Gore took his complaints to the courts, the lawful way of addressing those complaints. In addition to taking his complaints to the courts, Trump also took illegal actions in an attempt to keep the White House. Trump wasn't found to have participated in an insurrection for his legal actions in taking the issue to the courts. He was found to have participated in an insurrection for his illegal actions in recruiting and actively enabling fake slates of electors.
Since when did conceding become legal requirement or a legal issue. It is not required. It has become standard practice, but it is not required.
And in Gores case the Florida election was virtually a tie. I didn’t like how gore only requested a recount in democratic majority states. The butterfly ballot was remarkably stupid and hanging chads was a cluster. They did a full recount after the fact and bush won by a couple hundreds of votes. Sometimes when you flip a coin it lands on its side. Bush gore landed on its side.
Your argument is that if he believed he won, then we have to excuse his illegal actions? Am I misunderstanding what you wrote?
No, I'm saying if you can't prove specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt, he can't be found guilty of specific intent crimes.
Trump was told by high ranking advisors n including Bill Barr, that he lost. Trump had also lost every court case that had any chance of changing the election. At some point, a rational person must accept the facts. After all this, if Trump truly believed he won, he's delusional, and unfit for office. And while there no legal need to concede losing an election, doing so means ending all challenges. After the SCOTUS ruling against him, Gore conceded, and the election was done. W. Bush had one. No scheme or insurrection was going to happen.
Sounds more like a negligence standard than a specific intent standard. We used to have this wonderful thing called elections to decide this. Remember those days? And? Conceding an election after the fact bears zero consequences on whether there was an insurrection to begin with.
Seems like SCOTUS is kind of in a bind. If they rule that what Trump did isn’t a clear insurrection then that green lights Biden to stop the transition of power with mobs and VP edicts. Seemingly if that wasn’t attempted insurrection then actually executing that plan isn’t insurrection.
I've read enough. Do you disagree with my statement that you can't convict someone of a specific intent crime without proving specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt?
The 14thA says anyone engaged in an insurrection against the US is ineligible to hold office. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump engaged is an insurrection. Again, if you think he didn't, take it up with them. But the evidence is ample, if you actually want to look at any of it. A concession isn't a necessity, but with concession, it tells everyone, including supporters, the election is over. No more challenges. Had Trump conceded before Jan 6, think there's an insurrection or the fake electors go along with their illegal plot? And again, the Colorado Supreme Court found Trump to be an active participant in an insurrection. Even though Pence was a part of the plan, was he ever an active participant? No. In fact, he refused to go along with the plan.
I disagree that your statement has anything to do with the court case in Colorado we are discussing. You claimed that Gore is guilty of insurrection, but surely Gore also sincerely believed he won. I think if you read the Colorado ruling, you won't continue to have this misconception.
He doesn't have to be charged or found guilty. Read the amendment carefully. That language doesn't appear anywhere. You really, really need to go back and review what actually happened. Not Fox "News" on what happened, but what actually happened. Who do you think got the crowd so juiced up they wanted to hang VP Pence? (Hint: It wasn't Milania.)
They ruled he engaged in an insurrection without any charges, convictions, or impeachments against him on such grounds. Don't worry, SCOTUS will probably rightfully overturn it. Gore also could've conceded before challenging the election results. Yes. Unilaterally. Without any jury trial or due process. That is not the "integral part" standard you mentioned earlier.
What is the word for illegally attempting to stop the transition of power to a lawfully elected successor?
It has plenty to do with it. He was precluded from the ballot because he was characterized by the Colorado Supreme Court as an insurrectionist, was he not? Yes, I'm saying the Colorado Supreme Court standard could have also labeled Gore as an insurrectionist, but I disagree with the Colorado Supreme Court standard. Okay, then how did they decide? What due process was Trump granted on the grounds of being an "insurrectionist?" You've said I'm wrong, now explain why.
