Per the 14th Amendment,

[WTH_Progs?]

Trump left the White House, Biden moved in and took over. I'm not seeing the "insurrection" BS. Some idiots got rowdy and were arrested, that shit happened for months across U.S. cities during the Dem stoked uprisings. Rioting, looting, burning, damage and take over of government buildings, over 2,000 police injured. The audacity of Democrats to encourage that shit then express faux rage over Jan 6th laughable.

And lets not forget the many, MANY anomalies that occurred that day so the left could build their narration. False flag

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How many threads on the exact same subject must we suffer

There was no insurrection you fucking idiot!

So what was it?

 

[Darkwind]

There were several found guilty of sedition… isn’t that synonymous with insurrection?

Were they running for President? Sedition is NOT insurrection; regardless, the focus of the topic is using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump based on Article III of that Amendment. It does not even rise to a chuckle.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

So what was it?

A false flag. The left's narration calls said false flag a insurrection, but they only do so with an erection.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, but it's still not insurrection. IIRC, "sedition" doesn't disqualify anyone to hold public office.
The word sedition isn't mentioned.

"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, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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 But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Trump didn't engage in the 1/6 riot, so he's not guilty of "rebellion." And since no one has been charged or found guilty of "insurrection," he's not guilty of inciting one.

I agree with you that neither case is cut and dry. The case against Trump would be that the events of 1/6 fit the definition of insurrection. The hundreds of arrests from minor infractions to charges of sedition back up the case that an insurrection happened. Plus the hundreds of hours of video footage of rioting and looting and violence we saw at the capital that day makes it pretty obvious.

Trumps involvement in leading and inciting the events of that day would be the case made against him. The fact that he was not charged with insurrection would be his defense. A counter would be that he was impeached for it and a popular senate justification for not following through with impeachment was that it should be an issue for the courts.

Well we are seeing that play out now in the courts. You can say that a charge of insurrection still does not exist or you can say that the sum of the parts amounts to the definition of insurrection.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out

 

[Slade3200]

Were they running for President? Sedition is NOT insurrection; regardless, the focus of the topic is using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump based on Article III of that Amendment. It does not even rise to a chuckle.

Have you read the definition of sedition? It involves acts of insurrection

 

[Rogue AI]

I agree with you that neither case is cut and dry. The case against Trump would be that the events of 1/6 fit the definition of insurrection. The hundreds of arrests from minor infractions to charges of sedition back up the case that an insurrection happened. Plus the hundreds of hours of video footage of rioting and looting and violence we saw at the capital that day makes it pretty obvious.

Trumps involvement in leading and inciting the events of that day would be the case made against him. The fact that he was not charged with insurrection would be his defense. A counter would be that he was impeached for it and a popular senate justification for not following through with impeachment was that it should be an issue for the courts.

Well we are seeing that play out now in the courts. You can say that a charge of insurrection still does not exist or you can say that the sum of the parts amounts to the definition of insurrection.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out

There are exactly ZERO videos of Trump protesting or rioting. You folks are so full of shit with your lame attempts to link Trump to anything outside his public request for a peaceful demonstration. Only through rank corruption and judicial activism have these 'cases' even made it this far.

 

[elektra]

So what was it?

a peaceful assembly of american citizens

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

a peaceful assembly of american citizens

I’ve never been to a peaceful assembly that resulted in loads of vandalism, have you?

 

[Slade3200]

There are exactly ZERO videos of Trump protesting or rioting. You folks are so full of shit with your lame attempts to link Trump to anything outside his public request for a peaceful demonstration. Only through rank corruption and judicial activism have these 'cases' even made it this far.

You’re not paying attention. The capital insurrection didn’t happen from Trump calling for peace. Everything about trumps actions showed that he wanted a fight to happen and he wanted the vote certification stopped and flipped. These cases are based on evidence. This evidence will be presented in court. Perhaps you whackos should follow suit with all your BS claims you have about the Biden Crime family.

 

[Rogue AI]

You’re not paying attention. The capital insurrection didn’t happen from Trump calling for peace. Everything about trumps actions showed that he wanted a fight to happen and he wanted the vote certification stopped and flipped. These cases are based on evidence. This evidence will be presented in court. Perhaps you whackos should follow suit with all your BS claims you have about the Biden Crime family.

Nonsense, these 'cases' are political chicanery of the highest order. Nor does the 14th Amendment apply to the presidency.

 

[BrokeLoser]

So what was it?

I’ve never been to a peaceful assembly that resulted in loads of vandalism, have you?

You’ve obviously never been to any serious protest.
ALL protests have their outlier protesters….ALL OF THEM

 

[Slade3200]

Nonsense, these 'cases' are political chicanery of the highest order. Nor does the 14th Amendment apply to the presidency.

You’re just saying shit. You haven’t seen the evidence so there is no way you can know that they are political chicanery. You’re just repeating talking points

 

[Rogue AI]

You’re just saying shit. You haven’t seen the evidence so there is no way you can know that they are political chicanery. You’re just repeating talking points

Don't be such a rube. If there was any actual evidence, liberals would have leaked it to ruin him publicly.

 

[Mac1958]

I can't find one instance of any of the rioters in the capital being charged and found guilty of that actual charge of "insurrection."

That's because they were charged with the various crimes they committed individually DURING The Insurrection. Much, much, much easier to identify and demonstrate.

So there is the macro -- The Insurrection -- and the micro -- the many individual crimes committed that day.

You can call that event anything you want. You can call it "the banana". To the rest of the planet, it was The Insurrection.

 

[Slade3200]

Don't be such a rube. If there was any actual evidence, liberals would have leaked it to ruin him publicly.

All you’re doing is posturing and assuming. Fact remains you are speaking from a place of ignorance

 

[Rogue AI]

All you’re doing is posturing and assuming. Fact remains you are speaking from a place of ignorance

So are you. Otherwise produce this alleged evidence.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

View attachment 821673

 

[Slade3200]

So are you. Otherwise produce this alleged evidence.

That is the point of the trial. That’s where the evidence is presented and debated. You pretend to know everything about it… you don’t… you’re full of shit

 

[OKTexas]

I've asked this question before, but didn't get an answer. BTW, I can't find one instance of any of the rioters in the capital being charged and found guilty of that actual charge of "insurrection." I've seen numerous ones that skirted "insurrection." But not one with that charge and guilty verdict containing that word.

If there is one, then an insurrection has been committed, according to a jury and judge. And in all probability, Trump will be found guilty of inciting it. And will not be qualified to be the POTUS. Even if he wins the election.
And it could do down this way. Trump wins the election, but before taking office, the election is thrown out because the winner doesn't qualify. The same way it would happen if say Edward Snowden where to get the winning amount of electoral votes. He still doesn't qualify to be president. He'd qualify to run. But he could never be sworn in.

The big "oh shit" moment after Trump wins the election, when his supporters realized they put all their efforts into someone who doesn't even qualify, per the US constitution.

On the flip side, IF no guilty verdict of insurrection has been made, then according to the law, there really was no insurrection. Trump wins the election and takes office. And there's nothing the democrats can do about it.

You might want to look up the 18th century definition of "engaged in". The modern definition requires participation. Which leaves you with nothing but propaganda and wishful thinking.

.