January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[MDlaxfan76]

So no possibility that Trump committed any crimes? Grand juries just screwed up? Civil Jury in E. Jean just got it wrong? Paying off hookers to silence them for election purposes and then taking it as a business expense is OK? Storing classified documents in the resort toilet not a big deal?
But the defense of the criminal Mike Flynn is a righteous endeavor. You're so laughably in the bag for Trump. "Blah, blah." How about a glass of STFU.

...so don't vote for him. That has nothing to do with an insurrection.

Don't worry, we won't.

But Trump and those who assisted his crimes need to brought to full account through the rule of law.

[old salt]

These guys simply can't imagine that those who revere the rule of law believe that politics should not drive their prosecution decisions.

Further, they think that since they'd have no issue with their POTUS telling their AG who to prosecute and when, and the AG doing so, regardless of evidence achieved through investigation, it means that those who revere actual justice are at fault for not letting their political preferences drive their decisions.

As fundamentally dishonest people, they can't imagine honesty.

Blah, blah. Why didn't Jack Smith indict Trump for anything that included "insurrection" in the charges.

If Trump were convicted in Fed Court on any charges that included "insurrection" then he could be ruled ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

AG Garland could have directed the DC US Atty to investigate & prosecute Trump for insurrection. He would not have needed to defer to a EC.

You"re thus claiming, in effect, that Biden's AG does not think that Trump is an insurrectionist & should not be denied the opportunity to run for President &, if elected, serve again.

That's why it is so obvious that this is an abuse of the political system for political purposes.
The Dems want Trump to run, because he's the (R) candidate they have the best chance of defeating,
but they want to damage him with litigation from local, state & federal prosecutors. ...& it's apparent to voters.

See bold above. Should be 'nuff said.

But it isn't for you and your MAGA friends.

Smith, as an apolitical prosecutor should, is prosecuting only the charges he believes he can prove to a jury 12-0.
He's not charging what he thinks could get hung given the partisan impulses of potential jurors...and in this climate, getting a unanimous verdict is extremely difficult.

As it is, despite the overwhelming evidence we've seen of each of these charges, it's gonna be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

[MDlaxfan76]

These guys simply can't imagine that those who revere the rule of law believe that politics should not drive their prosecution decisions.

Further, they think that since they'd have no issue with their POTUS telling their AG who to prosecute and when, and the AG doing so, regardless of evidence achieved through investigation, it means that those who revere actual justice are at fault for not letting their political preferences drive their decisions.

As fundamentally dishonest people, they can't imagine honesty.

Blah, blah. Why didn't Jack Smith indict Trump for anything that included "insurrection" in the charges.

If Trump were convicted in Fed Court on any charges that included "insurrection" then he could be ruled ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

AG Garland could have directed the DC US Atty to investigate & prosecute Trump for insurrection. He would not have needed to defer to a EC.

You"re thus claiming, in effect, that Biden's AG does not think that Trump is an insurrectionist & should not be denied the opportunity to run for President &, if elected, serve again.

That's why it is so obvious that this is an abuse of the political system for political purposes.
The Dems want Trump to run, because he's the (R) candidate they have the best chance of defeating,
but they want to damage him with litigation from local, state & federal prosecutors. ...& it's apparent to voters.

See bold above. Should be 'nuff said.

But it isn't for you and your MAGA friends.

Smith, as an apolitical prosecutor should, is prosecuting only the charges he believes he can prove to a jury 12-0.
He's not charging what he thinks could get hung given the partisan impulses of potential jurors...and in this climate, getting a unanimous verdict is extremely difficult.

As it is, despite the overwhelming evidence we've seen of each of these charges, it's gonna be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

[PizzaSnake]

Putin has defeated the US without firing a shot by fomenting internal dissent and exploiting our fractured political process.

Oh, and our “honor system” constitutional democracy has shown its manifold weaknesses.

I guess it was a good run. Going to be an ugly unwinding.

Our Congress has done this for years, we are merely a reflection of their behavior; collateral damage.

or...they reflect our electorate. Cowards.

Not really. Gerrymandering, the Electoral College (and the abandonment of proportional representation — skewed representation in the House), and the Subpreme Court’s ruling in the Gore-Bush contest, “originalism,” 2a nonsense, and Citizen’s United have effectively ended majority rule.

Going to get really, really ugly. Oh, and just so ya know C&S, I’m not a pacifist.

[old salt]

These guys simply can't imagine that those who revere the rule of law believe that politics should not drive their prosecution decisions.

Further, they think that since they'd have no issue with their POTUS telling their AG who to prosecute and when, and the AG doing so, regardless of evidence achieved through investigation, it means that those who revere actual justice are at fault for not letting their political preferences drive their decisions.

As fundamentally dishonest people, they can't imagine honesty.

Blah, blah. Why didn't Jack Smith indict Trump for anything that included "insurrection" in the charges.

If Trump were convicted in Fed Court on any charges that included "insurrection" then he could be ruled ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

AG Garland could have directed the DC US Atty to investigate & prosecute Trump for insurrection. He would not have needed to defer to a EC.

You"re thus claiming, in effect, that Biden's AG does not think that Trump is an insurrectionist & should not be denied the opportunity to run for President &, if elected, serve again.

That's why it is so obvious that this is an abuse of the political system for political purposes.
The Dems want Trump to run, because he's the (R) candidate they have the best chance of defeating,
but they want to damage him with litigation from local, state & federal prosecutors. ...& it's apparent to voters.

See bold above. Should be 'nuff said.

But it isn't for you and your MAGA friends.

Smith, as an apolitical prosecutor should, is prosecuting only the charges he believes he can prove to a jury 12-0.
He's not charging what he thinks could get hung given the partisan impulses of potential jurors...and in this climate, getting a unanimous verdict is extremely difficult.

As it is, despite the overwhelming evidence we've seen of each of these charges, it's gonna be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

[MDlaxfan76]

These guys simply can't imagine that those who revere the rule of law believe that politics should not drive their prosecution decisions.

Further, they think that since they'd have no issue with their POTUS telling their AG who to prosecute and when, and the AG doing so, regardless of evidence achieved through investigation, it means that those who revere actual justice are at fault for not letting their political preferences drive their decisions.

As fundamentally dishonest people, they can't imagine honesty.

Blah, blah. Why didn't Jack Smith indict Trump for anything that included "insurrection" in the charges.

If Trump were convicted in Fed Court on any charges that included "insurrection" then he could be ruled ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

AG Garland could have directed the DC US Atty to investigate & prosecute Trump for insurrection. He would not have needed to defer to a EC.

You"re thus claiming, in effect, that Biden's AG does not think that Trump is an insurrectionist & should not be denied the opportunity to run for President &, if elected, serve again.

That's why it is so obvious that this is an abuse of the political system for political purposes.
The Dems want Trump to run, because he's the (R) candidate they have the best chance of defeating,
but they want to damage him with litigation from local, state & federal prosecutors. ...& it's apparent to voters.

See bold above. Should be 'nuff said.

But it isn't for you and your MAGA friends.

Smith, as an apolitical prosecutor should, is prosecuting only the charges he believes he can prove to a jury 12-0.
He's not charging what he thinks could get hung given the partisan impulses of potential jurors...and in this climate, getting a unanimous verdict is extremely difficult.

As it is, despite the overwhelming evidence we've seen of each of these charges, it's gonna be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

Just because I believe it was an insurrection and that Trump drove it doesn't mean that the threshold for proving that charge criminally is reachable for a unanimous decision. Doesn't matter whether I'm right or the prosecutor is right, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense in our system, ...thankfully...though much more so for the rich and famous than those without resources.

It's a judgment call by the prosecution to charge what they believe they can get to 12-0 rightfully, despite all the tilt on behalf of the defense.

And what they have charged is a heck of a lot and if successful Trump would be in jail until he's dead or on his deathbed. The prosecution isn't supposed to be after a political objective, just the rule of law. Accountability under the rule of law. Not politics.

You just can't imagine that because you're fine with an authoritarian approach if your side was in control...as they promise to do.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

The law doesn't mention conviction anywhere. And you're referencing the blog of a law firm (who hasn't dealt with this law) for your source?

The supreme court literally just said participating in an insurrection (regardless of a conviction) doesn't mean you're automatically disqualified from holding office. They said that it's up to Congress to pass a law on how to enforce the original law, and there are no states' rights to do it themselves.

If Smith gets a conviction on insurrection, it means Jack Squat for the election unless Congress does something about it according to the Supremes.

[old salt]

These guys simply can't imagine that those who revere the rule of law believe that politics should not drive their prosecution decisions.

Further, they think that since they'd have no issue with their POTUS telling their AG who to prosecute and when, and the AG doing so, regardless of evidence achieved through investigation, it means that those who revere actual justice are at fault for not letting their political preferences drive their decisions.

As fundamentally dishonest people, they can't imagine honesty.

Blah, blah. Why didn't Jack Smith indict Trump for anything that included "insurrection" in the charges.

If Trump were convicted in Fed Court on any charges that included "insurrection" then he could be ruled ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

AG Garland could have directed the DC US Atty to investigate & prosecute Trump for insurrection. He would not have needed to defer to a EC.

You"re thus claiming, in effect, that Biden's AG does not think that Trump is an insurrectionist & should not be denied the opportunity to run for President &, if elected, serve again.

That's why it is so obvious that this is an abuse of the political system for political purposes.
The Dems want Trump to run, because he's the (R) candidate they have the best chance of defeating,
but they want to damage him with litigation from local, state & federal prosecutors. ...& it's apparent to voters.

See bold above. Should be 'nuff said.

But it isn't for you and your MAGA friends.

Smith, as an apolitical prosecutor should, is prosecuting only the charges he believes he can prove to a jury 12-0.
He's not charging what he thinks could get hung given the partisan impulses of potential jurors...and in this climate, getting a unanimous verdict is extremely difficult.

As it is, despite the overwhelming evidence we've seen of each of these charges, it's gonna be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

Just because I believe it was an insurrection and that Trump drove it doesn't mean that the threshold for proving that charge criminally is reachable for a unanimous decision. Doesn't matter whether I'm right or the prosecutor is right, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense in our system, ...thankfully...though much more so for the rich and famous than those without resources.

It's a judgment call by the prosecution to charge what they believe they can get to 12-0 rightfully, despite all the tilt on behalf of the defense.

And what they have charged is a heck of a lot and if successful Trump would be in jail until he's dead or on his deathbed. The prosecution isn't supposed to be after a political objective, just the rule of law. Accountability under the rule of law. Not politics.

You just can't imagine that because you're fine with an authoritarian approach if your side was in control...as they promise to do.

Blah, blah, authoritarian, blah, blah

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion15.html

After adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed legislation that criminalized insurrection. Today, this law is found in 18 U.S. Code § 2383. If someone is convicted of insurrection under the statute, they are barred from federal office. It's possible this could form the basis for a Supreme Court ruling that a person who has not been convicted of the crime of insurrection cannot be disqualified under Section 3.

[old salt]

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

The law doesn't mention conviction anywhere. And you're referencing the blog of a law firm (who hasn't dealt with this law) for your source?

The supreme court literally just said participating in an insurrection (regardless of a conviction) doesn't mean you're automatically disqualified from holding office. They said that it's up to Congress to pass a law on how to enforce the original law, and there are no states' rights to do it themselves.

If Smith gets a conviction on insurrection, it means Jack Squat for the election unless Congress does something about it according to the Supremes.

Congress has already acted. They passed 18 U.S.C. 2383

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion15.html

Section 5 grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation."After adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed legislation that criminalized insurrection. Today, this law is found in 18 U.S. Code § 2383. If someone is convicted of insurrection under the statute, they are barred from federal office. It's possible this could form the basis for a Supreme Court ruling that a person who has not been convicted of the crime of insurrection cannot be disqualified under Section 3.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... nder%20the
§2383. Rebellion or 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.

If not convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383, then Congress must act to disqualify.

[MDlaxfan76]

These guys simply can't imagine that those who revere the rule of law believe that politics should not drive their prosecution decisions.

Further, they think that since they'd have no issue with their POTUS telling their AG who to prosecute and when, and the AG doing so, regardless of evidence achieved through investigation, it means that those who revere actual justice are at fault for not letting their political preferences drive their decisions.

As fundamentally dishonest people, they can't imagine honesty.

Blah, blah. Why didn't Jack Smith indict Trump for anything that included "insurrection" in the charges.

If Trump were convicted in Fed Court on any charges that included "insurrection" then he could be ruled ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

AG Garland could have directed the DC US Atty to investigate & prosecute Trump for insurrection. He would not have needed to defer to a EC.

You"re thus claiming, in effect, that Biden's AG does not think that Trump is an insurrectionist & should not be denied the opportunity to run for President &, if elected, serve again.

That's why it is so obvious that this is an abuse of the political system for political purposes.
The Dems want Trump to run, because he's the (R) candidate they have the best chance of defeating,
but they want to damage him with litigation from local, state & federal prosecutors. ...& it's apparent to voters.

See bold above. Should be 'nuff said.

But it isn't for you and your MAGA friends.

Smith, as an apolitical prosecutor should, is prosecuting only the charges he believes he can prove to a jury 12-0.
He's not charging what he thinks could get hung given the partisan impulses of potential jurors...and in this climate, getting a unanimous verdict is extremely difficult.

As it is, despite the overwhelming evidence we've seen of each of these charges, it's gonna be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

Just because I believe it was an insurrection and that Trump drove it doesn't mean that the threshold for proving that charge criminally is reachable for a unanimous decision. Doesn't matter whether I'm right or the prosecutor is right, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense in our system, ...thankfully...though much more so for the rich and famous than those without resources.

It's a judgment call by the prosecution to charge what they believe they can get to 12-0 rightfully, despite all the tilt on behalf of the defense.

And what they have charged is a heck of a lot and if successful Trump would be in jail until he's dead or on his deathbed. The prosecution isn't supposed to be after a political objective, just the rule of law. Accountability under the rule of law. Not politics.

You just can't imagine that because you're fine with an authoritarian approach if your side was in control...as they promise to do.

Blah, blah, authoritarian, blah, blah

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion15.html

After adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed legislation that criminalized insurrection. Today, this law is found in 18 U.S. Code § 2383. If someone is convicted of insurrection under the statute, they are barred from federal office. It's possible this could form the basis for a Supreme Court ruling that a person who has not been convicted of the crime of insurrection cannot be disqualified under Section 3.

I repeat, read the bolded.

[MDlaxfan76]

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

The law doesn't mention conviction anywhere. And you're referencing the blog of a law firm (who hasn't dealt with this law) for your source?

The supreme court literally just said participating in an insurrection (regardless of a conviction) doesn't mean you're automatically disqualified from holding office. They said that it's up to Congress to pass a law on how to enforce the original law, and there are no states' rights to do it themselves.

If Smith gets a conviction on insurrection, it means Jack Squat for the election unless Congress does something about it according to the Supremes.

Congress has already acted. They passed 18 U.S.C. 2383

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion15.html

Section 5 grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation."After adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed legislation that criminalized insurrection. Today, this law is found in 18 U.S. Code § 2383. If someone is convicted of insurrection under the statute, they are barred from federal office. It's possible this could form the basis for a Supreme Court ruling that a person who has not been convicted of the crime of insurrection cannot be disqualified under Section 3.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... nder%20the
§2383. Rebellion or 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.

If not convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383, then Congress must act to disqualify.

Not according to 5 Justices. They say that Congress needs to pass an additional law.
4 Justices disagreed but that's the majority ruling.

[NattyBohChamps04]

And where's the mechanism for enforcement after a conviction? Exactly.

So we one law that says you can't hold office if you've engaged in insurrection, and another that says you can't hold office if you've been convicted of insurrection. Is that enforced after they're elected? Or are they removed from the state primary? Removed from the state general?

And who "seats" the president? For instance the Senate barred Stephens from being seated even though he was allowed on the ballot in SC and he was elected to the Senate by that state.

[old salt]

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

The law doesn't mention conviction anywhere. And you're referencing the blog of a law firm (who hasn't dealt with this law) for your source?

The supreme court literally just said participating in an insurrection (regardless of a conviction) doesn't mean you're automatically disqualified from holding office. They said that it's up to Congress to pass a law on how to enforce the original law, and there are no states' rights to do it themselves.

If Smith gets a conviction on insurrection, it means Jack Squat for the election unless Congress does something about it according to the Supremes.

Congress has already acted. They passed 18 U.S.C. 2383

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion15.html

Section 5 grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation."After adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed legislation that criminalized insurrection. Today, this law is found in 18 U.S. Code § 2383. If someone is convicted of insurrection under the statute, they are barred from federal office. It's possible this could form the basis for a Supreme Court ruling that a person who has not been convicted of the crime of insurrection cannot be disqualified under Section 3.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... nder%20the
§2383. Rebellion or 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.

If not convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383, then Congress must act to disqualify.

Not according to 5 Justices. They say that Congress needs to pass an additional law.
4 Justices disagreed but that's the majority ruling.

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

The law doesn't mention conviction anywhere. And you're referencing the blog of a law firm (who hasn't dealt with this law) for your source?

The supreme court literally just said participating in an insurrection (regardless of a conviction) doesn't mean you're automatically disqualified from holding office. They said that it's up to Congress to pass a law on how to enforce the original law, and there are no states' rights to do it themselves.

If Smith gets a conviction on insurrection, it means Jack Squat for the election unless Congress does something about it according to the Supremes.

Congress has already acted. They passed 18 U.S.C. 2383

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion15.html

Section 5 grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation."After adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed legislation that criminalized insurrection. Today, this law is found in 18 U.S. Code § 2383. If someone is convicted of insurrection under the statute, they are barred from federal office. It's possible this could form the basis for a Supreme Court ruling that a person who has not been convicted of the crime of insurrection cannot be disqualified under Section 3.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... nder%20the
§2383. Rebellion or 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.

If not convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383, then Congress must act to disqualify.

Not according to 5 Justices. They say that Congress needs to pass an additional law.
4 Justices disagreed but that's the majority ruling.

Congress would need to pass an additional law to apply the 14th Amendment if not already convicted & disqualified under 18 USC 2383, which is the enabling law, in those cases.

If convicted under 18 USC 2383 -- you're already disqualified, the 14th Amendment does not even come into play.

Your interpretation of the ruling vitiates 18 USC 2383, which was passed to enable & enforce the 14th Amendment.

[MDlaxfan76]

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

The law doesn't mention conviction anywhere. And you're referencing the blog of a law firm (who hasn't dealt with this law) for your source?

The supreme court literally just said participating in an insurrection (regardless of a conviction) doesn't mean you're automatically disqualified from holding office. They said that it's up to Congress to pass a law on how to enforce the original law, and there are no states' rights to do it themselves.

If Smith gets a conviction on insurrection, it means Jack Squat for the election unless Congress does something about it according to the Supremes.

Congress has already acted. They passed 18 U.S.C. 2383

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion15.html

Section 5 grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation."After adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed legislation that criminalized insurrection. Today, this law is found in 18 U.S. Code § 2383. If someone is convicted of insurrection under the statute, they are barred from federal office. It's possible this could form the basis for a Supreme Court ruling that a person who has not been convicted of the crime of insurrection cannot be disqualified under Section 3.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... nder%20the
§2383. Rebellion or 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.

If not convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383, then Congress must act to disqualify.

Not according to 5 Justices. They say that Congress needs to pass an additional law.
4 Justices disagreed but that's the majority ruling.

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

The law doesn't mention conviction anywhere. And you're referencing the blog of a law firm (who hasn't dealt with this law) for your source?

The supreme court literally just said participating in an insurrection (regardless of a conviction) doesn't mean you're automatically disqualified from holding office. They said that it's up to Congress to pass a law on how to enforce the original law, and there are no states' rights to do it themselves.

If Smith gets a conviction on insurrection, it means Jack Squat for the election unless Congress does something about it according to the Supremes.

Congress has already acted. They passed 18 U.S.C. 2383

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion15.html

Section 5 grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation."After adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed legislation that criminalized insurrection. Today, this law is found in 18 U.S. Code § 2383. If someone is convicted of insurrection under the statute, they are barred from federal office. It's possible this could form the basis for a Supreme Court ruling that a person who has not been convicted of the crime of insurrection cannot be disqualified under Section 3.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... nder%20the
§2383. Rebellion or 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.

If not convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383, then Congress must act to disqualify.

Not according to 5 Justices. They say that Congress needs to pass an additional law.
4 Justices disagreed but that's the majority ruling.

Congress would need to pass an additional law to apply the 14th Amendment if not already convicted & disqualified under 18 USC 2383, which is the enabling law, in those cases.

If convicted under 18 USC 2383 -- you're already disqualified, the 14th Amendment does not even come into play.

Your interpretation of the ruling vitiates 18 USC 2383, which was passed to enable & enforce the 14th Amendment.

If I'm not mistaken, the 5 Justices said that's not enough to withhold the ballot, even if prior convicted in federal court under that law. They're saying Congress needs to further act to trigger the 14th, declaring Jan 6 an insurrection...and, IMO, if push came to shove with just the legal conviction they'd argue about "office" not applying to POTUS.

We have the SCOTUS we have, no use crying about these being incorrect interpretations.

The defense at trial under this 18 USC 2383 would be that Jan 6 was not an insurrection, had not been declared such by Congress, thus, according to SCOTUS can't convict on insurrection until and unless Congress acts. And getting 12-0 on that it was an insurrection is quite different than proving the various other conspiracy charges, as it gets into the intent of the violence and thus needs crystal clear evidence of that intent. Then you have to prove the rest, which would be an easier hill to climb as the proof is very much the same as what Smith DID charge that doesn't have this foreseeable problem with SCOTUS.

Again, Smith has indicted what he believes he can prove to a unanimous jury and as an apolitical prosecutor he should not be looking to accomplish a partisan interest, just accountability for the crimes he can prove unanimously.

I suspect a lot of this is what created the conundrum for Garland in the first place...they indicted what they knew they had slam dunk and grinded away on gathering evidence to prove the large crime at the top...knowing the legal morass they'd face. And he tossed the ball to Smith, walled off from partisan interference. And ultimately Smith landed on what could be proven. 12-0. Of course, that may be incredibly difficult as well, no matter the weight of the evidence. Only need one vote the other way.

[old salt]

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

The law doesn't mention conviction anywhere. And you're referencing the blog of a law firm (who hasn't dealt with this law) for your source?

The supreme court literally just said participating in an insurrection (regardless of a conviction) doesn't mean you're automatically disqualified from holding office. They said that it's up to Congress to pass a law on how to enforce the original law, and there are no states' rights to do it themselves.

If Smith gets a conviction on insurrection, it means Jack Squat for the election unless Congress does something about it according to the Supremes.

Congress has already acted. They passed 18 U.S.C. 2383

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion15.html

Section 5 grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation."After adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed legislation that criminalized insurrection. Today, this law is found in 18 U.S. Code § 2383. If someone is convicted of insurrection under the statute, they are barred from federal office. It's possible this could form the basis for a Supreme Court ruling that a person who has not been convicted of the crime of insurrection cannot be disqualified under Section 3.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... nder%20the
§2383. Rebellion or 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.

If not convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383, then Congress must act to disqualify.

Not according to 5 Justices. They say that Congress needs to pass an additional law.
4 Justices disagreed but that's the majority ruling.

Smith can get a DC jury to convict Trump of anything. He brought several charges against Trump expect the one that would disqualify him from holding office. He could have charged 18 U.S.C. 2383 in addition to the remaining lesser charges that Trump faces.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... 0authority.

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

Baloney. Quite different thresholds.
You'd make a horrible lawyer, you don't even make much of a troll.

Do you disagree with the lawyers I cited ?
You've said yourself that Jan 6th was an insurrection.
So why didn't Smith charge Trump with inciting an insurrection ?

The law doesn't mention conviction anywhere. And you're referencing the blog of a law firm (who hasn't dealt with this law) for your source?

The supreme court literally just said participating in an insurrection (regardless of a conviction) doesn't mean you're automatically disqualified from holding office. They said that it's up to Congress to pass a law on how to enforce the original law, and there are no states' rights to do it themselves.

If Smith gets a conviction on insurrection, it means Jack Squat for the election unless Congress does something about it according to the Supremes.

Congress has already acted. They passed 18 U.S.C. 2383

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion15.html

Section 5 grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation."After adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed legislation that criminalized insurrection. Today, this law is found in 18 U.S. Code § 2383. If someone is convicted of insurrection under the statute, they are barred from federal office. It's possible this could form the basis for a Supreme Court ruling that a person who has not been convicted of the crime of insurrection cannot be disqualified under Section 3.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... nder%20the
§2383. Rebellion or 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.

If not convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383, then Congress must act to disqualify.

Not according to 5 Justices. They say that Congress needs to pass an additional law.
4 Justices disagreed but that's the majority ruling.

Congress would need to pass an additional law to apply the 14th Amendment if not already convicted & disqualified under 18 USC 2383, which is the enabling law, in those cases.

If convicted under 18 USC 2383 -- you're already disqualified, the 14th Amendment does not even come into play.

Your interpretation of the ruling vitiates 18 USC 2383, which was passed to enable & enforce the 14th Amendment.

If I'm not mistaken, the 5 Justices said that's not enough to withhold the ballot, even if prior convicted in federal court under that law. They're saying Congress needs to further act to trigger the 14th, declaring Jan 6 an insurrection...and, IMO, if push came to shove with just the legal conviction they'd argue about "office" not applying to POTUS.

We have the SCOTUS we have, no use crying about these being incorrect interpretations.

The defense at trial under this 18 USC 2383 would be that Jan 6 was not an insurrection, had not been declared such by Congress, thus, according to SCOTUS can't convict on insurrection until and unless Congress acts. And getting 12-0 on that it was an insurrection is quite different than proving the various other conspiracy charges, as it gets into the intent of the violence and thus needs crystal clear evidence of that intent. Then you have to prove the rest, which would be an easier hill to climb as the proof is very much the same as what Smith DID charge that doesn't have this foreseeable problem with SCOTUS.

Again, Smith has indicted what he believes he can prove to a unanimous jury and as an apolitical prosecutor he should not be looking to accomplish a partisan interest, just accountability for the crimes he can prove unanimously.

I suspect a lot of this is what created the conundrum for Garland in the first place...they indicted what they knew they had slam dunk and grinded away on gathering evidence to prove the large crime at the top...knowing the legal morass they'd face. And he tossed the ball to Smith, walled off from partisan interference. And ultimately Smith landed on what could be proven. 12-0. Of course, that may be incredibly difficult as well, no matter the weight of the evidence. Only need one vote the other way.

So your position is that 5 Justices are saying that a conviction under 18 USC 2383 does NOT disqualify a candidate ? Would that not then be a ruling that 18 USC 2383 is unconstitutional ?

Are you saying that someone cannot be convicted under 18 USC 2383 of inciting an insurrection on Jan 6, unless Congress passes a law declaring Jan 6 an insurrection ?

[Kismet]

SCOTUS said NADA about convictions and the facts of the case that the lower courts used to disqualify Orange Fatso.
They DID say that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is NOT self-executing and that Congress has to pass legislation to use Section 3 to disqualify an insurrectionist from a ballot. .

[MDlaxfan76]

SCOTUS said NADA about convictions and the facts of the case that the lower courts used to disqualify Orange Fatso.
They DID say that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is NOT self-executing and that Congress has to pass legislation to use Section 3 to disqualify an insurrectionist from a ballot. .

This Salty. ^^^

And I'm not the attorney here, but if I understand the logic, the issue of what constitutes an "insurrection" the Court may also be saying, or would say, is in Congress' purview and would need explicit action pertaining to Jan 6. Ain't gonna happen.

Under that logic, nothing is an "insurrection" until Congress explicitly says so. And Congress did say so about the secessionists in the Civil War. But not beyond...yet... by that SCOTUS logic they would need to do so again.

Or at least that would be the defense position all the way to appeal to SCOTUS.

But that's not a problem for the charges Smith did bring:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States
Witness tampering
Conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and
Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.

There have never been any further prosecutions under 2383 since those arising from the Civil War, though there have been other attacks that might have qualified had Congress declared such. Instead prosecutors have successfully charged things like seditious conspiracy which are actually a higher charge carrying 20 years of jail time rather than 10. Proving that level of conspiracy is a very high bar of course.

Smith appears to be satisfied that he can prove what he has charged and doesn't need more to put Trump away for the rest of his life.

[old salt]

SCOTUS said NADA about convictions and the facts of the case that the lower courts used to disqualify Orange Fatso.
They DID say that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is NOT self-executing and that Congress has to pass legislation to use Section 3 to disqualify an insurrectionist from a ballot. .

This Salty. ^^^

And I'm not the attorney here, but if I understand the logic, the issue of what constitutes an "insurrection" the Court may also be saying, or would say, is in Congress' purview and would need explicit action pertaining to Jan 6. Ain't gonna happen.

Under that logic, nothing is an "insurrection" until Congress explicitly says so. And Congress did say so about the secessionists in the Civil War. But not beyond...yet... by that SCOTUS logic they would need to do so again.

Or at least that would be the defense position all the way to appeal to SCOTUS.

But that's not a problem for the charges Smith did bring:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States
Witness tampering
Conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and
Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.

There have never been any further prosecutions under 2383 since those arising from the Civil War, though there have been other attacks that might have qualified had Congress declared such. Instead prosecutors have successfully charged things like seditious conspiracy which are actually a higher charge carrying 20 years of jail time rather than 10. Proving that level of conspiracy is a very high bar of course.

Smith appears to be satisfied that he can prove what he has charged and doesn't need more to put Trump away for the rest of his life.

Bottom line question for you are any forum lawyers -- can, or could have, trump (or anyone else) be charged & tried for violating 18 USC 2383, inciting an insurrection, unless Congress passes a law declaring Jan 6 an insurrection ?

[MDlaxfan76]

SCOTUS said NADA about convictions and the facts of the case that the lower courts used to disqualify Orange Fatso.
They DID say that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is NOT self-executing and that Congress has to pass legislation to use Section 3 to disqualify an insurrectionist from a ballot. .

This Salty. ^^^

And I'm not the attorney here, but if I understand the logic, the issue of what constitutes an "insurrection" the Court may also be saying, or would say, is in Congress' purview and would need explicit action pertaining to Jan 6. Ain't gonna happen.

Under that logic, nothing is an "insurrection" until Congress explicitly says so. And Congress did say so about the secessionists in the Civil War. But not beyond...yet... by that SCOTUS logic they would need to do so again.

Or at least that would be the defense position all the way to appeal to SCOTUS.

But that's not a problem for the charges Smith did bring:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States
Witness tampering
Conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and
Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.

There have never been any further prosecutions under 2383 since those arising from the Civil War, though there have been other attacks that might have qualified had Congress declared such. Instead prosecutors have successfully charged things like seditious conspiracy which are actually a higher charge carrying 20 years of jail time rather than 10. Proving that level of conspiracy is a very high bar of course.

Smith appears to be satisfied that he can prove what he has charged and doesn't need more to put Trump away for the rest of his life.

Bottom line question for you are any forum lawyers -- can, or could have, trump (or anyone else) be charged & tried for violating 18 USC 2383, inciting an insurrection, unless Congress passes a law declaring Jan 6 an insurrection ?

Yes, "can, could have" been "charged and tried"...but, if convicted, would a conviction have been over turned by SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds? I think this SCOTUS is signaling they'd have over turned.

This is likely why the huge seditious conspiracy case brought against conspirators in the Second World War was brought as such, not under 2383. The case had a huge cast of characters and a massive amount of evidence, but the case 'failed' because the judge died towards the end and a mistrial was declared...they didn't mount a second attempt. These are hard, expensive cases to bring.

Smith decided to narrow the case to a single defendant for much this reason, streamlining the case. He can bring additional indictments later for non-cooperators.

[old salt]

SCOTUS said NADA about convictions and the facts of the case that the lower courts used to disqualify Orange Fatso.
They DID say that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is NOT self-executing and that Congress has to pass legislation to use Section 3 to disqualify an insurrectionist from a ballot. .

This Salty. ^^^

And I'm not the attorney here, but if I understand the logic, the issue of what constitutes an "insurrection" the Court may also be saying, or would say, is in Congress' purview and would need explicit action pertaining to Jan 6. Ain't gonna happen.

Under that logic, nothing is an "insurrection" until Congress explicitly says so. And Congress did say so about the secessionists in the Civil War. But not beyond...yet... by that SCOTUS logic they would need to do so again.

Or at least that would be the defense position all the way to appeal to SCOTUS.

But that's not a problem for the charges Smith did bring:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States
Witness tampering
Conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and
Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.

There have never been any further prosecutions under 2383 since those arising from the Civil War, though there have been other attacks that might have qualified had Congress declared such. Instead prosecutors have successfully charged things like seditious conspiracy which are actually a higher charge carrying 20 years of jail time rather than 10. Proving that level of conspiracy is a very high bar of course.

Smith appears to be satisfied that he can prove what he has charged and doesn't need more to put Trump away for the rest of his life.

Bottom line question for you are any forum lawyers -- can, or could have, trump (or anyone else) be charged & tried for violating 18 USC 2383, inciting an insurrection, unless Congress passes a law declaring Jan 6 an insurrection ?

Yes, "can, could have" been "charged and tried"...but, if convicted, would a conviction have been over turned by SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds? I think this SCOTUS is signaling they'd have over turned.

This is likely why the huge seditious conspiracy case brought against conspirators in the Second World War was brought as such, not under 2383. The case had a huge cast of characters and a massive amount of evidence, but the case 'failed' because the judge died towards the end and a mistrial was declared...they didn't mount a second attempt. These are hard, expensive cases to bring.

Smith decided to narrow the case to a single defendant for much this reason, streamlining the case. He can bring additional indictments later for non-cooperators.

So essentially 18 USC 2383 became null & void after our Civil War generation all died off & can now only be used when Congress passes a law "enabling" it's use for a specific circumstance ? Nobody can be convicted of anything that includes "insurrection" unless Congress passes a law enabling the use of 18 USC 2383 ? I don't think that's the Supreme's intent.