Donald is about to go through some things...

[Al-O-Meter]

I can totally plan to kill someone in the future and not get charged with anything right?

No because the planning is a crime and the planning was something you were doing now. You could not be charged now with anything if you had not done anything now but someday in the future would set about planning to kill someone. Prosecuting future crime isn't a thing and on Jan 6, in order for the events of Jan 6 to have been insurrection that Trump aided or instigated then Trump would have been trying to overthrow himself.

All three of the points brought up in your Op/Ed are catastrophically flawed which is why no other state supreme courts are following Colorado's lead, and even the Colorado State Supreme Court split despite all being democrat appointed. In Maine, it wasn't a judge but some administrator that decided to do it. The 'president is not an officer' argument I see as the most arguable but even that one is is pretty bombproof.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

The President of the United States is Commander in Chief(an officer). Article II, § 1,

Weird. I checked the US Constitution Article II and didn't see the part in parenthesis. It is almost as if someone on the internet added that in. I must have different version where they forgot the parenthesis parts.

 

[fishonjazz]

No because the planning is a crime and the planning was something you were doing now. You could not be charged now with anything if you had not done anything now but someday in the future would set about planning to kill someone. Prosecuting future crime isn't a thing and on Jan 6, in order for the events of Jan 6 to have been insurrection that Trump aided or instigated then Trump would have been trying to overthrow himself.

All three of the points brought up in your Op/Ed are catastrophically flawed which is why no other state supreme courts are following Colorado's lead, and even the Colorado State Supreme Court split despite all being democrat appointed. In Maine, it wasn't a judge but some administrator that decided to do it. The 'president is not an officer' argument I see as the most arguable but even that one is is pretty bombproof.

He wasn't just planning though. He was acting.
You never answered the question: What was trump doing when he sent in fake electors, when he called state officials telling them to find votes that didn't exist, his stop the steal campaign, his 60 plus court cases...... Since he was the president and chief constitutional officer of the executive branch at that time then he was trying to overthrow himself with those actions? What a weirdo. Again, you trumpers are super strange.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You never answered the question: What was trump doing when he sent in fake electors

I answer them directly over and over. The fake electors could have possibly been a crime but the potential crime isn't insurrection.

when he called state officials telling them to find votes that didn't exist,

Calling the state officials telling them to find votes that didn't exist could have possibly been a crime but the potential crime isn't insurrection.

his stop the steal campaign,

His stop the steal campaign could have possibly been a crime but the potential crime isn't insurrection.

his 60 plus court cases

His 60 plus court cases possibly contain crimes but not a single one of those cases contains a charge of insurrection.

Insurrection is a specific thing. It isn't a catch-all term for 'crime'. The supposed insurrection that people talk about happened on January 6th. not the day of finding fake electors, or calling state officials, or launching the stop the steal campaign, or the days of his 60 plus court cases.

 

[Sardines]

He was trying to overthrow congress. He didn't want to lose. He definitely wasn't trying to overthrow himself, on that we agree. Had he won the election none of this would have happened. He was trying to overthrow the will of the american people as well.

The word games AI-O is playing are beyond stupid and completely disingenuous. Like is he trying to have a meaningful discussion or just be a prick?

 

[Sardines]

The social media blitz and direct communication between Trump's team and organizations like the proud little boys, 3%tards, oathbreakers, etc., organizing the mob that showed up on Trump's behalf, that he was well aware of, that he knew the agenda of and who he encouraged and then refused to to tell them to stop (because he wanted them to succeed) was the ****ing insurrection that Trump was involved in.

The childish word games and deflections aren't cute. If you can support what Trump did on Jan 6th then you're an anti-American scumbag (assuming you live in the U.S.). Trump is an anti-American scumbag and soon to be felon. He betrayed the nation and the Constitution he swore an oath to protect.

 

[One Brow]

He wan't trying to overthrow himself so it wasn't an insurrection

In this country we don't swear allegiance to POTUS. Trump was trying to overthrow the Constitutional process, hence it's an insurrection.

 

[fishonjazz]

I answer them directly over and over. The fake electors could have possibly been a crime but the potential crime isn't insurrection.


Calling the state officials telling them to find votes that didn't exist could have possibly been a crime but the potential crime isn't insurrection.


His stop the steal campaign could have possibly been a crime but the potential crime isn't insurrection.


His 60 plus court cases possibly contain crimes but not a single one of those cases contains a charge of insurrection.

Insurrection is a specific thing. It isn't a catch-all term for 'crime'. The supposed insurrection that people talk about happened on January 6th. not the day of finding fake electors, or calling state officials, or launching the stop the steal campaign, or the days of his 60 plus court cases.

Ah but there is more to the 14th amendment than commiting insurrection.
Something about giving aid to (helping)
Those things he did prior to January 6th aided (helped) the insurrection to occur.
See if trump doesn't do all that he did prior to January 6th then the insurrection never happens.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

In this country we don't swear allegiance to POTUS. Trump was trying to overthrow the Constitutional process, hence it's an insurrection.

Also, duh.

Well put One Brow

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

trying to overthrow the Constitutional process

That's not insurrection. That particular crime is called obstruction. More than 300 January 6 defendants have been charged with obstruction because "trying to overthrow the Constitutional process"actually happened on January 6. No January 6 defendants have been charged with insurrection because there was no insurrection. They were not trying to overthrow the US President.

 

[fishonjazz]

That's not insurrection. That particular crime is called obstruction. More than 300 January 6 defendants have been charged with obstruction because "trying to overthrow the Constitutional process"actually happened on January 6. No January 6 defendants have been charged with insurrection because there was no insurrection. They were not trying to overthrow the US President.

So your latest definition of insurrection is overthrowing the US president? Interesting. I haven't heard that one yet

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[str8line]

It could be argued that Trump's planting of the seeds for insurrection were part of the insurrection.



in·sur·rec·tion
/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a violent uprising against an authority or government.
   "the insurrection was savagely put down"

 

[Al-O-Meter]

in·sur·rec·tion
/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a violent uprising against an authority or government.
   "the insurrection was savagely put down"

Thank you.

So your latest definition of insurrection is overthrowing the US president? Interesting. I haven't heard that one yet

Insurrection is a fight against established authority or government. On January 6, Trump was the established authority/government. Insurrection is not a fight against process. A fight against process is called obstruction.

 

[str8line]

Thank you.

Insurrection is a fight against established authority or government. On January 6, Trump was the established authority/government. Insurrection is not a fight against process. A fight against process is called obstruction.

Ummm, not really. Trump had already lost the vote. Hence the insurrection.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Ummm, not really. Trump had already lost the vote. Hence the insurrection.

Until the oath of office on January 20, Trump was the established authority/government. If the events of January 6 had happened 15 days later then you'd have a point, but it happened on January 6. The rioters were trying to stop the process which is why they were criminally charged with obstruction.

 

[fishonjazz]

Thank you.

Insurrection is a fight against established authority or government. On January 6, Trump was the established authority/government. Insurrection is not a fight against process. A fight against process is called obstruction.

Incorrect. The president isn't the government. You literally just posted about this today. There are 3 branches. You mentioned how people only talk about the legislative branch and not the executive and judicial.

The president is part of the government but not the entire thing. The president could actually fight against other parts of the government.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Until the oath of office on January 20, Trump was the established authority/government. If the events of January 6 had happened 15 days later then you'd have a point, but it happened on January 6. The rioters were trying to stop the process which is why they were criminally charged with obstruction.

PART of the established authority/government.
So commiting insurrection wouldn't necessarily have to be against himself because there are other parts of government.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

The president could actually fight against other parts of the government.

Maybe in theory, but no one believes, and there is no evidence to counter, Trump was after anything other than staying in the role of President, He was battling against the process set in motion by losing the election. He was trying to stop the process too, which you can argue was a crime, but it isn't insurrection.

 

[fishonjazz]

Maybe in theory, but no one believes, and there is no evidence to counter, Trump was after anything other than staying in the role of President, He was battling against the process set in motion by losing the election. He was trying to stop the process too, which you can argue was a crime, but it isn't insurrection.

The insurrection was done by his followers. Against the government. Whom he aided

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[One Brow]

He was battling against the process set in motion by losing the election. He was trying to stop the process too, which you can argue was a crime, but it isn't insurrection.

He helped plan and incite an attack on Congress, which is a civil authority, not a process.