Let's make something clear.

[Hutch Starskey]

Ya' just have to point and laugh when cut and pasters get their internet law degrees.

That’s why actual legal opinions from those with actual law degrees are linked.

 

[Lisa558]

Uh huh…

Rebellion or Insurrection | 18 U.S. Code § 2383

Review 18 U.S.C. 2383 rebellion or insurrection law which makes it a crime to incite, assist with, or participate in a rebellion against United States authority.

www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com

What Is Considered Insurrection?

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.

Insurrection often involves acts intended to overthrow, disrupt, or challenge the authority of the United States or impede the enforcement of federal laws.

It was a protest that turned into a riot when the Capitol Police started throwing tear gas. Nothing more.

If it WERE an insurrection, then someone would have been charged with it after three years.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're leaving out an essential element of the insurrection. The multifaceted plan Team Trump designed to stop Biden's certification which included the introduction of fake electors. The 1/6 riot was a last resort.

Yes. “The Green Bay Sweep”

Trump Adviser Worried He’s Not Getting Enough Credit for Trying to Ruin American Democracy​

Trump Adviser Worried He's Not Getting Enough Credit for Trying to Ruin American Democracy

Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro is bragging about a tin-pot plan he pushed to block election certification, keep Donald Trump in office.

www.rollingstone.com

Green Bay Sweep (politics) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Hollie]

That’s why actual legal opinions from those with actual law degrees are linked.

None of those actual legal opinions were accompanied by any actual evidence to actually charge anyone with the actual crime of insurrection, actually.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It was a protest that turned into a riot when the Capitol Police started throwing tear gas. Nothing more.

If it WERE an insurrection, then someone would have been charged with it after three years.

Uh huh…

You just said it was meant to delay the transfer of power until there could be a hearing.
That is illegal. That is insurrection as I showed you.

“Insurrection often involves acts intended to overthrow, disrupt, or challenge the authority of the United States or impede the enforcement of federal laws.”

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wait, what? Do you mean a SOS can't unilaterally decide that?

Can a state SOS unilaterally decide that someone under 35 or not a natural citizen is disqualified from being on the ballot?

 

[Lisa558]

Uh huh…

You just said it was meant to delay the transfer of power until there could be a hearing.
That is illegal. That is insurrection as I showed you.

“Insurrection often involves acts intended to overthrow, disrupt, or challenge the authority of the United States or impede the enforcement of federal laws.”

Oh, you showed me, did you? Then how come after three years, nobody was ever charged for that?

Answer: Because there was no insurrection.

 

[berg80]

How much discovery was Trump allowed? How many of their witnesses was he allowed to depose? How many evidentiary hearings were there?

With every one of your posts you blare your abject ignorance of what due process is.

You are erroneously conflating the process by which indicted defendants are tried in a court of law and the procedures by which hearings are conducted for ballot disqualification in accordance with state laws.

 

[Hollie]

Can a state SOS unilaterally decide that someone under 35 or not a natural citizen is disqualified from being on the ballot?

Has no relevance to a capital crime which is what the insurrection groupies claim took place.

 

[berg80]

It was a protest that turned into a riot when the Capitol Police started throwing tear gas. Nothing more.

If it WERE an insurrection, then someone would have been charged with it after three years.

Over and over you folks make the same mistake of narrowly focusing on the events of 1/6 to the exclusion of the illegal plot hatched by John Eastman, Ken Chesebro, Trump, and others to subvert democracy by blocking Biden's certification.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're missing the part about the adjudication being unenforceable until review by the USSC.

You're missing the part about these 'rulings', not adjudication on the part of the leftist hack in Maine, are politically motivated opinions of clearly partisan ideologues.

Irrelevant.

 

[Rawley]

You are erroneously conflating the process by which indicted defendants are tried in a court of law and the procedures by which hearings are conducted for ballot disqualification in accordance with state laws.

QED. You seem completely unaware that due process applies equally in administrative cases. Do a little independent research rather than simply parroting the ridiculous talking points from the Democrats.

 

[scruffy]

You are erroneously conflating the process by which indicted defendants are tried in a court of law and the procedures by which hearings are conducted for ballot disqualification in accordance with state laws.

Horseshit.

If we're going with the preponderance of opinion then you fucktard lefties are TOAST.

You will be held financially and morally responsible for STEALING AN ELECTION.

2/3 of the country believes it. MORE than enough for any civil jury.

Leftards are really very, very stupid. Not to mention completely lacking in moral fiber.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You not only need to remove Biden from the ballot... but you need to do so in a manner that will withstand judicial review.

And so far Sleepy Old Uncle Joe has committed no offense that can defensibly be used to undertake such a removal.

Why go to all that trouble if you're just going to waste your time and money getting laughed out of court? (again)

Impeachment is the remedy for presidents but of course they haven’t been able to pull that together either.

 

[MagicMike]

Let's make something else clear: there was no "insurrection".

Bullshit.
The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Quite the opposite. The DOJ's thousands of criminal charges confirm it wasn't an insurrection.

Well except those seditious conspiracy convictions, of course.

 

[Oddball]

Bullshit.
The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[Rawley]

Over and over you folks make the same mistake of narrowly focusing on the events of 1/6 to the exclusion of the illegal plot hatched by John Eastman, Ken Chesebro, Trump, and others to subvert democracy by blocking Biden's certification.

None of them were charged with insurrection for any of those acts either.

 

[Rawley]

Well except those seditious conspiracy convictions, of course.

Separate law, sedition is not insurrection and insurrection is not sedition.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

from the OP>>>>

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members



In other words what we consider due process is reduced to partisan politics

~S~

In other words you consider judicial rulings on a lawsuit brought by republicans as being reduced to partisan politics.