You don't have to believe but here is the document of charges filed against Couy Griffin. GRIFFIN, Couy Case Number: 1:21-cr-92 Charge(s): Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building
I’m going to assume Griffin was within the Capitol building itself (since he was charged with trespassing). To do so, he got there by force - his or other’s and it hindered and delayed the execution of a law of the US. Fits the law you cite and Renders him unfit for office in my view.
I'm likely not going to respond further because it's plain that we don't communicate clearly, and I don't know how to communicate any more clearly without putting in multiple hours. I think my meaning is clear to any good-faith actor. I wasn't disputing as to whether he had been charged. I was disputing your conclusion that he was charged with the highest possible offense that prosecutors felt they could prove giving full resources to the prosecution and seeking to prove only the literal elements of the offense. That's just not how the world works, especially not here where you have an under resourced prosecution team with mass defendants and the limited number of judges and prosecutors, even with some prosecutors transferred in from other jurisdictions to handle the nonstandard prosecutorial load. The DOJ has made pretty clear in a number of sentencing memos that they are not pursuing seditious conspiracy, and I'm going from rough memory, unless you came armed or otherwise equipped to suggest that you intended engage in violence, there was independent evidence of premediated intent to be open to commit violence, and that you assaulted or otherwise threatened a law enforcement officer. Those are not required elements of seditious conspiracy. They are just how the Department of Justice has decided to handle these prosecutions under normal prosecutorial discretion for political and resource reasons, things prosecutors consider all the time. For someone that does nothing but seek to obstruct proceedings, they are pursuing either trespass or an independent obstruction statute which most of the judges have upheld as applicable, some have not, based upon the legal definition of what constituted an official proceeding and whether there are other defenses based upon their belief that they were acting under the authority of the president. This has all been set forth in detail in many Marcy Wheeler posts quoting directly from publicly filed sentencing memos and other prosecutorial filings. I appreciate that's not the kind of direct sources that right wing sites will include. That's not how they work. They are not trying to illuminate; they are trying to promote darkness. Based upon your posts, they are succeeding. I have already spent more time on this than I should.
To be honest I have spent more time on this than I care to as well. The issue with the thread and it's title is it suggests that Couy is guilty of insurrection. Which he clearly is not. As for the Federal charge that was filed you and others may well believe the Federal government should have charged him with insurrection. The fact is they did not.
You do not have to assume it is in the indictment of the link I posted. As for being unfit for office on that point you and I agree as does the Judge in the lawsuit.
Yeah. I don't think actually being charged with insurrection is required by the 14th Amendment (which is absolute mess from another era).
I explicitly stated that a court found January 6 to be an insurrection and, based on the Constitution, removed a person who participated from eligibility for office. Yes/no question that I suspect you will try to obfuscate away from: did a court just declare what happened on January 6 at the Capitol to be an insurrection?
Yes you did make that statement without context of the entire matter. The Judge called it an insurrection and removed Couy from office. Federal courts have not called it an insurrection and rightly so in my opinion. The charge of insurrection is levied against an individual not an event.
ICYMI... here's a good write up on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. https://crsreports.congress.gov/pro... disqualification,the United States, unless a Interestingly, it states the means in which Jan 6th can be designated an insurrection by either the president or by Congress. It doesn't go in depth on civil actions in court, outside that it has happened in the past. So I'm curious if an appellate court overturns this decision on merit whether future civil actions are blocked until such time as another branch designates J6 an insurrection.
I don't think they burned enough buildings You gotta know that if you're trespassing and protesting on government property they're gonna take it far more seriously than rioting where the peasants live
Okay, "the Judge" is the courts, right? Interesting how you are using language to get around it being an insurrection. So a court declared it an insurrection. So why is that court wrong, specifically? Was January 6 an insurrection or not?
I don't have an opinion about whether he should have been charged. But he was guilty morally of insurrection and disloyalty to the United States, as were all others that joined with him to obstruct the proceedings. They don't deserve to be called Americans, which requires loyalty to the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, not loyalty to whiteness. What they did is indefensible.That is the source of our disagreement.
There is significance in a ruling versus a trial and conviction don't you think? I believe @pkaib01 has made the point clear as to why the court calling it an insurrection is wrong.
Don't get me wrong I agree those that participated in the Jan 6 riot should be prosecuted where applicable. Those that entered the capitol building should also be charged and prosecuted where applicable. The only differences we have is use of the words insurrection and traitors. As for denying the culprits citizenship and stating they are not Americans you and I differ on that as well. To that point I don't know of anyone involved in Jan 6 that isn't an American legally or by birth. I may be wrong on that point but if other than Americans were involved I would expect deportation is in short order. Regardless of our thoughts these people are Americans and will remain Americans.
Actually, I was trying to express how ill defined Section 3 is in respect to the courts. To date, it doesn't appear an official designation of an insurrection (event) is required for a judge to rule in a lawsuit. For example, MTG won her lawsuit because she didn't directly participate in the storming, not that the storming was not an insurrection. I would not be surprised if SCOTUS makes an appearance.
This is a decision for a trial. The lawsuit was tried before the court and the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs. So this was a trial.
Collective pronoun doing a lot of work there, especially from someone that likely detests pronouns. But even if the implied identity is correct, big difference between civil unrest protesting the fact that one is being oppressed vs. civil unrest because one fears losing the right to oppress others
