Republicans, nor the Courts, can say that Trump was engaged in an "insurrection" because...

[kentuck]

...It would mean that they also are guilty of engaging in the insurrection. Which is exactly what happened.

But, it also means that if Trump can be disqualified from the ballot, then so can every Republican that was involved in the attempt to overthrow the election.

That is the true meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Even though every person that was involved in the conspiracy should be automatically removed from office, it would be unrealistic for that to go thru the Courts. It would be up to their voters or up to two-thirds of the House to vote for them to keep their office.

That is why they are living the lie.

[former9thward]

1. Why didn't Jack Smith charge him with that crime?

If a court, especially the SC, were to say Trump engaged in insurrection then Jack Smith would have to answer why he did not charge Trump with that crime.

[kentuck]

4. Good question.

My guess is that it either had to do with time constraints or that he believed it would be self-evident when the election fraud and interference were proven?

Which is what the facts are now showing to be the case. Even the latest story about attempting to get the fake ballots to Pence by January 5th is more evidence of the deep conspiracy and how deep it went into the Republican Party.

[agingdem]

28. Jack Smith honed in on the timeline of the multi-faceted

Last edited Mon Jan 1, 2024, 12:23 AM - Edit history (2)

coup plot: Trump announcing he would not concede if he lost the election in the early fall of 2020/the plan to declare himself the winner on election night and demand the vote count stop/the call to the Georgia Secretary of State to "find" votes/ the fake electors and the bogus certificates/the dozens of failed lawsuits/appointing Jeffrey Clark acting AG and Sidney Powell as Special Counsel to "investigate" a "corrupt" election/ drawing Mike Pence into the scheme to halt the electoral count and the transfer of power/the "will be wild" call to his followers to come to the Capital on January 6/instructing the mob to march to the Capital and he would join them/doing nothing to stop the violent attack on the Capital...so by proving Trump intended to stay in office by fomenting doubt in the outcome of the election and then by personally connecting Trump to the attack on the Capital, Jack Smith had all he needed to indict Trump...

[Bluethroughu]

48. It was planned and didn't Pence ask Judges IF he could do it?

Those involved in the Seditious Conspiracy to overthrow the government, were the same that knew rump was having his
"Save America" rally to direct these foot soldiers to take it to the next level. The FBI even told rump the crowd was armed, and he said they are not going to do anything to him, well then who???

These same people that were told to fight for blood and lose their money and lives, then directed to the Capital.

Remove everyone involved in the coup and ban them from ever holding any office.

Traitors are lucky they have their freedom.

[brush]

52. The fucker is ineligible. Just go by the wording of the 14A.

No conviction is necessary. No voting on it. He's fucking ineligible. We all saw him urge the rally crowd at the elipse to march on the Capitol and fight for your country or you won't have a country anymore.

That's what's called exciting to riot by urging and calling for an insurrection...especially after the rally when he watched the sacking of the Capitol for three plus hours on TB and did nothing to stop it, despite the pleas from staff and fanily to call in the Nat'l Guard, to onn TV to call if off.

He did nothing. That's called dereliction of duty to preserve and protect the nation and the Constitution.

[gab13by13]

6. Jack Smith charged Trump with crimes

that were the simplest to get him to trial pre-election.

Jack Smith understands that Time Matters.

[former9thward]

8. So you think Jack Smith had evidence of Trump engaging in insurrection

but did not charge him? Well, that is certainly a question he must be asked.

[kentuck]

10. I think all of America had evidence.

Including the Supreme Court, unless they were so isolated that they did not see what happened on January 6th of 2021.

He may have thought all the other evidence was so plentiful to convict that he did not need to charge with insurrection or incitement because he did not need it to charge Trump with enough crimes to put him away for life.

[triron]

21. Evidence as strong as that for gravity.

But some people would have you believe gravity needs to be proven in a court of law.

[Mysterian]

59. Funny how none of the leaders of the Confederacy were convicted of insurrection in a court of law

I guess they're innocent.

[calimary]

22. Yep. We ALL saw it.

You couldn’t miss it if you watched ANY news program at all. Even the locals couldn’t avoid it that day, evening, or the follow-up coverage in the days afterwards.

Your eyes weren’t fooling you. But the GOP won’t give up trying to.

[lindysalsagal]

13. There's truth, there's reality, and there's the law, and what a conviction of a post-potus would require

And Smith knows that he doesn't need it because he's already got enough to convict him on other counts.

Smith plays to win.

[pnwmom]

15. Probably he didn't want to muck up a clear cut indictment with a charge

that was the same as in the impeachment trial, where Trump was not convicted.

Why give that ammunition to the Trumpers, when he was already being charged with multiple felonies?

[dpibel]

17. Don't be daft

Prosecutors make strategic charging decisions all the time.

There's neither law nor ethical canon that says a prosecutor would "have to answer" for not charging a potentially provable crime.

[former9thward]

29. This is not a routine matter.

It is a former president and the crime is insurrection. Since you think he had evidence to prove the crime then he certainly should answer why it was not charged.

[dpibel]

34. Goalpost movement noted

Your original statement was not predicated on whether or not the matter was routine.

And that, as you know, has no bearing on anything.

[PJMcK]

24. Prosecutors only have to answer for the charges they bring

There are strategic reasons Trump wasn't charged with every crime he committed and for which there is evidence. Primarily, it's about time.

Look how long it has taken Jack Smith to get Trump in front of a judge and jury. Imagine that there were 6 or more cases against Trump. They'd never get to trial.

Tme is also the reason Smith didn't charge the un-indicted co-conspirators. Get the leader first then go after the rest. That way Smith has one trial at a time to focus on.

Lastly, the charge of insurrection has very limited experience in the courts. From a legal point of view, it's not entirely clear how one would be prosecuted for it as there isn't much case law. In fact, that is why the Colorado SC decision is being appealed: How does the law define an insurrection and how do people get charged for that crime?

[former9thward]

32. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

If Smith has evidence (or if he does not have evidence) of this crime being committed by Trump he has an obligation to the public to tell us. Smith is not a run of the mill prosecutor, this is not a run of the mill investigation and Trump is not a run of the mill defendant.

[dpibel]

35. "Has an obligation"

Please cite any sort of authority for this, other than your say-so.

Saying I should do my own research doesn't cut it. You're the one making the absurd assertion.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

40. Smith has an obligation to do the job he was given, not to report to us.

[former9thward]

41. His boss does have the obligation.

Your concept of transparency and justice is interesting to say the least.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

43. Transparency at the expense of the prosecution of cases is idiotic.

[former9thward]

44. Do you prefer secret trials?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

46. You said Smith has an obligation to report to the public. Now you want secret trials?

Plant the goalposts somewhere solid, please.

[former9thward]

47. You are the one objecting to transparency.

You said they are bad for the prosecution. Your quote, not mine "Transparency at the expense of the prosecution of cases is idiotic."

[Hermit-The-Prog]

49. Yep. You don't go blabbing about a case while preparing it.

[PJMcK]

55. Two points

As I wrote, the case law that you cite has not been tested by the courts, especially for a former president. Until a court interprets that statute, it isn’t legally clear how these crimes are prosecuted even though they appear obvious to laypeople.

Second point: Smith has an obligation to report to the Attorney General, not the public. It will be Garland’s determination what gets reported to the American people. (See Barr/Musller.)

[former9thward]

57. The DOJ is not an independent agency.

It will be Biden's choice what to tell the public. Why people treat cabinet agencies as independent actors I will never know.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

39. By design, a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 3 is not a criminal statute; it describes a qualification, or rather disqualification, for office.

Criminal charges may be brought, but they are unrelated to the 14th and therefore your argument is inapposite at best and disingenuous at worst.

[former9thward]

42. Sorry but the U.S. Code says insurrection and rebellion are crimes.

So, the words of the 14th A actually mean something and matter.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

45. So, bring those charges. They are not required or referenced by the 14th.

[jimfields33]

2. Would have helped had justice charged him with it.

[gab13by13]

7. Too many obstacles and not enough time.

[jimfields33]

14. Hmmmm. Seems a lot easier had he did so.

There’d be no question. Now there is. The Supreme Court will have to decide this.

[triron]

23. Charging precedes conviction.

[dpibel]

36. In what timeline?

If he'd charged, there would still be a question, because--in case you missed it--no charges have yet been tried.

Also: In what world do you think a criminal conviction of Trump for the crime of insurrection would not go up to the Supremes? So they would still "have to decide this."

[Fichefinder]

3. In Colorado, Trump was found guilty of Insurrection in a separate three week trial.

[kentuck]

5. Yes. It was not a criminal trial.

But they had numerous witnesses and first-hand accounts about what happened on January 6th and the full Supreme Court were convinced that it was an insurrection.

The civil penalty was simple disqualification from running for office.

[former9thward]

9. Really?

Was Trump there? I have never heard of a trial for insurrection and the defendant was not there.

[dpibel]

16. How many have you heard of?

I'm thinking you could have put a period after "insurrection" and been more accurate.

[PortTack]

25. I don't believe he was required to be there because it wasn't a criminal trial

[former9thward]

33. Here is what a Democratic CO Justice said about the "trial"

Colorado Supreme Court Justices Defend Trump: 'There Was No Fair Trial'

Justice Carlos Samour took particular issue with how the proceedings unfolded. He argued that Trump hasn't been charged under a statute that would bar him from office for engaging in an insurrection, so he hasn't had the constitutional rights that would have been afforded him as a criminal defendant.

"There was no fair trial either," Samour wrote, pointing to Trump not having the opportunity to request a jury of his peers. "I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn't resemble anything I've seen in a courtroom."

Samour also took issue with the district court's handling of the case. He disagreed with the district court not allowing experts to be deposed and the decision to limit expert testimony. He likened the case to fitting a square peg into a round hole, which the district court allowed, writing that it was a "procedural Frankenstein."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/colorado-supreme-court-justices-defend-trump-there-was-no-fair-trial/ar-AA1lLxfQ

[Zeitghost]

30. There was a trial

But nobody was found guilty. That requires criminal proceedings.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. 100% correct.

And we should be scavenging every written word on the Reconstruction era to find the manner in which those tossed from office were tossed, those prevented from taking office were blocked, and those waived with 2/3 vote of Congress. Maybe it was easier back in the day. They served Confederate States of America in office, or wore a uniform. Today they align with MAGA.

[mackdaddy]

12. Prosecutors are supposed to only bring prosecution on charges they can reasonably get a conviction on.

First, not a lawyer, but this is what most of the TV former prosecutors say.

Smith brought charges that are straightforward and could put Trump away for decades and that he has the best chance of getting a conviction.

Trump has some arguments that can throw enough doubts that he could get off on some of the charges. His entire DC trial is on hold right now on what seems like stupid appeals court claims of Godlike immunity.

And if he is charged and not convicted then he would have 'proof' of being exonerated, and the Sec of States would probably not be able to block him from the ballot.

Trump and MAGA are a real cancer on our entire society.

[hadEnuf]

50. Al Capone was a bootlegger and a crimeboss and I don't believe he was ever charged for any of it.

But he was gotten and imprisoned for income tax evasion.

You get these type of guys any way you can get them.

[moniss]

18. That is the inherent problem

with people judging themselves about whether they are guilty of the conduct that actually took place. A group/mass denial or denial by a court that it took place doesn't mean it didn't. In cases as clear as this it only means that it did happen and a group of people sworn to uphold the Constitution did not uphold but rather subverted it.

[ancianita]

19. The more pertinent word in Section 3 is the more provable "rebellion."

[Smackdown2019]

20. An election is civil, not criminal.

Therefore, any decision to decide if a citizen is eligible to run or hold any public office is a civil matter, not criminal.

Therefore, gulity pleas or determinations from a verdict of any criminal act of treason or insurrection does not have to be made before a civil trial of determination of a citizen can hold a public office.

Case in point!

OJ Simpson was found innocent of criminal charges of the murder of Nicole Simpson, but a civil verdict found him liable of the murder.

Trump does have the 5th amendment, " Even he does believe in the US Constitution", if cross-examination occurs in a civil trial if ask if he was an Insurrectist.

Any way, i feel by the end of the week, Trump maybe finished politically!

[Zeitghost]

31. If there were an amendment

That prohibited murderers from holding public office. Would OJ be eligible to run for President?

[Kablooie]

26. They are living the lie because...

Trump taught them that’s the only way to live.
Truth is only a word. Lying is a way of life.

[Thunderbeast]

37. Truth, Integrity, Honor, Fairness...

all just words for chumps and losers!

[GreenWave]

27. Over 140 of them are dictating policies of the absurd.

[quakerboy]

38. Good point

Why arent there any similar lawsuits to take at least the more obviously involved senators and house members off of ballots?

Or maybe its not about that.

[summer_in_TX]

51. A couple of lawsuits to remove House members who engaged in the insurrection have been attempted.

Both failed.

[Frasier Balzov]

53. Trump told them to march up there "peacefully and patriotically."

All he had to do is say those magic words and you can't lay a glove on him.

At least that's what Dan Bongino told me, who by the way has a face for radio.

[Zambero]

56. The actual march to the Capitol may have been "peaceful".

The break-in and violence that followed was anything but peaceful. Trump did nothing to stop it and put his own vice president's life in danger.

[kentuck]

58. Good point.

But after they marched to the Capitol, he said nothing.

[hydrolastic]

60. The PB's left early and were

Already at the capital when Trump was speaking at the elispse. Watch "4 hrs before the capital" there is an excellent timeline of events. Also the insurrectionists went right by windows and entrances that were hardened the previous summer and directly to windows and entrances that were not.

[Roy Rolling]

54. Good Pernt

A national 14A movement is needed to disqualify every Trump ass-kisser from office.

Even the dog-catcher needs to go.

I don’t want my taxpayer money going to a government official who wants to tear down the government he/she works for and is sworn to protect.

A national 14A movement.