Surprise!!

  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    There should be a ruling on what constitutes an insurrection, but this trial is not about that.

    And I think that a ruling on that is a long way off.

    • oxjox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well, one argument is that the clause is self serving and Trump does not need to be found guilty of a crime to be disqualified. Another (ridiculous, imo) argument is if the person holding the office of the presidency is an official.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      We don’t need that. We have federal definitions for insurrection, and participants on Jan 6 have been convicted of seditious conspiracy. It was a violent act to interfere with the constitutional transfer of power after a legitimate election. That’s insurrection, and Trump supported them. None of those facts are in dispute.