Question for Appa

[Bob78164]

You're a lawyer. You've expressed the opinion that the events of January 6 weren't an insurrection (as that term is used in the Fourteenth Amendment). Two courts -- one in New Mexico and one in Colorado -- have found that January 6 was an insurrection.

Where is their legal analysis mistaken? Please be specific. --Bob

[BackInTex]

You're a lawyer. You've expressed the opinion that the events of January 6 weren't an insurrection (as that term is used in the Fourteenth Amendment). Two courts -- one in New Mexico and one in Colorado -- have found that January 6 was an insurrection.

Where is their legal analysis mistaken? Please be specific. --Bob

Well, for one, he has not been tried, so "innocent until proven guilty". Do these courts not have to abide by that? There was no trial, no testimony in their jusrisdiction, just a bunch of fascist judges trying to deny citizens their right to vote for the candidate of their choosing.

[flockofseagulls104]

You're a lawyer. You've expressed the opinion that the events of January 6 weren't an insurrection (as that term is used in the Fourteenth Amendment). Two courts -- one in New Mexico and one in Colorado -- have found that January 6 was an insurrection.

Where is their legal analysis mistaken? Please be specific. --Bob

Well, for one, he has not been tried, so "innocent until proven guilty". Do these courts not have to abide by that? There was no trial, no testimony in their jusrisdiction, just a bunch of fascist judges trying to deny citizens their right to vote for the candidate of their choosing.

+-
well, there's that.

[silverscreenselect]

Well, for one, he has not been tried, so "innocent until proven guilty". Do these courts not have to abide by that? There was no trial, no testimony in their jusrisdiction, just a bunch of fascist judges trying to deny citizens their right to vote for the candidate of their choosing.

There is no requirement under the 14th amendment that a person has to be tried and found guilty in a court of law before the insurrection clause applies. Congress knew that in the post-Civil War South, the chances of getting a conviction of anything resembling an insurrection charge would be very slim. The state courts were full of judges who were ex-Confederates or sympathizers, and the jury pool, limited to male property owners, would be similarly biased. Federal courts were few, poorly funded, and far between and had the same problems with a jury pool. That's the background against which they passed the 14th Amendment.

[Bob78164]

You're a lawyer. You've expressed the opinion that the events of January 6 weren't an insurrection (as that term is used in the Fourteenth Amendment). Two courts -- one in New Mexico and one in Colorado -- have found that January 6 was an insurrection.

Where is their legal analysis mistaken? Please be specific. --Bob

Well, for one, he has not been tried, so "innocent until proven guilty". Do these courts not have to abide by that? There was no trial, no testimony in their jusrisdiction, just a bunch of fascist judges trying to deny citizens their right to vote for the candidate of their choosing.

You’re answering the wrong question. The question I asked Appa wasn’t whether Donny bears responsibility for January 6. Hell, the New Mexico case wasn’t about Donny. The question was why the New Mexico and Colorado decisions that I linked were supposedly mistaken in concluding that January 6 was an insurrection within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Please specifically describe the errors you believe those courts made in reaching that conclusion. —Bob

[Bob78164]

You're a lawyer. You've expressed the opinion that the events of January 6 weren't an insurrection (as that term is used in the Fourteenth Amendment). Two courts -- one in New Mexico and one in Colorado -- have found that January 6 was an insurrection.

Where is their legal analysis mistaken? Please be specific. --Bob

Well, for one, he has not been tried, so "innocent until proven guilty". Do these courts not have to abide by that? There was no trial, no testimony in their jusrisdiction, just a bunch of fascist judges trying to deny citizens their right to vote for the candidate of their choosing.

To address your mistaken claim, Donny had every opportunity to make an evidentiary showing in the Colorado case. He did so, the trial judge weighed the evidence, and she found as a fact that Donny had engaged in insurrection. That’s all the due process he (or anyone else) is entitled to. Although in this case the decision was easy. It’s not like there’s a good faith dispute about what happened on January 6.

Tell me, do you think a criminal conviction is necessary before disqualifying a candidate for not being a natural-born citizen? Or for being too young? Or for not having lived in the United States for at least 14 years? —Bob

[BackInTex]

You're a lawyer. You've expressed the opinion that the events of January 6 weren't an insurrection (as that term is used in the Fourteenth Amendment). Two courts -- one in New Mexico and one in Colorado -- have found that January 6 was an insurrection.

Where is their legal analysis mistaken? Please be specific. --Bob

Well, for one, he has not been tried, so "innocent until proven guilty". Do these courts not have to abide by that? There was no trial, no testimony in their jusrisdiction, just a bunch of fascist judges trying to deny citizens their right to vote for the candidate of their choosing.

To address your mistaken claim, Donny had every opportunity to make an evidentiary showing in the Colorado case. He did so, the trial judge weighed the evidence, and she found as a fact that Donny had engaged in insurrection. That’s all the due process he (or anyone else) is entitled to. Although in this case the decision was easy. It’s not like there’s a good faith dispute about what happened on January 6.

Tell me, do you think a criminal conviction is necessary before disqualifying a candidate for not being a natural-born citizen? Or for being too young? Or for not having lived in the United States for at least 14 years? —Bob

Is that a question you’d present to a jury? Comparing the factual basis of one’s attributes with determining guilt of one’s actions or thoughts?

[flockofseagulls104]

Here is a person expressing the opposite view that you hold, bobby.

First, Trump was prosecuted during impeachment, de facto proof that this is the Constitutional procedure for addressing claims of presidential wrongdoing.

Donald Trump was acquitted by a Senate vote.

Second, Donald Trump's actions on January 6 were constitutionally protected, and therefore, legal.

Trump's campaign had brought forth dozens of lawsuits.

He made a speech protected by the First Amendment.

He did not direct unarmed people to somehow 'overthrow' the government, which is actually impossible.

He said to 'peacefully and patriotically' make your voices heard in order to encourage election challenges.

The J6 riots actually disrupted this legal mechanism for disputing elections.

Donald Trump realized this and issued multiple statements in the early afternoon to respect law and order and for protesters to go home.

There is thus no linkage between Donald Trump and the J6 riots, which occurred despite his wishes, stated on the record, that 10,000 National Guard troops be present to protect the Congress.

Third, right after the election's certification on January 7th, Donald Trump stated in a video address that he would step down on January 20.

There is no case to be made that Donald Trump either broke the law by challenging the 2020 election or that he had anything to do with an "insurrection."

J6 extremists carried out a pre-planned attack on the capitol with the advance knowledge of the FBI and actually disrupted the election challenges.

Therefore, Donald Trump could not have 'incited' them to attack the Capitol.

This D.C. court of appeals ruling stripping Donald Trump of executive immunity is the death of America as we know it if it is allowed to stand.

This J6 sham case should be immediately dismissed.

That summarizes what I base my opinion on regarding this issue. I realize you were asking Appa this question, but since no one is concerned when they inject themselves in my one one-on-one conversations, I figure I can use that precedent here.

[jarnon]

Here is a person expressing the opposite view that you hold, bobby.

First, Trump was prosecuted during impeachment, de facto proof that this is the Constitutional procedure for addressing claims of presidential wrongdoing.

Donald Trump was acquitted by a Senate vote.

Second, Donald Trump's actions on January 6 were constitutionally protected, and therefore, legal.

Trump's campaign had brought forth dozens of lawsuits.

He made a speech protected by the First Amendment.

He did not direct unarmed people to somehow 'overthrow' the government, which is actually impossible.

He said to 'peacefully and patriotically' make your voices heard in order to encourage election challenges.

The J6 riots actually disrupted this legal mechanism for disputing elections.

Donald Trump realized this and issued multiple statements in the early afternoon to respect law and order and for protesters to go home.

There is thus no linkage between Donald Trump and the J6 riots, which occurred despite his wishes, stated on the record, that 10,000 National Guard troops be present to protect the Congress.

Third, right after the election's certification on January 7th, Donald Trump stated in a video address that he would step down on January 20.

There is no case to be made that Donald Trump either broke the law by challenging the 2020 election or that he had anything to do with an "insurrection."

J6 extremists carried out a pre-planned attack on the capitol with the advance knowledge of the FBI and actually disrupted the election challenges.

Therefore, Donald Trump could not have 'incited' them to attack the Capitol.

This D.C. court of appeals ruling stripping Donald Trump of executive immunity is the death of America as we know it if it is allowed to stand.

This J6 sham case should be immediately dismissed.

That summarizes what I base my opinion on regarding this issue. I realize you were asking Appa this question, but since no one is concerned when they inject themselves in my one one-on-one conversations, I figure I can use that precedent here.

Some of these are good arguments. Trump's opponents have counter-arguments, such as:

• Trump praised the Capitol rioters, calling them patriots, and still refers to them as hostages and political prisoners
• Insurrection means violent uprising against the government; intent to overthrow the government isn't required

Both sides have presented their arguments to various courts, and tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear the case. That's due process of law.

[jarnon]

Tell me, do you think a criminal conviction is necessary before disqualifying a candidate for not being a natural-born citizen? Or for being too young? Or for not having lived in the United States for at least 14 years? —Bob

Apples and orangeman. Many rights, such as voting or buying a firearm, are limited in various ways. Criminality is the only restriction that requires a conviction.

[Bob78164]

Tell me, do you think a criminal conviction is necessary before disqualifying a candidate for not being a natural-born citizen? Or for being too young? Or for not having lived in the United States for at least 14 years? —Bob

Apples and orangeman. Many rights, such as voting or buying a firearm, are limited in various ways. Criminality is the only restriction that requires a conviction.

Depriving someone of their physical freedom is what requires a conviction. Getting to run for office (any office) is a privilege that is subject to qualifications. One of those qualifications is that you can't be an oath-breaking insurrectionist.

As sss has correctly noted, the Congress that adopted the Fourteenth Amendment certainly didn't anticipate or require criminal convictions of many Confederates based on their rebellion in order to disqualify them from holding office. Hell, as far as I know, Robert E. Lee was never convicted of anything, yet Congress eventually retroactively removed his disability to run for office. That removal means that he was considered disqualified in the first place, notwithstanding the lack of a criminal conviction. --Bob

[kroxquo]

Tell me, do you think a criminal conviction is necessary before disqualifying a candidate for not being a natural-born citizen? Or for being too young? Or for not having lived in the United States for at least 14 years? —Bob

Apples and orangeman. Many rights, such as voting or buying a firearm, are limited in various ways. Criminality is the only restriction that requires a conviction.

Depriving someone of their physical freedom is what requires a conviction. Getting to run for office (any office) is a privilege that is subject to qualifications. One of those qualifications is that you can't be an oath-breaking insurrectionist.

As sss has correctly noted, the Congress that adopted the Fourteenth Amendment certainly didn't anticipate or require criminal convictions of many Confederates based on their rebellion in order to disqualify them from holding office. Hell, as far as I know, Robert E. Lee was never convicted of anything, yet Congress eventually retroactively removed his disability to run for office. That removal means that he was considered disqualified in the first place, notwithstanding the lack of a criminal conviction. --Bob

Moreover, conviction of a crime is not necessary for removal from office and being disqualified from holding office again if convicted by the Senate after a House impeachment. Neither Andrew Johnson nor Bill Clinton were convicted of crimes yet would have been removed and barred from holding public office if their impeachments had resulted in convictions. If we are talking about "original intent" - a conservative constitutional tenet - then clearly the intent was not to require a criminal conviction before disqualification.

[flockofseagulls104]

Just for your consideration:
If there were 10,000 National Guard called up for Jan 6, as President Trump offered, do you think the events of Jan 6 would have happened? If Trump was truly considering an 'insurrection', would he have even have suggested to call up the National Guard? None of you election interference deniers ever mention that fact and stick to your insurrection narrative as you have been indoctrinated to. Quick, trollboy, find some propaganda 'expert' on the web to explain that away.

There are so many holes in the insurrection narrative, only extreme partisan TDS sufferers can buy it completely. And some in two states have done just that.

Your "insurrection" narrative is not true.

[Weyoun]

I personally think it should be open and shut that he committed insurrection before you take him off the ballot. I’m sure there’s some sort of precedent, but I really don’t care what Congress in the 19th century did. I care that if he’s kept off the ballot, some random person is gonna die, and I have a hard time justifying that.

[flockofseagulls104]

Geez, if there are any reasonable people here I put it to you that whether what happened on Jan 6 can be classified as an insurrection or not is a matter of opinion. Any two people can view it in different ways. How can that be codified by one person or a small group of people independently and disenfranchize half or more of the electors who they supposedly represent?

Jan 6 was not a cut-and-dried attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. Some might interpret it that way, but there was no attempt that can be proven, or even shown, that even the most rabid of the people who entered the Capitol that day had any intention, or even any rational plan, to take over the country. But there are some people who have their own definition of 'insurrection', and pick out facts to support it. They have a right to their opinion. But IMO, they are wrong.

It was certainly a riot. It was a criminal act. It was wrong. But for those people who have their own opinion and their definition of 'insurrection' to use it as a political weapon is doubly wrong. Punish the people who committed criminal acts based on what they actually did, not what you project on them. Similar events have happened on the state level and on the local level. The level of legal and criminal responsibility for those actions seem to be way out of balance with those who committed their acts on Jan 6th.

Those who are using Jan 6 as a political weapon claim that Trump incited an insurrection. Who incited the George Floyd riots? Who incited the takeover of the Wisconsin State Assembly? Why is there no accountability or even interest in finding and going after them? Can anyone be blamed for believing the scale of justice is skewed based on the political circumstances?

If you look at it from one viewpoint, what is being done now, abusing the law and political gamesmanship to neuter your political opposition can be classified as an insurrection as well. Keep that in mind.

[silverscreenselect]

Just for your consideration:
If there were 10,000 National Guard called up for Jan 6, as President Trump offered, do you think the events of Jan 6 would have happened? If Trump was truly considering an 'insurrection', would he have even have suggested to call up the National Guard? None of you election interference deniers ever mention that fact and stick to your insurrection narrative as you have been indoctrinated to. Quick, trollboy, find some propaganda 'expert' on the web to explain that away.

There are so many holes in the insurrection narrative, only extreme partisan TDS sufferers can buy it completely. And some in two states have done just that.

Your "insurrection" narrative is not true.

Interesting story, based on a tweet and a line in a self-serving book. But I actually downloaded Kellogg's transcript and here's what he had to say about Trump's supposed request for the National Guard before January 6.

Q So we understand that Ms. Pierson may have met with President Trump and Max Miller on January4 that the White House where the President discussed the need for10,000 National Guard troops for the rally on January the 6th. Are you familiar with thatmeeting?

A No.

Q. Did you ever talk to the President about having National Guard troops at--on standby or available forJanuary 6th?

A No. And the reason I say no is I was thinking rally hard .. In the entire 15 years, we had never had a need for extra police or National Guard at any rallies we had had in 5 years. Wen ever had a single issue with a rally in 5 years. So there was no reason for me to have said that because I had never seen that needed.

Q So as somebody who works in the National Security space and with the National Security Council, if there were going to be troops present or called up for a rally in Washington,D.C. for example, is that something that you would have been aware of?

A Yeah, I would have.

Q But you weren't aware before January 6th about the need for any troops at the Capitol?

A. Well, I wouldn' t have seen. And if I had been --no. And if I had been asked, then I would have said, what's the threat assessment? To me, as a national security guy, before you do something like that, you make an assumption. Well, why are you asking that question? Why do you need these troops? What's it for? So that never came up because the first thing I would have thought of was, well, why? We've never needed this before. The only time I saw us have a need for a National Guard was during the Black Lives Matter riots.

https://www.scribd.com/document/6179185 ... =627263575

This link may be blocked because I had to get a guest subscription to Scribd to download the transcript but it's in the public record. And Christopher Miller, the Secretary of Defense, said that Trump never asked for the National Guard, before or on January 6. While there is testimony from Trump aide Katrina Pierson that Trump mentioned the need for more troops, there was no request made by Trump either before or on January 6.

As for his mentioning it to Pierson, there's a big difference between Trump shooting his mouth off in private to an aide and him making a formal request that would have actually brought troops to the Capitol.

[BackInTex]

Insurrection means violent uprising against the government; intent to overthrow the government isn't required

So all the protests in 2020 were insurrections? O.K., most of them? How many of those protesters were arrested, held without bail, in solitary, denied habeas corpus? I'll tel you. Zero.

[silverscreenselect]

Geez, if there are any reasonable people here I put it to you that whether what happened on Jan 6 can be classified as an insurrection or not is a matter of opinion. Any two people can view it in different ways. How can that be codified by one person or a small group of people independently and disenfranchize half or more of the electors who they supposedly represent?

Judges and juries make decisions all the time that affect the rights of millions of people. Six justices of the Supreme Court took away the rights of millions of women to have control over their bodies. Twenty years earlier, five justices of the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election. The trial court in Colorado conducted a five day hearing, at which Trump was represented,before it determined by clear and convincing evidence that he engaged in insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that finding. That's how trials and appeals work in this country all the time.

[Bob78164]

I personally think it should be open and shut that he committed insurrection before you take him off the ballot. I’m sure there’s some sort of precedent, but I really don’t care what Congress in the 19th century did. I care that if he’s kept off the ballot, some random person is gonna die, and I have a hard time justifying that.

The Supreme Court, which will make the ultimate decision, cares a lot about what Congress in the 19th Century did.

I care about not allowing a heckler's veto of a clear provision of the Constitution. It is a serious mistake to disregard the rule of law because of fear that following the law will lead to political violence. That only encourages more political violence.

But I'm noting with interest that NO ONE has discussed the reasoning stated in the linked opinions that carefully explain why January 6 was an insurrection within the meaning of the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. --Bob

[BackInTex]

It is a serious mistake to disregard the rule of law because of fear that following the law will lead to political violence.

So you agree that Derek Chauvin should be cleared and released? That's progress.

[Bob78164]

It is a serious mistake to disregard the rule of law because of fear that following the law will lead to political violence.

So you agree that Derek Chauvin should be cleared and released? That's progress.

Why do you disagree with the jury that listened to all of the evidence and found that his actions constituted criminal homicide? Will you ever accept court findings that go against your political preferences? Or do you think that homicidal cops should get a free pass? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

It is a serious mistake to disregard the rule of law because of fear that following the law will lead to political violence.

So you agree that Derek Chauvin should be cleared and released? That's progress.

Why do you disagree with the jury that listened to all of the evidence and found that his actions constituted criminal homicide? Will you ever accept court findings that go against your political preferences? Or do you think that homicidal cops should get a free pass? --Bob

No, only Michael Byrd should.

[flockofseagulls104]

I personally think it should be open and shut that he committed insurrection before you take him off the ballot. I’m sure there’s some sort of precedent, but I really don’t care what Congress in the 19th century did. I care that if he’s kept off the ballot, some random person is gonna die, and I have a hard time justifying that.

The Supreme Court, which will make the ultimate decision, cares a lot about what Congress in the 19th Century did.

I care about not allowing a heckler's veto of a clear provision of the Constitution. It is a serious mistake to disregard the rule of law because of fear that following the law will lead to political violence. That only encourages more political violence.

But I'm noting with interest that NO ONE has discussed the reasoning stated in the linked opinions that carefully explain why January 6 was an insurrection within the meaning of the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. --Bob

bobby, the 14th Amendment was written as a reaction to the Civil War. So are you seriously equating what happened on Jan 6 with the Civil War? And Donald Trump to Robert E Lee? Who was denied the opportunity to run for elected office by the United States Congress, not some TDS sufferers with a title? No one with a brain takes this shit seriously.

[silverscreenselect]

So are you seriously equating what happened on Jan 6 with the Civil War? And Donald Trump to Robert E Lee?

First, Robert E. Lee had a certain degree of dignity and honor. Donald Trump has none.

The purpose of the January 6 uprising wasn't just mindless mayhem like you get in some riots. It was to stop Congress from certifying the election results so that Donald Trump could remain President. Remember "Hang Mike Pence" and the gallows?

That's a favorite stunt of autocracies. Refuse to recognize results they don't like in elections by claiming fraud, irregularities, or other pretexts.

[BackInTex]

It is a serious mistake to disregard the rule of law because of fear that following the law will lead to political violence.

So you agree that Derek Chauvin should be cleared and released? That's progress.

Why do you disagree with the jury that listened to all of the evidence and found that his actions constituted criminal homicide? Will you ever accept court findings that go against your political preferences? Or do you think that homicidal cops should get a free pass? --Bob

You know what was in the minds of the jurors? Wow, your a better lawyer than I though.