If there were firearms carried by people storming the Capitol, why were they not confiscated, why were those carrying them not arrested, why are there no reports of gunfire? Why have we not heard of anyone charged with carrying, brandishing, or firing a gun in or around Capitol Hill?
I watched the videos. I saw people wandering around. I saw chaos. I did not see anyone leading, directing, or organizing the crowd. There were not leaders on the ground at the Capitol. I understand that law enforcement have worked hard to weave together a narrative that there was a plot with leaders, a weapons cache, and some nefarious plan. But it was not apparent in the videos of what went down in the Capitol. Those were sheep and goats without a shepherd.
Trump did not instigate the storming of the Capitol. He told his followers to be heard. He did not say, go break in, stop what they are doing, bring Washington to it's knees. He might have wanted or been delighted in the outcome, but under the law he is only guilty of incitement if he actually tells them go there and do this, which he explicitly did not do. He acted shamefully toward Mike Pence, who did his duty under the Constitution and resisted Trump's demands that he not certify the election based on some comic book legal analysis. But my point is that he did not tell his followers to beat up Capitol police, to tar and feather Senators and Representatives, or to stone the Vice President. He did not tell his followers to physically threaten or attack anyone.
I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government. I do not believe it exists. To be an insurrection, there would need to be a plan involving the willing, informed involvement of many people to subvert government control permanently. This rabble managed to delay the ceremonially crucial certification of the election for a short while. It happened in the hallowed halls of Congress. But other than that this was no worse and less violent than many other protests - burning down a police precinct, attacking and attempting to burn down a Federal Courthouse, taking over streets and attacking police, setting fire to police cars, and various other acts of terror, murder, arson, and theft.
As much as I would like to see Trump step away and suspend his campaign, what the Democrats are doing is wrong. The 14th Amendment does not apply. This was not an insurrection and Trump did not tell anyone to commit insurrection.
"I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government."
The plan was, if at all possible, to force congress to certify Donald Trump as the winner of the election, a subversion of our constitutional order (and a self-coup). Failing that, the plan was to at least not certify anyone as winner as a step towards keeping Trump in the White House.
I think it is very unimaginitive to think that an attempt by the loser of the election to stay in power, using force among other criminal schemes, does not qualify as an insurrection.
Similar steps, not well known because overshadowed by the Civil War, were taken between November 1860 and Lincoln's inauguration with the goal of preventing Lincoln's inauguration, and the framers of the 14th Amendment had those events very much in mind.
As described here, in a brief by constituional scholars Vikram and Akhil Amar:
So you believe the plan was for a bunch of unarmed yahoos to burst through the barriers, to break into the building, for some to fight with police while others wandered the halls seemingly aimlessly, to disrupt the certification indefinitely to keep Trump in office for another term? And then they all got tired and wandered off into the night? Did the masterminds of this "insurrection" not consider what would eventually happen to their unarmed hotheads when more police in riot gear or National Guard troops arrived? They didn't - because there was no plan. There was no strategic or tactical thinking going on. The mob was unencumbered by the thought process. There is no evidence of a real plan or anything beyond the equivalent of a toddler's tantrum by a bunch of adults who should have known better.
As for Trump, he was laboring under the massive misconception that the election had been stolen from him through a series of illegal actions in several states. His narcissistic ego would not allow him to accept that this was it and it's time to concede and move on. He stepped boldly across several ethical boundaries and appears to have trod on the red line between legal and illegal in attempts to get officials to help him, including castigating his own Vice President for refusing to exceed his Constitutional authority. And Yet ... That does not constitute insurrection. It was horrible. It was wrong. It was destructive and corrosive. It may have been illegal and he might be subject to prosecution for it. But he did not plan or participate in an armed uprising. There was no insurrection in the legal sense.
No insurrection.
No 14th Amendment.
And with regard to the brief, saying the 14th Amendment was written to address election issues Lincoln faced (years after his assassination) strikes me as akin to saying the Civil War was started over States Rights issues. The wording of that clause of the amendment specifically applies to the Confederates who served in the CSA government or military.
And here's the biggest reason for not expanding the definitions and sticking it to Trump - Trump is ephemeral. He will be gone before long one way or another. But the repercussions of how he is treated will go on for decades (if we last that long). The Democrats are opening Pandoras Box of Political Plagues. The Republicans will now feel free to do the same. An eye for an eye. And soon there won't be enough eye patches to go around in Washington DC. It could start soon. It looks like Trump and Biden will face off again. (Welcome to another exciting episode of The Biggest Loser.) If Trump loses after being left off ballots in a few states, we could see the right becoming as violent and ugly as the left were in 2020. After the Democrats have demonized not only Trump but anyone who doesn't actively oppose him, if Trump should somehow win, the left will be protesting, probably violently. We don't have leaders, our politicians are like dog fight promoters, and their loyal followers are the dogs. We are so screwed.
Meanwhile the Libertarians have some good ideas but can't find a candidate and platform that looks both rational and normal. And the Socialist, Green, and other parties are even farther out on their ideological limbs than the Libertarians.
If there were firearms carried by people storming the Capitol, why were they not confiscated, why were those carrying them not arrested, why are there no reports of gunfire? Why have we not heard of anyone charged with carrying, brandishing, or firing a gun in or around Capitol Hill?
I watched the videos. I saw people wandering around. I saw chaos. I did not see anyone leading, directing, or organizing the crowd. There were not leaders on the ground at the Capitol. I understand that law enforcement have worked hard to weave together a narrative that there was a plot with leaders, a weapons cache, and some nefarious plan. But it was not apparent in the videos of what went down in the Capitol. Those were sheep and goats without a shepherd.
Trump did not instigate the storming of the Capitol. He told his followers to be heard. He did not say, go break in, stop what they are doing, bring Washington to it's knees. He might have wanted or been delighted in the outcome, but under the law he is only guilty of incitement if he actually tells them go there and do this, which he explicitly did not do. He acted shamefully toward Mike Pence, who did his duty under the Constitution and resisted Trump's demands that he not certify the election based on some comic book legal analysis. But my point is that he did not tell his followers to beat up Capitol police, to tar and feather Senators and Representatives, or to stone the Vice President. He did not tell his followers to physically threaten or attack anyone.
I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government. I do not believe it exists. To be an insurrection, there would need to be a plan involving the willing, informed involvement of many people to subvert government control permanently. This rabble managed to delay the ceremonially crucial certification of the election for a short while. It happened in the hallowed halls of Congress. But other than that this was no worse and less violent than many other protests - burning down a police precinct, attacking and attempting to burn down a Federal Courthouse, taking over streets and attacking police, setting fire to police cars, and various other acts of terror, murder, arson, and theft.
As much as I would like to see Trump step away and suspend his campaign, what the Democrats are doing is wrong. The 14th Amendment does not apply. This was not an insurrection and Trump did not tell anyone to commit insurrection.
"I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government."
The plan was, if at all possible, to force congress to certify Donald Trump as the winner of the election, a subversion of our constitutional order (and a self-coup). Failing that, the plan was to at least not certify anyone as winner as a step towards keeping Trump in the White House.
I think it is very unimaginitive to think that an attempt by the loser of the election to stay in power, using force among other criminal schemes, does not qualify as an insurrection.
Similar steps, not well known because overshadowed by the Civil War, were taken between November 1860 and Lincoln's inauguration with the goal of preventing Lincoln's inauguration, and the framers of the 14th Amendment had those events very much in mind.
As described here, in a brief by constituional scholars Vikram and Akhil Amar:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf
So you believe the plan was for a bunch of unarmed yahoos to burst through the barriers, to break into the building, for some to fight with police while others wandered the halls seemingly aimlessly, to disrupt the certification indefinitely to keep Trump in office for another term? And then they all got tired and wandered off into the night? Did the masterminds of this "insurrection" not consider what would eventually happen to their unarmed hotheads when more police in riot gear or National Guard troops arrived? They didn't - because there was no plan. There was no strategic or tactical thinking going on. The mob was unencumbered by the thought process. There is no evidence of a real plan or anything beyond the equivalent of a toddler's tantrum by a bunch of adults who should have known better.
As for Trump, he was laboring under the massive misconception that the election had been stolen from him through a series of illegal actions in several states. His narcissistic ego would not allow him to accept that this was it and it's time to concede and move on. He stepped boldly across several ethical boundaries and appears to have trod on the red line between legal and illegal in attempts to get officials to help him, including castigating his own Vice President for refusing to exceed his Constitutional authority. And Yet ... That does not constitute insurrection. It was horrible. It was wrong. It was destructive and corrosive. It may have been illegal and he might be subject to prosecution for it. But he did not plan or participate in an armed uprising. There was no insurrection in the legal sense.
No insurrection.
No 14th Amendment.
And with regard to the brief, saying the 14th Amendment was written to address election issues Lincoln faced (years after his assassination) strikes me as akin to saying the Civil War was started over States Rights issues. The wording of that clause of the amendment specifically applies to the Confederates who served in the CSA government or military.
And here's the biggest reason for not expanding the definitions and sticking it to Trump - Trump is ephemeral. He will be gone before long one way or another. But the repercussions of how he is treated will go on for decades (if we last that long). The Democrats are opening Pandoras Box of Political Plagues. The Republicans will now feel free to do the same. An eye for an eye. And soon there won't be enough eye patches to go around in Washington DC. It could start soon. It looks like Trump and Biden will face off again. (Welcome to another exciting episode of The Biggest Loser.) If Trump loses after being left off ballots in a few states, we could see the right becoming as violent and ugly as the left were in 2020. After the Democrats have demonized not only Trump but anyone who doesn't actively oppose him, if Trump should somehow win, the left will be protesting, probably violently. We don't have leaders, our politicians are like dog fight promoters, and their loyal followers are the dogs. We are so screwed.
Meanwhile the Libertarians have some good ideas but can't find a candidate and platform that looks both rational and normal. And the Socialist, Green, and other parties are even farther out on their ideological limbs than the Libertarians.
Your eagerness to put words in my mouth leads me to think you aren't really here in good faith, so good day to you, sir.