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

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

jcboy3 wrote:

Several 1/6 defendants were convicted of Seditious 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 INSURRECTION

As stated above, several defendants were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, OR INSURRECTION AGAINST, established authority.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

National Park wrote:

As stated above, several defendants were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, OR INSURRECTION AGAINST, established authority.

And nobody has yet to be charged with insurrection.

National Park

papakatz45 wrote:

And nobody has yet to be charged with insurrection.

You miss the point. Insurrection is a type of sedition.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

National Park wrote:

You miss the point. Insurrection is a type of sedition.

I did not miss the point. Has anyone been charged with insurrection?

National Park

papakatz45 wrote:

I did not miss the point. Has anyone been charged with insurrection?

Just because no one was charged with a federal offense under the insurrection statute, that does not mean there was no insurrection as that term is commonly used. The dictionary defines "insurrection" 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 election, as required by the Constitution. Consequently, 1/6 was an insurrection.

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 drag 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 insurrection. In the eyes of the law, which is all that matters, there was no insurrection. Do you not believe, with all the hate for Trump and those who support him, at least someone would be charged with insurrection? Obviously there was not enough evidence to support any charge of insurrection, by anyone. Clearly, as you put it, there was not an insurrection 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 insurrection. In the eye... (show quote)

I just call an insurrection and insurrection, 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 insurrection as legally defined. I agree the charge that was made was sedition, not insurrection. But I believe insurrection charges could have been filed. You may want to look at: https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection

jcboy3

papakatz45 wrote:

In your mind there was an insurrection. In the eye... (show quote)

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

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

National Park wrote:

As stated above, several defendants were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, OR INSURRECTION AGAINST, established authority.

WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election 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 INSURRECTION. 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 Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election 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 INSURRECTION. 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-coup

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

National Park wrote:

I just call an insurrection and insurrection, 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 insurrection as legally defined. I agree the charge that was made was sedition, not insurrection. But I believe insurrection charges could have been filed. You may want to look at: https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection

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

Canisdirus

travelwp wrote:

I predict the Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado decision to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot.

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 insurrection, there was no insurrection. If someone is charged then, and only then, will agree there was an insurrection. Legal experts smarter in the law than you or me including liberal prosecutors, say no insurrection.

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.