Posted on Jan 9, 2022
Constitutional expert: Public rejecting Dems' 'insurrection' story line
1.38K
127
24
28
28
0
Democrats
Donald Trump
Congress
Edited 3 y ago
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 12
14
14
0
You know the public thinks its BS you do not hold your citizens without trail or charge and if The People were trying to overthrow the government, they would have come armed. Thats why 2A exists
(14)
(0)
12
12
0
Democrats overplayed their hand as always. We know protestors shot up the floor of the House wounding 5 members of the House of Representatives. We know a crazy gunman opened up gun fire on Republicans practicing for a softball game almost killing a Republican Congress member. We know unruly protestors stalked the Halls of the Capital building trying to disrupt the Kavanaugh hearings. We know protestors have assault members of Congress. Al lastly we watched riots happen most of the year preceding the Jan 6 riot. The idea an unarmed uncoordinated mob was going to ver throw the government is ridiculous.
(12)
(0)
PO2 Harold Ashton
Abhor-Rent: 525,600 Minutes Since The Insurrection
A surprisingly light look back at one of America's darkest days. #Colbert #Comedy #ColdOpensSubscribe To "The Late Show" Channel: http://bit.ly/ColbertYouTub...
525,600 Minutes of Trumpism in action on January 6 2021.
Once again, whose side are you on?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_IxT2ei9gU
Once again, whose side are you on?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_IxT2ei9gU
(0)
(0)
LTC David Brown
Like all Americans, I was stunned and horrified at the images of falling bodies from planes, mothers handing babies over walls, and terrified Afghans being c...
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
PO2 Harold Ashton - Whose side am I on? The truth's.
And my experience has been that, generally speaking, anyone asking you to "pick sides," is less concerned with the truth than with "winning."
This should not be about "sides." It should be about truth. About accuracy. About honesty.
And, quite frankly, NEITHER "side" has been doing a good job in those.
It was not a tourist's visit. It was not just a couple of folks trespassing. It was a violent riot.
But it was ALSO not an insurrection. There was no attempt to install a new government, no attempt to take control of the military, no one at the Supreme Court holding justices as prisoners, no lock down of the national media. It was a violent riot.
And this is where someone says "But they were trying to install a new government - that is what it was all about. They didn't want Biden."
Which would be true, except for two very small points.
1) The VERY very small point - a quibble, really: Preventing a new government is not the same as installing one. Yes, like I said, it is a quibble. But, they weren't trying to replace Biden with Trump, simply stop the certification of Biden and send it back to the states, or, alternately, cause the House to vote in a delegation of states. Either way. The hoped for outcome, of course, was Trump's election. But it was not a guarantee, and they were not trying to get Congress to certify Trump.
2) The very BIG small point: Even if they had succeeding in getting Trump into office, Trump does not a government make. There is still SCOTUS and Congress. (And the unofficial fourth branch: the military which could, theoretically, decide that Trump is not the legitimate CinC and refuse to follow his orders. But that is a whole 'nother discussion.) So installing Trump would STILL not have been an installation of a new government or an overthrow of the old one.
18 USC 2102 (a): As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
It meets the US Code definition of riot. (Also note that in section B, urging people to riot is a crime, but MERELY ADVOCATING POLITICAL BELIEFS is not. You know... like Trump did on January 6. But all of those pundits (and Congress Critters) who claimed that the BLM riots were "justified"? Yeah, they are guilty under this definition.)
Funnily enough, insurrection is not actually defined within this code. Most crimes have a definition to determine what does or does not fall under that section - as noted above for a riot.
Here is what 18 USC 2823 says about insurrection:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Were they rising up against the authority of the entire United States? Nope. Were they rising against the authority at all? No, not really. They recognized that authority, and were trying to influence it to make the "right" decision (in their opinion, however wrong that opinion was). Were they rising up against the LAWS of the United States? Again, no. Those folks were not against the laws. They were not trying to prevent the laws from being enforced. They were trying to UTILIZE the laws (as they saw it) of Mike Pence (or Congress folks) rejecting electors.
So... it looks, to me, that this part of US Code - the part specifically discussing insurrection - is not enforceable, as there was no insurrection.
A riot? Absolutely. A violent riot? Sure! An act of terrorism? It qualifies! (18 USC 113B if anyone wants to look it up.) Insurrection? Not so much. And treason requires someone to "levy war" (18 USC 2381) which I am pretty sure we can all agree did not happen.
And my experience has been that, generally speaking, anyone asking you to "pick sides," is less concerned with the truth than with "winning."
This should not be about "sides." It should be about truth. About accuracy. About honesty.
And, quite frankly, NEITHER "side" has been doing a good job in those.
It was not a tourist's visit. It was not just a couple of folks trespassing. It was a violent riot.
But it was ALSO not an insurrection. There was no attempt to install a new government, no attempt to take control of the military, no one at the Supreme Court holding justices as prisoners, no lock down of the national media. It was a violent riot.
And this is where someone says "But they were trying to install a new government - that is what it was all about. They didn't want Biden."
Which would be true, except for two very small points.
1) The VERY very small point - a quibble, really: Preventing a new government is not the same as installing one. Yes, like I said, it is a quibble. But, they weren't trying to replace Biden with Trump, simply stop the certification of Biden and send it back to the states, or, alternately, cause the House to vote in a delegation of states. Either way. The hoped for outcome, of course, was Trump's election. But it was not a guarantee, and they were not trying to get Congress to certify Trump.
2) The very BIG small point: Even if they had succeeding in getting Trump into office, Trump does not a government make. There is still SCOTUS and Congress. (And the unofficial fourth branch: the military which could, theoretically, decide that Trump is not the legitimate CinC and refuse to follow his orders. But that is a whole 'nother discussion.) So installing Trump would STILL not have been an installation of a new government or an overthrow of the old one.
18 USC 2102 (a): As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
It meets the US Code definition of riot. (Also note that in section B, urging people to riot is a crime, but MERELY ADVOCATING POLITICAL BELIEFS is not. You know... like Trump did on January 6. But all of those pundits (and Congress Critters) who claimed that the BLM riots were "justified"? Yeah, they are guilty under this definition.)
Funnily enough, insurrection is not actually defined within this code. Most crimes have a definition to determine what does or does not fall under that section - as noted above for a riot.
Here is what 18 USC 2823 says about insurrection:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Were they rising up against the authority of the entire United States? Nope. Were they rising against the authority at all? No, not really. They recognized that authority, and were trying to influence it to make the "right" decision (in their opinion, however wrong that opinion was). Were they rising up against the LAWS of the United States? Again, no. Those folks were not against the laws. They were not trying to prevent the laws from being enforced. They were trying to UTILIZE the laws (as they saw it) of Mike Pence (or Congress folks) rejecting electors.
So... it looks, to me, that this part of US Code - the part specifically discussing insurrection - is not enforceable, as there was no insurrection.
A riot? Absolutely. A violent riot? Sure! An act of terrorism? It qualifies! (18 USC 113B if anyone wants to look it up.) Insurrection? Not so much. And treason requires someone to "levy war" (18 USC 2381) which I am pretty sure we can all agree did not happen.
(3)
(0)
8
8
0
Yet the government has held people in confinement without contact then held secret trials.
What's next? Venezuelan Death Squads? Because that's how it started there. 2015-19.
What's next? Venezuelan Death Squads? Because that's how it started there. 2015-19.
(8)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
This is my single biggest problem with Gitmo. Charge them and try them or releasee them. Period.
This is my single biggest problem with Gitmo. Charge them and try them or releasee them. Period.
(3)
(0)
MSG Greg Kelly
Well Brother they already have the squads breaking into the homes of the wrong people. They are not YET death squads I am sure it's in our future if we do not get these traitors to Democracy under control. I am sure you and I among others are on someone's watch list simply because of what we write on RP. And the leftist on here who we disagree with. Many People in our beloved country in/out uniform have lost their way and have forgotten their oaths.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google