First insurrectionist removed from office under 14th amendment

[Slade3200]

I see you haven't responded to me. What's the matter, cat got your crotch?

Huh? You’re responding to my response to you…. what are you talking about?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Huh? You’re responding to my response to you…. what are you talking about?

No, it went like this:

YOU: Exactly what it was to the letter of the definition

ME: Yes, unarmed idiots, old women, and vikings carrying podiums was a forceful political movement that was a threat to seize power. LMAO. You have some explaining to do

YOU: Happy to. What would you like cleared up?

ME: January 6th wasn't an "insurrection", you claimed it was. How was it one?

YOU: Well perhaps we are going off of different definitions of the word. Can you post your definition of insurrection and we can go from there?

ME: "Insurrection" is a legal term, and none of the people from that day have been charged with it. Insurrection requires a significant coordinated attack on the government to overthrow it. January 6th was a bunch of unarmed morons of which the FBI has determined that over 95% were acting individually, and there was no threat to the continuation of the government and country. After all was cleared, Congress validated the election hours later. Only one person died, one of the agitators. Basically, compared to the BLM riots, this was a pillow fight/

.. and you have yet to respond.

 

[Slade3200]

"Insurrection" is a legal term, and none of the people from that day have been charged with it. Insurrection requires a significant coordinated attack on the government to overthrow it. January 6th was a bunch of unarmed morons of which the FBI has determined that over 95% were acting individually, and there was no threat to the continuation of the government and country. After all was cleared, Congress validated the election hours later. Only one person died, one of the agitators. Basically, compared to the BLM riots, this was a pillow fight/

.. and you have yet to respond.

Oh my apologies, I did not see your response and appreciate you laying it out for me.

Insurrection is a legal term and it is a word with a definition that I have yet to see one person who denies there was an insurrection post. They make up their own interpretations of what it means and add elements that I have not seen in a single definition. For example, "significant coordinated attack on the government to overthrow it". That to me sounds like revolt and not insurrection. Can you post a definition for insurrection that requires those elements?

It seems that you are not interested in posting or acknowledging the definition of the word though. Instead you are pointing to which legal charges have been filed. Is this correct. If that is your argument I can continue that that road but I want to make sure we are on track. Is what I've stated accurate? Your position is that the only way to prove an insurrection occurred is for people to literally be charged with "insurrection". Correct?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Oh my apologies, I did not see your response and appreciate you laying it out for me.

Insurrection is a legal term and it is a word with a definition that I have yet to see one person who denies there was an insurrection post. They make up their own interpretations of what it means and add elements that I have not seen in a single definition. For example, "significant coordinated attack on the government to overthrow it". That to me sounds like revolt and not insurrection. Can you post a definition for insurrection that requires those elements?

It seems that you are not interested in posting or acknowledging the definition of the word though. Instead you are pointing to which legal charges have been filed. Is this correct. If that is your argument I can continue that that road but I want to make sure we are on track. Is what I've stated accurate? Your position is that the only way to prove an insurrection occurred is for people to literally be charged with "insurrection". Correct?

That would be a good starting point, the question would beg why they weren't charged with the crime that the media, Democrats, etc. are alledging?

 

[Slade3200]

That would be a good starting point, the question would beg why they weren't charged with the crime that the media, Democrats, etc. are alledging?

I'm happy to address that but before I do can I as you one question? Would you call what broke out in the capital a riot?

 

[scruffy]

You are correct. There were undercover FBI agents riling up the crowd.

The dumb fucking FBI asswipes are either committing crimes or inciting others to commit them.

That's only a SMALL part of how corrupt those bastards are

 

[j-mac]

I have not. Nobody has posted a definition of insurrection that backs up your point. All you have is hot air

I know it’s been posted…go back and read.

 

[j-mac]

I'm happy to address that but before I do can I as you one question? Would you call what broke out in the capital a riot?

Riot yes…insurrection no.

 

[Slade3200]

I know it’s been posted…go back and read.

Wrong it has not

 

[j-mac]

Wrong it has not

Well, I am not going to waste time going over what has already been discussed ad nauseum...This is a tactic, and it's not working on me...

 

[Slade3200]

Well, I am not going to waste time going over what has already been discussed ad nauseum...This is a tactic, and it's not working on me...

Bail if you want but nobody has posted a legit definition of insurrection. Y’all just add your own words and conditions to it but can’t back them up with anything

 

[ABikerSailor]

You guys keep bitching about what an insurrection is, saying that the participants have to be organized, or armed, or any number of other things. Let's clear that stuff up right now, as here is the definition according to US law.........................

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Doesn't say how many are required (based on the language using the term "whoever", I'm guessing just one person could be considered an insurrection), just that they engage in rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the US or our laws. And, saying that they wanted to get rid of Biden and reinstall Trump after an election said Biden won (rebelling against our laws and elections, meaning the authority of the US), as well as saying that they wanted to hang Pelosi and Pence (officials of the US government), that yeah, it was an insurrection. Doesn't say that you have to be successful, doesn't specify the level of violence that needs to be done, doesn't even say that they have to be armed, just says that they need to go against the authority of the US, in whatever form that may take.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You guys keep bitching about what an insurrection is, saying that the participants have to be organized, or armed, or any number of other things. Let's clear that stuff up right now, as here is the definition according to US law.........................

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Doesn't say how many are required (based on the language using the term "whoever", I'm guessing just one person could be considered an insurrection), just that they engage in rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the US or our laws. And, saying that they wanted to get rid of Biden and reinstall Trump after an election said Biden won (rebelling against our laws and elections, meaning the authority of the US), as well as saying that they wanted to hang Pelosi and Pence (officials of the US government), that yeah, it was an insurrection. Doesn't say that you have to be successful, doesn't specify the level of violence that needs to be done, doesn't even say that they have to be armed, just says that they need to go against the authority of the US, in whatever form that may take.

Using your claim then a traffic stop that goes bad is an insurrection.

 

[j-mac]

You guys keep bitching about what an insurrection is, saying that the participants have to be organized, or armed, or any number of other things. Let's clear that stuff up right now, as here is the definition according to US law.........................

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Doesn't say how many are required (based on the language using the term "whoever", I'm guessing just one person could be considered an insurrection), just that they engage in rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the US or our laws. And, saying that they wanted to get rid of Biden and reinstall Trump after an election said Biden won (rebelling against our laws and elections, meaning the authority of the US), as well as saying that they wanted to hang Pelosi and Pence (officials of the US government), that yeah, it was an insurrection. Doesn't say that you have to be successful, doesn't specify the level of violence that needs to be done, doesn't even say that they have to be armed, just says that they need to go against the authority of the US, in whatever form that may take.

That’s great, all you have to do now is explain why NO ONE has been charged with 18 USC 2383.

 

[scruffy]

Bail if you want but nobody has posted a legit definition of insurrection. Y’all just add your own words and conditions to it but can’t back them up with anything

Does it really matter?

You guys are splitting hairs.

It doesn't matter what you CALL it, we all know what it WAS.

Those people were there to delay the election certification until the extent of the fraud could be determined.

That is NOT an insurrection, it is in fact intense patriotism, and the fact that the fascist left is trying to marginalize it and even make it illegal speaks volumes.

 

[WEATHER53]

Oh my apologies, I did not see your response and appreciate you laying it out for me.

Insurrection is a legal term and it is a word with a definition that I have yet to see one person who denies there was an insurrection post. They make up their own interpretations of what it means and add elements that I have not seen in a single definition. For example, "significant coordinated attack on the government to overthrow it". That to me sounds like revolt and not insurrection. Can you post a definition for insurrection that requires those elements?

It seems that you are not interested in posting or acknowledging the definition of the word though. Instead you are pointing to which legal charges have been filed. Is this correct. If that is your argument I can continue that that road but I want to make sure we are on track. Is what I've stated accurate? Your position is that the only way to prove an insurrection occurred is for people to literally be charged with "insurrection". Correct?

And insurrection by definition means there Must Be an ability to overrun and uninstall existing government and replace it with your own.

There was No such ability Nor attempt. Plain, pure simple Facts that cloud lib loons feelings.

 

[martybegan]

Ok, fair point... back it up though, show a definition that states that

Again, I'm educated enough in the English language to understand this, and not a dime store hack like you trying to fit 10lbs a shit into a non existent bag.

 

[martybegan]

No, I call it that because the definition of the word fits exactly with what happened. Exactly.

Only in your SJW TDS addled "mind"

First and foremost most, it's about intent, even if they didn't have the means. And they themselves stated their intentions. That aside, they stormed the Capitol to coerce Congress to halt certifying Biden. Just delaying Congress is a crime, even if they were too incompetent to achieve their goals...

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy​

​

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, 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.​

And then there were others whose stated plan was to create so much havoc, it would open the door for Trump to halt certification by declaring martial law. Something they saw Pillow guy present as an option to Trump.

It's always also about means. Try convicting armless legless man of attempted murder if all he does is say "I'm going to kill this guy myself with my stubs"

 

[martybegan]

He did not shoot into the other room. He struck her in the left shoulder she exposed to him as she was climbing through that window pane. Had he shot her in the other room, the bullet would have gone through the door first and there's zero evidence of that.

It's a shame you have to lie to prop up your bullshit.

And again, there was only one cop on the other side at that moment and he did not have a vantage point to take a shot.

And despite your earlier bullshit, there was no one between her are that wall next to her...

And the public report detailing this said what?

Looks like he could have shot into others to me.

Again, only one who decided he had to open fire.

In any other world it's a bad shoot, but because it was done to people you despise you admire it. Because you are a fucking hack.

 

[martybegan]

No, we call it that because the actual definition matches it...

INSURRECTION Definition & Legal Meaning​

​

A rebellion, or rising of citizens or subjects in resistance to their government. Insurrection shall consist in any combined resistance to the lawful authority of the state, with intent to the denial thereof, when the same is manifested, or intended to be manifested, by acts of violence. Code Ga. 1882,​

by that definition any crime is an insurrection, try again, hack-twat.