During the Colorado proceedings, Trump's legal team did not question whether or not an insurrection took place.
I have been reading the full text of the Colorado SC's decision. One interesting tidbit is that Trump's team didn't question whether or not an insurrection occurred. Rather, they only questioned whether or not "inciting" an insurrection is the same as "engaging" in one.
I still think the weakest part of their case is whether or not there is enough prior court precedence to claim an insurrection took place and,
if not, do they have jurisdiction to determine such. However, it is
very interesting that the Trump team *DID NOT* question that one took place, just whether or not Trump "engaged" in it.
During the Colorado proceedings, Trump's legal team did not question whether or not an insurrection took place.
I have been reading the full text of the Colorado SC's decision. One interesting tidbit is that Trump's team didn't question whether or not an
insurrection occurred. Rather, they only questioned whether or not "inciting" an insurrection is the same as "engaging" in one.
Trumps team also didn't mention about the moon landing either.
No-ONE to date has been charged with Insurrection... So why talk about somethi
that didn't happen.
NO-ONE to date... That means ANYONE... So... If trump aided in an insurrection
ho was found guilty of it?? Who?? names??
It's like Trump being found guilty of assisting someone in robbing a bank and
ot bank was robbed...
This has been said to you soooooooooooooo many times in the past... Trump's de
nse team would be talking about CONSTITUTIONALITY of Colorado making that choi
... CONSTITUTIONALITY ONLY!!! The Supreme Court will only look at the constit
ion and how it relates to Colorado and Trump's name of the ballot.
They won't bring up insurrection because no one at all ever was charged with i
urrection. For Trump to assist in it.
Now, constitutionally, Trump's team will talk about Due Process and the US sta
ard that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of LAW...
rump hasn't... or ANYONE else for that matter, has been charged with insurrect
n. They'll discus things like Presidential candidates & Presidents are not in
uded in Amendment 14... They'll talk about things like that. They won't bring
p the moon landing or other irrelevant things like insurrection when not 1 per
n has been charged with or found guilty of said charge.
Unlike you the Supreme Court will not make their decisions based on their Spid
Senses tingling... There maybe on descending vote... and that's the new Justi
that can't define what a woman is...
Trump wasn't being accused of landing on the moon. The trial centered on whether or not he was involved in insurrection. His team did NOT
question whether or not there was one, just whether or not he *engaged*
in it by *inciting* it -- i.e. his level of involvement in it.
People have been charged with, found guilty of, and sentenced for Seditious Conspiracy. You NEED to look the definition of that up. It
is INDEED an Insurrection charge.
It MEANS that the person in question was found guilty of "conspiring to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the US, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority of, or to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of US law."
In other words, they were found guilty of *plotting an insurrection*.
The SCOTUS, in past, has determined that an insurrection does NOT have
to be successful in order to be considered.
Also important in this case was the admission of the Congressional
January 6th Report, and also the findings of the Federal District Court
of DC. Note here, that is a Federal Court. Both confirm that a the execution of US law was opposed by force on January 6th, which meets the definition of insurrection.
One that has been all over the news is the former national chairman of
the Proud Boys, Henry Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years for Seditious Conspiracy and other charges, for "conspiring to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power."
At least 5 other Proud Boys, and several members of Oath Keepers, have either been found guilty of, plead guilty to, or are on trial for Seditious Conspiracy for conspiring to oppose, by force, the lawful execution of federal law -- i.e. to commit insurrection.
-- They must be of age
-- They must meet the citizenship requirements
-- They must not have already exceed a term limit
-- They must be eligible by the 14th Amendment
-- They must not have been stripped of eligibility via impeachment or other legal action.
Mike Powell wrote to IB JOE <=-
People have been charged with, found guilty of, and sentenced for Seditious Conspiracy.
People have been charged with, found guilty of, and sentenced for Seditious Conspiracy.
And there are some serious questions as to the validity of those charges and the mock trials. Some of this is going through the appeals process now and some going directly to the SCOTUS.
BTW: Ray Epps got only a suspended sentence. Can you say "fed"?
How many other gov't people were involved in this? If there was an insurrection, and we now know that upwards of 200 FBI operatives were fomentin
it, why haven't these FBI operatives been changed with treason?
"Treason: The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts."
So either there was an insurrection, in which case we should start seeing FBI bodies piling up (the pentalty for treason is death).
Or there was no insurrection and it was all staged.
With the talk about now charging people who were simply in Washington D.C., bu
never in a gov't building, with "insurrection" it's sounding more and more lik
a staged event meant to harass and jail innocents who don't want to tow the uniparty line.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
And there are some serious questions as to the validity of those charges and the mock trials. Some of this is going through the appeals process now and some going directly to the SCOTUS.
Some of them could be questionable. Others not as much.
BTW: Ray Epps got only a suspended sentence. Can you say "fed"?
Yes. ;) The fact that he is all over videos but it not charged says a lot.
Where did you see that there were 200 of them?
If they were working for the government, like the guy who infiltrated
the group that was suppposedly after your governor, I am guessing they don't get sentenced.
There were certainly a lot of litteral peaceful protesters there, but there were an awful lot of people who were less than peaceful.
There
are a lot of situations that have been shown that day where I could be convinced that a paid actor (i.e. one of your LARPers) was involved,
but I cannot see anyone being paid enough to stand at the door of the house where two federal officers are pointing guns at them while they
yell at the officers and at a Texas representative, all while some
crazy lady is behind then shouting and pushing, and some other guy
nearby is yelling through a megaphone about how the two officers can't shoot us all.
LARPers would piss their pants before they'd do that.
And there are some serious questions as to the validity of those charges an
the mock trials. Some of this is going through the appeals process now and
some going directly to the SCOTUS.
Some of them could be questionable. Others not as much.
I think they are going to mainly focus on "does the punishment fit the crime?"
Recently a Navy? person was caught giving military secrets to the Chinese and
got a lesser sentence than most Jan. 6 people.
BTW: Ray Epps got only a suspended sentence. Can you say "fed"?
Yes. ;) The fact that he is all over videos but it not charged says a lot.
Oh, he got charged and they just had the trial. Like I said, he got 1 year, suspended sentence. Oh, "a good talking to".
Where did you see that there were 200 of them?
It was a recent Tucker interview. The estimate (on the low side) was 200 FBI operatives (which could mean agents and/or informants).
If they were working for the government, like the guy who infiltrated the group that was suppposedly after your governor, I am guessing they don't get sentenced.
I think the only reason that Epps got sentenced was that we have so much video
of him "fomenting insurrection".
There were certainly a lot of litteral peaceful protesters there, but there were an awful lot of people who were less than peaceful.
Without a doubt. But how many of those less-than-peaceful people were feds. And, knowing mob mentality, how many went along because someone else (i.e. the
fed) did it? I think there's a bit of an argument for entrapment.
There
are a lot of situations that have been shown that day where I could be convinced that a paid actor (i.e. one of your LARPers) was involved,
but I cannot see anyone being paid enough to stand at the door of the house where two federal officers are pointing guns at them while they yell at the officers and at a Texas representative, all while some
crazy lady is behind then shouting and pushing, and some other guy nearby is yelling through a megaphone about how the two officers can't shoot us all.
LARPers would piss their pants before they'd do that.
But soooo much of that was staged. And now were back again to asking what was
real and what was staged and not having enough information to really know.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
What was he charged with and found guilty of? I know who are you are talking about. Maybe the Jan 6 people need to use his lawyer instead
of whoever they've been using.
And who/what was Tucker's source? Tucker saying something, without anything to back it up, holds about as much weight as Madcow doing same
-- they are both members of the media who are going to say whatever
they believe their listeners want to hear.
"From only the attendees who went through security checkpoints at the Ellipse (approx. 28,000), the Secret Service confiscated hundreds of weapons and prohibited items.
"About 25,000 additional attendees purposely remained outside the
Secret Service perimeter at the Ellipse and avoided the magnetometers. They formed into a large crowd that extended to the National Mall and Washington Monument. Those attendees were not subject to any security screening."
The crowd outside of the perimeter, who were not subject to security screening, were the ones that started towards the Capitol before
Trump's speech was completed.
While possibly true, we also know for fact that at least one law enforcement official on scene was not "in the know" and shot someone
dead. So, there again, I would be hard-pressed to believe a LARPer
would be willing to stand their ground and continue to attempt to enter the chambers while assuming that the two armed officers pointing guns
at their faces were "in on it."
What was he charged with and found guilty of? I know who are you are talking about. Maybe the Jan 6 people need to use his lawyer instead
of whoever they've been using.
I think "espionage".
What lawyer wouldn't have made a difference since the Elitists in charge purposely suppressed evidence. Which is another part of the appeals for the Jan. 6 political prisoners.
4. Offerings of extra help (like Trump's offering of the military) were strangely declined.
So I think saying that the Jan. 6 "insurrection" was at staged is a pretty far
cry from "conspiracy theory". The only real question now is "who was involved
and who did illegal things?"
"From only the attendees who went through security checkpoints at the Ellipse (approx. 28,000), the Secret Service confiscated hundreds of weapons and prohibited items.
But the question still remains, "confiscated from feds or non-feds".
I don't think we'll ever get an answer to that.
While possibly true, we also know for fact that at least one law enforcement official on scene was not "in the know" and shot someone dead. So, there again, I would be hard-pressed to believe a LARPer
would be willing to stand their ground and continue to attempt to enter the chambers while assuming that the two armed officers pointing guns
at their faces were "in on it."
But I think you are still working from the false Narrative that was pushed.
The newly released security video doesn't show officers pointing guns. They show officers sheparding calm people around.
The "gun pointing" didn't happen until time later when the "crowd" (again, the
question of feds or not) for unruly and violent.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
But they all are not appealing. If they are all innocent, why not
appeal?
Per PBS, as of Jan 5 this year, here are some rough numbers:
This one here is a sticking point. I think it goes back to he
suggested there be more military and police but didn't tell them why
(i.e. his plans to suggest they march on the Capitol).
President only has authority over something closer to 2,000 troops
(i.e. the ones from DC). He would have had to have contacted other
states to get the number he claims he could have called in, but contact with other states was never made.
I would agree if Trump had not persisted in encouraging his supporters
to attend a rally on January 6th -- the day the electoral votes were to
be certified, had not suggested that if a Democrat was in his shoes
that Democrats would "fight to the death," (Twitter, 12/26/2020), and
had not suggested that his supporters present at the rally needed to "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol.
As is, I have to apply the same logic I applied back when the Democrats and lefties in this echo were trying to justify and defend the acts of
the Summer 2020 rioters... paraphrased "if you do dumb things, you can expect that dumb things will happen and that you should be held accountable for them."
A smart Fed who was in on the bad plan would have stayed outside the perimeter.
Again, you honestly think that a LARPer, or now a FED, would risk that
the guys on the other side of the door were "in on it" and would not
shoot him? You seem now to be trippling-down on that.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 253 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 01:33:09 |
| Calls: | 1,647 |
| Files: | 4,003 |
| Messages: | 387,134 |