Per the 14th Amendment,

[Rawley]

You’re sure putting a lot of effort into dodging an explanation for something you act like is so simple and obvious. Way more time dodging that a direct answer would have taken

The direct answer was, an hour ago, they are different fucking statutes. which part of that are you still not understanding?

 

[Slade3200]

Clearly the legal intent was to prevent the people who seceded from the Union from regaining political power so that they could do it all over again.

But nothing Trump did was remotely illegal.
In fact, the Jan 6 occupation was a good thing that should be repeated far more often, as Congress has become corrupt and insulated from the people.
Things Congress has done, like the invasion of Iraq, the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, mandated sentences, etc., are totally and completely illegal, and should not be tolerated for a second.

The occupation?!?! Haha

 

[Rawley]

That’s answers that. You have not read the 14th amendment. Trump does not need to be arrested for insurrection for the 14th to apply. Here I’ll make it easy for you:

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.

LOL good luck with that. So who are you proposing makes a determination that Trump engaged in insurrection, when the law enforcement agency directly responsible has determined he did not engage in insurrection.

 

[Frankenstein]

All of that is exactly backwards

Liar

 

[Rigby5]

Yet multiple people were arrested and charged with it…. think about that


Would it be fair to say that the elements that make sedition rise to a criminal level involve acts of insurrection?

The reality is that every time anyone has been CHARGED with "sedition", the actual "sedition" was on the part of the government.
Every single time the charge of "sedition" has been applied has actually been to illegally try to squash valid and legal dissent.
Again, go back to the original case, the WWI draft resistors.
WWI clearly was totally illegal, and the US sided with the assassins, liars, murderers, those guilty of war crimes, etc.
Nor is the draft legal when the US is not attacked.
Everyone in the US who was involved with WWI should have been hanged.
It was entirely criminal.
It was the rise of the Military Industrial Complex, who now totally control the US.

 

[Slade3200]

The direct answer was, an hour ago, they are different fucking statutes. which part of that are you still not understanding?

Well the part I was asking about that you have been dodging for an hour. That’s why we do direct answers to direct questions unless we are too full of ourselves to admit we don’t know something.

 

[Slade3200]

LOL good luck with that. So who are you proposing makes a determination that Trump engaged in insurrection, when the law enforcement agency directly responsible has determined he did not engage in insurrection.

There’s more to the statute than engaging… keep reading

 

[Slade3200]

The reality is that every time anyone has been CHARGED with "sedition", the actual "sedition" was on the part of the government.
Every single time the charge of "sedition" has been applied has actually been to illegally try to squash valid and legal dissent.
Again, go back to the original case, the WWI draft resistors.
WWI clearly was totally illegal, and the US sided with the assassins, liars, murderers, those guilty of war crimes, etc.
Nor is the draft legal when the US is not attacked.
Everyone in the US who was involved with WWI should have been hanged.
It was entirely criminal.
It was the rise of the Military Industrial Complex, who now totally control the US.

Well yeah, the ol phrase “only the strong survive” is inherent in our civilization. Just the elements of power and that which makes us strong as evolved through the ages. Bit in general, those with the guns and the power to punish are the strong

 

[OKTexas]

306>232

scoreboard.

America hating commies in government, working had to destroy the country.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Sounds like Starbucks really saw you coming.

They have never seen me coming, when I drink coffee, I make my own. But they see someone coming the damn things are everywhere.

.

 

[Delldude]

His DOJ ran by his hand picked AG… why didn’t they arrest Biden for these crimes?

Too busy investigating Trump.

 

[Slade3200]

Too busy investigating Trump.

Wrong… that was a special counsel and team. Plenty of others to go after Biden go there was actually anything there. But there wasn’t

 

[YoursTruly]

From what I've heard from some legal scholars, it would not require a guilty verdict for the Secretaries of State, in each of the States to disqualify Trump from the election ballots. It would also disqualify any write-in votes for Trump.

This could be challenged in State court, but since States have almost all authority over election, SCOTUS could not intervene unless some Federal law or the Constitution were violated.

State courts would only need a "finding" that Trump had incited an insurrection or other attempt to over turn an election.

Given his second impeachment, the fact that a majority of the Senate found him guilty of inciting an insurrection, and the findings of both the Jan. 6 committee and the Jan. 6 Special Prosecutors investigation, I have no doubt that the State Courts would uphold the disqualification.

Trump was acquitted in the senate. So the majority of the senators found him not guilty. Both times.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It’s not a game. It’s a real look at actual definitions and actual events that happened.

I get why you don’t want to go there… because when you do it gets very hard to deny what actually happened. An insurrection

You just said it yourself. They used words and they made actions. Poor execution and planning isn’t an excuse.

First, I am not going to waste time in the argument.

Second, what happened, happened.

Things are not proceeding through the legal system and nothing I do will influence that in any way.

I don't agree with a lot of their interpretation of things, but given the polar environment, I understand that this kind of thing happens.

Yes poor planning or, in reality, NO PLANNIN, tells you it wasn't an insurrection....easily. There was no intent.

If there was intent, they would have been more organized, more armed and would have easily accomplished their short term objectives (which I don't think they really would have done even ahd they not pulled back).

But.....at this point....outta my hands.

 

[HikerGuy83]

306>232

scoreboard.

And 2016 scorecard:

304 > 227

What is your point ?

 

[Slade3200]

Yes poor planning or, in reality, NO PLANNIN, tells you it wasn't an insurrection....easily. There was no intent.

Dude, you had a rally planned and participated in by the Presidents team called STOP THE STEAL. People were in DC for that event and to protest the election. Trump told them to go fight. He did throw in the work peacefully. But when the time came and the mob revolted and violently charged the capital. Trump did nothing and the certification of votes was stopped while members of Congress were evacuated for their safety... That is pretty damn close if not spot on to the definition of "Insurrection or Rebellion" and pretty damn close to "giving aiding or comfort" as stated in the 14th Amendment.

Hell he is out there now promising to pardon the people found guilty! Can't make this stuff up!

 

[HikerGuy83]

That is pretty damn close if not spot on to the definition of "Insurrection or Rebellion" and pretty damn close to "giving aiding or comfort" as stated in the 14th Amendment.

First, I am not going to waste time in the argument.

A reminder.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

If I recall this correctly, if a riot is legally declared to be an Insurrection, there need not be any personal criminal charges for the declaration to retain its force at-law... not every Confederate leader or soldier was formally charged with Insurrection, and yet plenty of them were barred from ever holding office because of the 14th... true? January 6 2021 could be declared thus, yes?

I don't think a jury or DA declared the firing on Fort Sumter to be an Insurrection... I think the President did that.

 

[Kondor3]

The presidency isn't mentioned in the 14th. Try again.

Nope.

It mentions civil, military and elected offices, and bars those who participated in Insurrection from holding such offices, without the approval of two-thirds of Congress.

The Presidency is an elected office.

Covered.

Next batter, please...

 

[Rogue AI]

Nope.

It mentions civil, military and elected offices, and bars those who participated in Insurrection from holding such offices, without the approval of two-thirds of Congress.

The Presidency is an elected office.

Covered.

Next batter, please...

Wrong, it specifically mentions certain offices while excluding the presidency. Try again.