658
Trump Says Jan. 6 Was an Insurrection
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
658 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4415 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.