Oh, so you don't have even a single one? You made an accusation. Do you have a single case that was adjudicated in favor of your claim or not?
Interesting, now any time I see the US Capital I think of the Jan 6th trump-followers’ insurrection. They sullied and trashed the US capital with their violent attack.
not quite QAnon level of proof but The Big Lie was rejected in dozens and dozens of court cases. “At least 86 judges — including some Trump himself appointed — have rejected lawsuits attempting to overturn the 2020 results. The former head of Trump's own Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency called the election fair and secure. A team of Republican lawyers, judges and ex-senators has also concluded there was no widespread voter fraud that could have tipped the election to Trump And multiple officials in his own administration, including former Attorney General Bill Barr, told Trump that there was no fraud that could overturn the results.” Donald Trump, who called mob that included neo-Nazis 'very fine people,' now hits CNN over comparing him to Hitler and Goebbels
So you don't have a single court case? In terms of post-election cases, they were all either voluntarily dropped or dismissed. For example, in Law v. Whitmer in Nevada, here is the court ruling, unanimously affirmed on appeal by the Nevada Supreme Court: Judge rejects Trump campaign lawsuit seeking to block state’s presidential election results, says no evidence election was affected by fraud – The Nevada Independent
The majority of cases of voter fraud have turned out to be Trumpers, lol, but nothing significant enough at all to even have come close to making an actual difference in the election. The fine people of The Villages love committing fraud on Trump’s behalf.
We need to ditch McCarthy and McConnell to do it, but I agree this needs to happen, both the DOJ and FBI.
Wow, you guys sure went from "Democrats will defund the police and it will lead to anarchy" to "Defund the police!" very rapidly, and all it took was an attempt to overthrow the US government by people you identify with to make it happen. Once again, the defining feature of conservatism: there are in-groups to whom the law is supposed to protect but not bind and out-groups to whom the law is supposed to bind but not protect.
“No one brought up the armies of lobbyists who are daily permitted to storm the Capitol to fund the legalized bribery of our elections and write the pro-corporate legislation that it passes.” Chris Hedges: Society of Spectacle
From the article: The ruling was the result of a lawsuit seeking Griffin's removal, which alleged that he violated a clause in 14th Amendment of the Constitution by participating in an "insurrection" against the US government. He had been convicted of trespassing earlier this year. No charge of insurrection on the Federal level. My guess is they couldn't prove a case of insurrection. Judge finds January 6 defendant guilty of trespassing on Capitol grounds A federal judge on Tuesday found Couy Griffin, a founder of Cowboys for Trump and the second January 6 defendant to go on trial as part of the Justice Department's massive prosecution, guilty of trespassing on US Capitol grounds while Vice President Mike Pence was there. The State of New Mexico has taken it a step further to remove Couy Griffin from office based on the Federal conviction of trespassing. It is important to note this is not a trial by jury and a conviction of insurrection but rather a ruling delivered by a judge on a lawsuit filed by CREW to remove Couy Griffin from office. Judge Disqualifies New Mexico County Commissioner and ‘Cowboys for Trump’ Founder for Having ‘Engaged in’ the Jan. 6 ‘Insurrection’ Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an anti-corruption watchdog that challenged Griffin’s candidacy, described the ruling as the first time a court has disqualified a public official under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment since 1869.
I don't know that there is such a charger that anyone has been pursued for such a criminal charge. There are sedition counts against certain select defendants. But it's unclear why the federal government would file a claim seeking removal of a county official under a finding of violation of the 14th Amendment. This week's Rational Security podcasts as a segment I have not yet listen to arguing that the issue should be litigated out so that we have a defined standard of what precise conduct violates the passage and how it should be established as a matter of evidence. I tend to agree, and I haven't looked at the particular facts of this individual. But I would think that anyone that went there with the intent of stopping the count or otherwise interfering with the process should meet the standard and should be disqualified from further office
18 U.S.C. § 2384 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 2384. Seditious conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. Seditious Conspiracy and Federal Law: The Basics The federal law against seditious conspiracy can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (which includes treason, rebellion, and similar offenses), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384. According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States: To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against them; To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.
Thanks for repeating what I said pedantically without understanding the full issue. You said that they could not be charged with "insurrection". I said that there is no such charge, although some defendants have been charged with "sedition". You sought to inform me as to the existence of "seditious conspiracy". Adds so much. None of that is dispositive as to whether you have to prove criminal sedition beyond a reasonable doubt to disqualify someone from office (a non-criminal sanction), under Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, which reads: Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Now it may be that a federal court, confronted with the issue, would hold that you require a criminal conviction for seditious conspiracy in order to trigger the noncriminal sanction of disability to hold office. But one does not necessarily follow the other. If it reached the current version of the Supreme Court, we can presume that they will take the most unprincipled and partisan view possible, given that the de facto "chief" Justice's wife undoubtedly engaged in insurrection and is disloyal to the United States, and he likely support of those efforts. I would submit that it should be interpreted analogously to the way many slayer statutes work, including Florida's - 732.802. In fact, I think that would be an effective mechanism and one I might adopt if I was a judge handling the issue of first impression. Under that statutory scheme, a pre-existing criminal conviction meets the standard, standing alone. But even if there's been no criminal prosecution, you can prove it civilly. See the bolded section 5 below. Thanks for the lesson. Very helpful. 732.802 Killer not entitled to receive property or other benefits by reason of victim’s death.— (1) A surviving person who unlawfully and intentionally kills or participates in procuring the death of the decedent is not entitled to any benefits under the will or under the Florida Probate Code, and the estate of the decedent passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. Property appointed by the will of the decedent to or for the benefit of the killer passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. *** (5) A final judgment of conviction of murder in any degree is conclusive for purposes of this section. In the absence of a conviction of murder in any degree, the court may determine by the greater weight of the evidence whether the killing was unlawful and intentional for purposes of this section.
If I stated or misled people to believe they could not be charged with insurrection that was not my intent as people can certainly be charged with insurrection. What I did say is there was no charge of insurrection on the Federl level. Meaning Couy Griffen was not charged with sedition at the Federal level. Which means to me they could not find or prove seditious intent.
