Trump’s legal team also tried to throw cold water on the idea in a filing earlier this week, writing that the “events of January 6 were not an ‘insurrection’ as they did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow or resist the U.S. government.”
Trump disagrees, apparently.
“They kept saying about what I said right after the insurrection,” he said outside Mar-a-Lago after arguments concluded in Washington, D.C. “I think it was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi.
Well, we do have that well publicized viral tweet from Pelosi where she called all her supporters to DC telling them “Will be wild!” then topped that off by whipping the crowd into a frenzy by telling them they have to “fight like hell”.
Oh, wait, that was Trump…
I mean, I understand how the law works and everything, but from a very pragmatic perspective, how is there even a soupçon of doubt at this point? Having a trial for this really feels more like we’re asking “which side has craftier lawyers” rather than “did he actually incite an insurrection”. It seems so silly.
(I hope this makes sense, I’m a little high.)
I don’t understand, but I’m also a little high. So I blame that
That being said, I can’t tell you how excited I am for soupcon this year. I’m going dressed as split-pea
Soupcon 2023 was a dud after they banned the soup pit event because of the incident.
I’m sorry. I’ll keep my pants on if they allow me back.
But that was the issue last time. No clothing allowed in the soup pit!
There’s no doubt, the rightists on the court want him there and the liberals are terrified of speaking out one this one. The procedural argument they’re using is that “the 14th Amendment delegates this power to Congress, so Colorado doesn’t get to unilaterally decide because they’re bypassing Congress.” Unfortunately for this line of argument, Congress already used its authority to pass a law, 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which states that anybody who engages “in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto” is ineligible for political office.
Since the courts have already sent a variety of participants and organizers to prison for seditious conspiracy, seems pretty reasonable to conclude there have already been findings than Jan 6 was an insurrection or rebellion of some kind, or else it wouldn’t have been seditious. Even more to the point, participants in Jan 6 have already been found ineligible and removed from public office due to their participation in Jan 6. Colorado is simply applying already-existing federal statutes regarding Trump’s eligibility, and more to the point, arguably states that ARE putting him on the ballot are actually the ones flaunting federal law.
I mean, the fact should be established in a trial of some kind before you could exclude someone. Otherwise you’d end up random secretaries of state excluding people they don’t like.
Was that the case during the Civil War era when that amendment was first created? Or were people just deemed insurrectionists without a trial? Honestly asking.
I have no idea, it’s an interesting question. You would assume there would need to be some kind of due process.
If a person has been voted in to make those decisions, makes that decision, that might be all the due process that’s needed.
That’s why I’m asking the question I am, when that Amendment went into a place, did anyone actually have a trial before they were labeled an insurrectionist, or were court judges identifying people as insurrectionists and using that brand new amendment to punish them as such.