit of the law?
Is Trump the devil? Is he innocent until proven guilty?

But Henry VIII didn't care about Sir Thomas More's faith in the law and had him beheaded.

 

[Cordelier]

Are you saying you would give the devil the benefit of the law?
Is Trump the devil? Is he innocent until proven guilty?

But Henry VIII didn't care about Sir Thomas More's faith in the law and had him beheaded.

To hold faith - be it in a deity, a country, the law or anything else - if one does not hold it under all circumstances (including the threat of death) then of what value is one's faith?

 

[jaypatriot]

To hold faith - be it in a deity, a country, the law or anything else - if one does not hold it under all circumstances (including the threat of death) then of what value is one's faith?

There are many interpretations of the word 'faith'.
There are millions of voters who have faith in what Trump can do for them and this country. Are they right to have that type of 'faith'?
Sir Thomas More had faith in his beliefs and the law.
The all powerful king had him beheaded.
How was his faith stronger than the power of King Henry?
Millions of people have faith in Biden getting re-elected?
Is their faith stronger than the many millions more who do not want him to be president in 2025?

The word 'faith' is like the word 'truth'.
Their definitions depend on who is talking and who is listening.

 

[Cordelier]

There are many interpretations of the word 'faith'.
There are millions of voters who have faith in what Trump can do for them and this country. Are they right to have that type of 'faith'?
Sir Thomas More had faith in his beliefs and the law.
The all powerful king had him beheaded.
How was his faith stronger than the power of King Henry?
Millions of people have faith in Biden getting re-elected?
Is their faith stronger than the many millions more who do not want him to be president in 2025?

The word 'faith' is like the word 'truth'.
Their definitions depend on who is talking and who is listening.

I think it is misguided to put one's faith in any individual because all individuals are fallible. As Brutus said in Julius Caesar: "Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more."