I predict the Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado decision to remove Trump from the 2024 b****t (Page 2): No, not the same thing.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

jcboy3 wrote:

Several 1*6 defendants were convicted of S*******s Conspiracy. US 2384 vs US 2383. Close enough.

No, not the same thing.

National Park

travelwp wrote:

I don't think a single individual was charged with I**********N

As stated above, several defendants were convicted of S*******s Conspiracy. S******n often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, OR I**********N AGAINST, established authority.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

National Park wrote:

As stated above, several defendants were convicted of S*******s Conspiracy. S******n often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, OR I**********N AGAINST, established authority.

And nobody has yet to be charged with i**********n.

National Park

papakatz45 wrote:

And nobody has yet to be charged with i**********n.

You miss the point. I**********n is a type of s******n.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

National Park wrote:

You miss the point. I**********n is a type of s******n.

I did not miss the point. Has anyone been charged with i**********n?

National Park

papakatz45 wrote:

I did not miss the point. Has anyone been charged with i**********n?

Just because no one was charged with a federal offense under the i**********n statute, that does not mean there was no i**********n as that term is commonly used. The dictionary defines "i**********n" as "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Clearly, 1*6 was "violent." And, it was an "uprising against an authority or government" in that it attempted to stop Congress from certifying an e******n, as required by the Constitution. Consequently, 1*6 was an i**********n.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

National Park wrote:

Just because no one was charged with a federal off... (show quote)

I agree with you completely. The legal system (read lawyers) tries to nitpick every single term despite a common understanding of the meaning.

Take the issue being debated as to whether the President in an "officer" when it comes to Section 3 of 14A "shall not hold office..."

Why is POTUS "Commander in Chief" of the military where "officers" are in charge?
Why is POTUS referred to as "the highest office in the land"?
Why is there "Office of the President"?

I fear this whole thing will d**g out to the point that Trump is finally convicted of something posthumously.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

National Park wrote:

Just because no one was charged with a federal off... (show quote)

In your mind there was an i**********n. In the eyes of the law, which is all that matters, there was no i**********n. Do you not believe, with all the h**e for Trump and those who support him, at least someone would be charged with i**********n? Obviously there was not enough evidence to support any charge of i**********n, by anyone. Clearly, as you put it, there was not an i**********n as legally defined. You can call an apple an orange all day long, but it will never be taken as an orange. Good night.

National Park

papakatz45 wrote:

In your mind there was an i**********n. In the eye... (show quote)

I just call an i**********n and i**********n, as the term is commonly used. I call it neither an apple, nor an orange. And I never said, nor do I agree, that it wasn't an i**********n as legally defined. I agree the charge that was made was s******n, not i**********n. But I believe i**********n charges could have been filed. You may want to look at: https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/r*******n-or-i**********n

jcboy3

papakatz45 wrote:

In your mind there was an i**********n. In the eye... (show quote)

People were charged and convicted of s*******s conspiracy, which is the legal charge for s******n. Not specifically i**********n, as covered by a separate code. But most likely close enough to be covered by the 14th amendment along with r*******n, under the blanket term of i**********n.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

National Park wrote:

As stated above, several defendants were convicted of S*******s Conspiracy. S******n often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, OR I**********N AGAINST, established authority.

WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the J*** 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the p**********l e******n result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

The label SC may hint or include other things but the bottom line: no one was convicted of I**********N. The continued use of the word in the ATTIC will not make it true.

Triple G

travelwp wrote:

WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the J*** 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the p**********l e******n result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

The label SC may hint or include other things but the bottom line: no one was convicted of I**********N. The continued use of the word in the ATTIC will not make it true.

That's old reporting. It's been determined that it was planned (chesebro testimony) and that trump had knowledge and participation. Jack Smith has evidence and is planning to prove in court.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-it-was-attempted-c**p

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

National Park wrote:

I just call an i**********n and i**********n, as the term is commonly used. I call it neither an apple, nor an orange. And I never said, nor do I agree, that it wasn't an i**********n as legally defined. I agree the charge that was made was s******n, not i**********n. But I believe i**********n charges could have been filed. You may want to look at: https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/r*******n-or-i**********n

I do not need to read anything. Until a jurisdiction charges someone with i**********n, there was no i**********n. If someone is charged then, and only then, will agree there was an i**********n. Legal experts smarter in the law than you or me including liberal prosecutors, say no i**********n.

Canisdirus

travelwp wrote:

I predict the Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado decision to remove Trump from the 2024 b****t.

The Colorado action shows just how scared the Democrats are of Trump running for president.

Latest news on how scared the Biden's really are:

According to a Senior DC Law Enforcement Official, the Biden Department of Justice has been diverting extra FBI special agents to go after Trump, his staff and his supporters.

I predict that Trump will be president again.

The ruling has a built in escape clause...that's how much of a farce the ruling is.

If Trump appeals...just appeals...the ruling is stayed automatically.

Just pouring time...money...and our way of life...down the drain.

National Park

papakatz45 wrote:

I do not need to read anything. Until a jurisdiction charges someone with i**********n, there was no i**********n. If someone is charged then, and only then, will agree there was an i**********n. Legal experts smarter in the law than you or me including liberal prosecutors, say no i**********n.

There once was a teacher who asked a student to define ignorance. The student responded, "I don't know, and I don't care." Read! You may learn something.