Show me specifically that he didn't know the election was stolen, maybe I missed it in the committee's report, by all means point it out to me. Then what is? Rebellion or Insurrection | 18 U.S. Code § 2383. "While the term "insurrection" is not explicitly defined by federal law, courts and legal scholars generally interpret it as a violent uprising or organized resistance against the government or its regulations Insurrection often involves acts intended to overthrow, disrupt, or challenge the authority of the United States or impede the enforcement of federal laws." A legal disagreement in the role of the Vice President in counting electors does not amount to insurrection, it amounts to illegality and is perhaps even criminal, but it's not an insurrection. What rhetoric exactly?
It’s not a federal charge. The decision was predicated on State election laws and procedures. Are you asking for a link the opinion? Edit: Here it is: https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
Go and look at the internal memorandum where he was told the theories were not supportable. We have had this exact discussion multiple times, and it always concludes with you refusing to review the documentary evidence already collected.
I used to understand the term "RINO" as referring to liberal, very moderate, or squishy Republicans based upon their policies, ideology, and/or votes. Liz was conservative and quite popular in the red state of Wyoming. She mostly voted along with the Trump agenda, too, and I don't think her policy positions ever changed. If the word "RINO" is now just a proxy for who's willing to support and make excuses for Trump, then she definitely fits that bill.
No, it doesn’t prove he was delusional. It proves he continued to propagate lie after lie after lie designed to sew distrust in the government so that he could usurp the power of an office he lost.
I would say there's two primary modern categories of RINOs. 1. The definition you provided, your "squishy Republicans." 2. Republicans who spend more time echoing Democratic Party talking points against members of their own party than attacking Democrats. Liz Cheney absolutely fit the bill for #2. She got high off of people who made a career off of hating her suddenly telling her how great she is because she went after Trump, and that became her entire political identity.
Plain wrong. And this distinction doesn't matter with respect to considering the dangerousness of Trump's actions and temperament, but it does matter when we're discussing criminal accusations unilaterally imposed by the Colorado Supreme Court without any sort of due process.
The Constitutional Amendment does not explicitly require a conviction in a Federal Court. That is why they are staying the consequences, since that is an issue that requires a federal decision, whether the Amendment should be interpreted as requiring a conviction.
A legal disagreement in the role of the Vice President in counting electors does not amount to insurrection, it amounts to illegality and is perhaps even criminal, but it's not an insurrection. It's certainly dangerous. Insurrection? No.
Lol... yeah, keep watching the propaganda pablum the MSM keeps feeding the sheeple. Trump never once ordered to "invasion" of the Capital Building and if you see REAL NEWS CLIPS of the entire even you can clearly see the Capital police letting people into the building by opening the doors for the few UNARMED clowns that went into the building ON THEIR OWN ACCORD. Lol... you guys believe in unarmed insurrection? LMFAO! That's maybe trespassing and worst, but again the police WILLINGLY let those people into the capital building.
Different point (at least to me). This thread devolved into whether there is evidence of insurrection by Trump, which I believe exists in overwhelming quantity. However, to your point above, and as I stated in my first participation in this thread, I think the Colorado decision is wrongly decided, flies in the face of our system of Justice (innocent until proven guilty), and even if rightfully decided, sets a terrible precedent for the future political spectrum with far-reaching consequences that will be adverse to democracy.
Or interpreting the Constitution based on the plain meaning of the text. From a conservative legal scholar who was once considered for a SCOTUS nomination by a Republican president. Former federal judge: Colorado’s Trump disqualification not ‘anti-democratic’ Same judge three months ago The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again That being said the Colorado decision will almost certainly be reversed by the US Supreme Court and the reality is that regardless of the language of the Constitution the courts probably should not intervene in the political process if that intervention creates even the appearance that judges are putting their metaphorical fingers on the scale.
LOL, we all know the current definition of RINO is anyone with an R after their name who fails to sufficiently kiss Trump's ass. If you fail in that department, you are banished from the party. Get back to us when he no longer owns the party formerly known as the Republican Party.
Where I disagree is that the crime is in furtherance to usurping power from the duly elected. That’s the insurrection. (But, I certainly believe he would first need to actually be found guilty of engaging in the conduct as a condition to disqualification from the ballot). (Note further: I think every rational person should deem him morally, ethically, and performatively disqualified, but that’s for another thread).
Yes it was Lutting and if you're actually interested in his rationale click on the link(s) and by the way he was a well respected conservative legal scholar although he is probably now considered the judicial equivalent of a RINO.
