“If Trump’s activity doesn’t constitute insurrection, what does?” That’s a question that should be posed to Jack Smith, the special counsel, who is decidedly looking for reasons, but hasn’t come up with any.
I don't know what the strict legal definition of insurrection is, as applied to Trump, and I'll bet neither do you. It's clear that he supported the insurrection and did nothing to stop it for several hours, despite people including his fantasy sex toy Ivanka. Be honest: If Joe Biden had pulled this off, or if antifa actually had (NO evidence for that), you'd be screaming for their executions. We need to send a strong message to both sides of the partisan divide that insurrection will not be tolerated and the 14th amendment stands. I'm not sure how that will play out in the Supremes; they may be conservative, but they don't always rule Trump's way. If there must be civil war, let there be; conservatives will be asking for it and as I understand it, liberals are gunning up. You never know which are armed and shoot back, do you....
Do you really want to live in a system that an accusation by the media (or by partisans like you or me) can determine guilt? For example, do you think my accusation that Peter Strozk committed insurrection against Trump should be considered even though Durham did not charge him? I could make just as good a case against him as you did against Trump?
No, I *don't* think people like you and me can ultimately determine guilt - we have our opinions. That's why I said I leave it to Jack Smith & the Supremes. Trump is accused of many crimes (91 I think?) and some of them are on tape, like the Georgia 11,000 votes, and some are confessed ("Yeah, I had all those top secret docs. I was entitled to them.") I think he's pretty damn close to insurrection but if Jack Smith can't nail him...that's fine. I didn't like Mueller's findings either but I accepted it. Trump's guilt, in my mind, is knowing what was going down on Jan 6 and doing nothing to stop it. Throwing Mike Pence to the wolves. (I never thought I'd be legitimately worried about Mike Pence's life but I sincerely hoped he'd escape Washington). Being begged by everyone around him to put a stop to it and he didn't, for hours. He's culpable, in my mind, but I'm not, lucky for you, on the Supreme Court. It's the closest I've ever seen a President in my lifetime get to insurrection, and I'm 60 years old. So I don't remember Fort Sumter, sorry!
At first you claim not to know whether an insurrection occurred, then you refer to the “insurrection” as if one occurred. Clearly, there has been no insurrection. If there were even the possibility of one having occurred, he’d have been charged already (by Jack Smith). I thought the Dems figured this out after the BS accusation, and subsequent Mueller appointment, that Trump was a Russian asset. This really needs to stop, and the people need to be able to choose who they want as their President.
"Clearly, there has been no insurrection. If there were even the possibility of one having occurred, he’d have been charged already (by Jack Smith). "
Not necessarily. Charging decisions can be made for strategic reasons. I think the alleged conduct would seem to meet the elements required for a prosecution for insurrection (as defined in the federal code). But there are other factors that go into the selection of charges.
I don't particularly know, but every specific crime has multiple elements whuch must be proven. For, say, a murder, one must prove that the victim died, as a result of actions by the accused, with some specific degree of intentionality that depends on the statute. Whatever those elements are, all must be met to establish guilt.
A prosecutor must consider:
1. Which charges might apply to a situation?
2. Of all of those, for which can a) an indictment be obtained, b) be proven in court, c) be sustained on appeal?\
3. Which defenses is the defednant likely to use and how strong are they?
It's been speculated that Smith chose not to indict for insurrection because he thought Trump might have a credible first amendment defense (his Capitol speech does not meet the Brandenberg standard) and also that he was concerned that because Trump was impeached for insurrection he might raise a double jeopardy defense.
We simply don't know.
Looking at the facts as spelled out in the indictment, I personally think he could have gotten an insurrection indictment had he wanted to. I would guess that something about the need to prosecute the case through trial and appeal dissuaded him from that charge but not ones he did bring.
“If Trump’s activity doesn’t constitute insurrection, what does?” That’s a question that should be posed to Jack Smith, the special counsel, who is decidedly looking for reasons, but hasn’t come up with any.
I don't know what the strict legal definition of insurrection is, as applied to Trump, and I'll bet neither do you. It's clear that he supported the insurrection and did nothing to stop it for several hours, despite people including his fantasy sex toy Ivanka. Be honest: If Joe Biden had pulled this off, or if antifa actually had (NO evidence for that), you'd be screaming for their executions. We need to send a strong message to both sides of the partisan divide that insurrection will not be tolerated and the 14th amendment stands. I'm not sure how that will play out in the Supremes; they may be conservative, but they don't always rule Trump's way. If there must be civil war, let there be; conservatives will be asking for it and as I understand it, liberals are gunning up. You never know which are armed and shoot back, do you....
Do you really want to live in a system that an accusation by the media (or by partisans like you or me) can determine guilt? For example, do you think my accusation that Peter Strozk committed insurrection against Trump should be considered even though Durham did not charge him? I could make just as good a case against him as you did against Trump?
No, I *don't* think people like you and me can ultimately determine guilt - we have our opinions. That's why I said I leave it to Jack Smith & the Supremes. Trump is accused of many crimes (91 I think?) and some of them are on tape, like the Georgia 11,000 votes, and some are confessed ("Yeah, I had all those top secret docs. I was entitled to them.") I think he's pretty damn close to insurrection but if Jack Smith can't nail him...that's fine. I didn't like Mueller's findings either but I accepted it. Trump's guilt, in my mind, is knowing what was going down on Jan 6 and doing nothing to stop it. Throwing Mike Pence to the wolves. (I never thought I'd be legitimately worried about Mike Pence's life but I sincerely hoped he'd escape Washington). Being begged by everyone around him to put a stop to it and he didn't, for hours. He's culpable, in my mind, but I'm not, lucky for you, on the Supreme Court. It's the closest I've ever seen a President in my lifetime get to insurrection, and I'm 60 years old. So I don't remember Fort Sumter, sorry!
At first you claim not to know whether an insurrection occurred, then you refer to the “insurrection” as if one occurred. Clearly, there has been no insurrection. If there were even the possibility of one having occurred, he’d have been charged already (by Jack Smith). I thought the Dems figured this out after the BS accusation, and subsequent Mueller appointment, that Trump was a Russian asset. This really needs to stop, and the people need to be able to choose who they want as their President.
"Clearly, there has been no insurrection. If there were even the possibility of one having occurred, he’d have been charged already (by Jack Smith). "
Not necessarily. Charging decisions can be made for strategic reasons. I think the alleged conduct would seem to meet the elements required for a prosecution for insurrection (as defined in the federal code). But there are other factors that go into the selection of charges.
And those mysterious “other factors” are...?
I don't particularly know, but every specific crime has multiple elements whuch must be proven. For, say, a murder, one must prove that the victim died, as a result of actions by the accused, with some specific degree of intentionality that depends on the statute. Whatever those elements are, all must be met to establish guilt.
A prosecutor must consider:
1. Which charges might apply to a situation?
2. Of all of those, for which can a) an indictment be obtained, b) be proven in court, c) be sustained on appeal?\
3. Which defenses is the defednant likely to use and how strong are they?
It's been speculated that Smith chose not to indict for insurrection because he thought Trump might have a credible first amendment defense (his Capitol speech does not meet the Brandenberg standard) and also that he was concerned that because Trump was impeached for insurrection he might raise a double jeopardy defense.
We simply don't know.
Looking at the facts as spelled out in the indictment, I personally think he could have gotten an insurrection indictment had he wanted to. I would guess that something about the need to prosecute the case through trial and appeal dissuaded him from that charge but not ones he did bring.