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

[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.

I don't care how hard it would have been to convict trump, could he have been charged by the DoJ with inciting an insurrection under USC 12 2383, without Congress acting ?

When Gen Flynn & his WCN Legions march on DC, can he be tried under USC 18 2383 for leading an insurrection without Congress passing enabling legislation ?

[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.

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.

No, it's not null and void.

But as I understand this SCOTUS' logic, those 5 Justices, Congress would need to enact a law that a specific event rose to"insurrection". And yes, that would include Flynn and his whack jobs marching on DC armed and shooting...now, it might get Congress to actually do so, but according to this SCOTUS logic the courts don't get to make the call. Kinda crazy to my mind...the four women agree with me. Too far.

[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.

No, it's not null and void.

But as I understand this SCOTUS' logic, those 5 Justices, Congress would need to enact a law that a specific event rose to"insurrection". And yes, that would include Flynn and his whack jobs marching on DC armed and shooting...now, it might get Congress to actually do so, but according to this SCOTUS logic the courts don't get to make the call. Kinda crazy to my mind...the four women agree with me. Too far.

So now that the Supremes have ruled, we can all now stop calling Jan 6th an insurrection & stop accusing trump of inciting or conspiring to lead an insurrection. As the self-anointed moderator of this forum, we expect you to enforce this Supreme Court ruling.

ftr -- I would have been happy if the DC US Atty had indicted & convicted trump under 18 USC 2383, disqualified him, & the Supremes upheld the conviction. We wouldn't have had to hear about trump for the last three years & we could get on with electing Haley.

[NattyBohChamps04]

And yet we'd still need someone to enforce it if that happened.

He's already disqualified. There's just no enforcing it at the moment.

[jhu72]

The Cheney Effect Liz's book is being noticed by republicans.

Jim Young's OpEd in the Oklahoman.

[dislaxxic]

So now that the Supremes have ruled, we can all now stop calling Jan 6th an insurrection & stop accusing trump of inciting or conspiring to lead an insurrection.

Too late. He's already BEEN convicted of being an insurrectionist by two Colorado courts, including their Supreme Court. Mitch's SCOTUS ignored the merits of those rulings and simply said "It's OK for an insurrectionist to AVOID being disqualified so easily."

It ain't over...

..

[cradleandshoot]

So now that the Supremes have ruled, we can all now stop calling Jan 6th an insurrection & stop accusing trump of inciting or conspiring to lead an insurrection.

Too late. He's already BEEN convicted of being an insurrectionist by two Colorado courts, including their Supreme Court. Mitch's SCOTUS ignored the merits of those rulings and simply said "It's OK for an insurrectionist to AVOID being disqualified so easily."

It ain't over...

..

How can you be convicted of something you've never formally been charged with? I think you overlooked a very important step in the legal system. Garland has had 3 years to make that happen. So the justice system no longer needs an individual to actually be charged with a crime to pass judgement? How American is that? Why didn't Garland charge trump with insurrection? Probably because he knows he can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. No need because a court can convict you anyway if they so desire.

[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.

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.

No, it's not null and void.

But as I understand this SCOTUS' logic, those 5 Justices, Congress would need to enact a law that a specific event rose to"insurrection". And yes, that would include Flynn and his whack jobs marching on DC armed and shooting...now, it might get Congress to actually do so, but according to this SCOTUS logic the courts don't get to make the call. Kinda crazy to my mind...the four women agree with me. Too far.

So now that the Supremes have ruled, we can all now stop calling Jan 6th an insurrection & stop accusing trump of inciting or conspiring to lead an insurrection. As the self-anointed moderator of this forum, we expect you to enforce this Supreme Court ruling.

ftr -- I would have been happy if the DC US Atty had indicted & convicted trump under 18 USC 2383, disqualified him, & the Supremes upheld the conviction. We wouldn't have had to hear about trump for the last three years & we could get on with electing Haley.

I realize the first para jibe was sarcastic...not funny, just sarcastic.

The fact is that Trump is a criminal and I expect that to be proven again and again in our legal system. Many crimes. Many of his allies are criminals, many convicted, more to come. His organizations have nearly all have been found to have committed fraud. Some have been shuttered permanently as such. Trump has been adjudicated to have committed sexual assault, which the judge called rape in common parlance. Grand juries have indicted Trump for an additional 91 felonies.

January 6 has already been shown to be sedition. People have been convicted of seditious conspiracy.

Yes, Jan 6 meets the definition of insurrection and a court and trial have already found that Trump engaged in insurrection.

SCOTUS offered no opinion on that finding, 5 justices simply said that Congress needed to reach that finding as well in order to disqualify him under the 14th. I think they'd say the same for a conviction under 18 USC 2383, not disqualifying without Congressional action.

Creating a straw man that is unachievable avoids the reality of Trump's provable perfidy.

Next move of a MAGA person would be 'what about' an opponent.

[NattyBohChamps04]

How can you be convicted of something you've never formally been charged with? I think you overlooked a very important step in the legal system. Garland has had 3 years to make that happen. So the justice system no longer needs an individual to actually be charged with a crime to pass judgement? How American is that? Why didn't Garland charge trump with insurrection? Probably because he knows he can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. No need because a court can convict you anyway if they so desire.

Hey, it's ok if you don't understand the legal system.

Trump had his day in court. His lawyers argued for him. Multiple judges found that he engaged in an insurrection. Supreme court didn't dispute he did it. He had full due process under the law.

You don't need a criminal conviction to disqualify someone of participating in an insurrection. And a criminal conviction still needs someone to enforce disqualification.

Garland's a Republican toady trying to appear independent and disinterested. Funny that we have to have Republicans investigate Democrats, and have to have Republicans investigate Republicans in today's political climate just to placate the frothy mouthers and appear "impartial."

[cradleandshoot]

How can you be convicted of something you've never formally been charged with? I think you overlooked a very important step in the legal system. Garland has had 3 years to make that happen. So the justice system no longer needs an individual to actually be charged with a crime to pass judgement? How American is that? Why didn't Garland charge trump with insurrection? Probably because he knows he can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. No need because a court can convict you anyway if they so desire.

Hey, it's ok if you don't understand the legal system.

Trump had his day in court. His lawyers argued for him. Multiple judges found that he engaged in an insurrection. Supreme court didn't dispute he did it. He had full due process under the law.

You don't need a criminal conviction to disqualify someone of participating in an insurrection. And a criminal conviction still needs someone to enforce disqualification.

Garland's a Republican toady trying to appear independent and disinterested. Funny that we have to have Republicans investigate Democrats, and have to have Republicans investigate Republicans in today's political climate just to placate the frothy mouthers and appear "impartial."

I understand the legal system well enough to know trump was NEVER formally charged with insurrection. So I can be convicted of speeding while never being issued a ticket because I endorse driving fast. Show me trumps verbiage where he ordered his supporters to storm the capital? I don't disagree that trump took great glee as the events of the day unfolded.

I wonder if MD lax would allow his brother in law to clarify this issue? He WAS there that day and marched with the crowd to the capital steps. Did he feel he was part of an insurrection movement or just a part of a bunch of angry trumpist?

[NattyBohChamps04]

I understand the legal system well enough to know trump was NEVER formally charged with insurrection. So I can be convicted of speeding while never being issued a ticket because I endorse driving fast. Show me trumps verbiage where he ordered his supporters to storm the capital? I don't disagree that trump took great glee as the events of the day unfolded.

So what if he hasn't been criminally charged? That's a completely separate, criminal matter. Constitution doesn't require a criminal conviction of insurrection for disqualification.

Trump had a trial in a court of law, with his lawyers present and arguing his case. And multiple judges found he engaged in an insurrection against the United States.

Trump was also found to have raped and then defamed E Jean Carroll. With a trial in a court of law. With his lawyers present and arguing his case.

[cradleandshoot]

I understand the legal system well enough to know trump was NEVER formally charged with insurrection. So I can be convicted of speeding while never being issued a ticket because I endorse driving fast. Show me trumps verbiage where he ordered his supporters to storm the capital? I don't disagree that trump took great glee as the events of the day unfolded.

So what if he hasn't been criminally charged? That's a completely separate, criminal matter. Constitution doesn't require a criminal conviction of insurrection for disqualification.

Trump had a trial in a court of law, with his lawyers present and arguing his case. And multiple judges found he engaged in an insurrection against the United States.

Trump was also found to have raped and then defamed E Jean Carroll. With a trial in a court of law. With his lawyers present and arguing his case.

Well the SCOTUS disagrees with you. If your gonna take a deep dive into allegations of rape don't forget some guy named Bill Clinton. Funny how Bill and trump may have frolicked together on " paradise underage island" Trump and Clinton have the same thing in common...a compulsion for some PYTs.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Well the SCOTUS disagrees with you. If your gonna take a deep dive into allegations of rape don't forget some guy named Bill Clinton. Funny how Bill and trump may have frolicked together on " paradise underage island" Trump and Clinton have the same thing in common...a compulsion for some PYTs.

SCOTUS doesn't disagree with me. They never refuted the fact that Trump engaged in an insurrection. They would have said so otherwise.

SCOTUS just disagrees with how you enforce it. They say each state can't enforce it as states' rights in this matter don't matter.

I don't care about Clinton, he's not running for president. But keep flogging that dead horse if it gets your rocks off. They sure do take up a lot of space in that noggin of yours.

[PizzaSnake]

I understand the legal system well enough to know trump was NEVER formally charged with insurrection. So I can be convicted of speeding while never being issued a ticket because I endorse driving fast. Show me trumps verbiage where he ordered his supporters to storm the capital? I don't disagree that trump took great glee as the events of the day unfolded.

So what if he hasn't been criminally charged? That's a completely separate, criminal matter. Constitution doesn't require a criminal conviction of insurrection for disqualification.

Trump had a trial in a court of law, with his lawyers present and arguing his case. And multiple judges found he engaged in an insurrection against the United States.

Trump was also found to have raped and then defamed E Jean Carroll. With a trial in a court of law. With his lawyers present and arguing his case.

Well the SCOTUS disagrees with you. If your gonna take a deep dive into allegations of rape don't forget some guy named Bill Clinton. Funny how Bill and trump may have frolicked together on " paradise underage island" Trump and Clinton have the same thing in common...a compulsion for some PYTs.

Do you understand how our legal system works, specifically findings of fact by either a jury or a judge?

It is not an allegation of rape; a judge has found, via juries verdict, that Trump did rape her.

Or did that escape your close reading of the decisions?

[cradleandshoot]

Well the SCOTUS disagrees with you. If your gonna take a deep dive into allegations of rape don't forget some guy named Bill Clinton. Funny how Bill and trump may have frolicked together on " paradise underage island" Trump and Clinton have the same thing in common...a compulsion for some PYTs.

SCOTUS doesn't disagree with me. They never refuted the fact that Trump engaged in an insurrection. They would have said so otherwise.

SCOTUS just disagrees with how you enforce it. They say each state can't enforce it as states' rights in this matter don't matter.

I don't care about Clinton, he's not running for president. But keep flogging that dead horse if it gets your rocks off. They sure do take up a lot of space in that noggin of yours.

When you make an "allegation" of rape against a former POTUS why do give Clinton a pass? Are the rape allegations against Clinton something you don't give a chit about?? In case you haven't been paying attention Bill Clinton is still well respected and admired among mainstream democrats. Then again so was that pathetic scumbag Teddy Kennedy.

FTR if the SCOTUS agreed with you trump wouldn't have been on the primary ballet in Colorado. Even when you FLP lose you'll never admit it.

[cradleandshoot]

Well the SCOTUS disagrees with you. If your gonna take a deep dive into allegations of rape don't forget some guy named Bill Clinton. Funny how Bill and trump may have frolicked together on " paradise underage island" Trump and Clinton have the same thing in common...a compulsion for some PYTs.

SCOTUS doesn't disagree with me. They never refuted the fact that Trump engaged in an insurrection. They would have said so otherwise.

SCOTUS just disagrees with how you enforce it. They say each state can't enforce it as states' rights in this matter don't matter.

I don't care about Clinton, he's not running for president. But keep flogging that dead horse if it gets your rocks off. They sure do take up a lot of space in that noggin of yours.

So even when you lose you think you've won? Trump remained on the ballot in Colorado so spin it as you like the Colorado Supremes lost. I know that breaks your heart but still you accept the fact despite a valiant attempt your side lost. Your observation is equivalent to well....we almost made that field goal so technically we won the game...

[NattyBohChamps04]

So even when you lose you think you've won? Trump remained on the ballot in Colorado so spin it as you like the Colorado Supremes lost. I know that breaks your heart but still you accept the fact despite a valiant attempt your side lost. Your observation is equivalent to well....we almost made that field goal so technically we won the game...

Wasn't my fight, so I didn't lose. It was Republicans who brought this case. So you're dunking on yourself when you make fun of them for losing. You claim you aren't gonna vote for Trump, so you should have been cheering them on.

I'm just stating the facts of the case. You're the one ignoring them for your own delusional giggles to dunk on the FLP (which seems to be everyone who doesn' think exactly like you).

Keep shouting at clouds.

[cradleandshoot]

So even when you lose you think you've won? Trump remained on the ballot in Colorado so spin it as you like the Colorado Supremes lost. I know that breaks your heart but still you accept the fact despite a valiant attempt your side lost. Your observation is equivalent to well....we almost made that field goal so technically we won the game...

Wasn't my fight, so I didn't lose. It was Republicans who brought this case. So you're dunking on yourself when you make fun of them for losing. You claim you aren't gonna vote for Trump, so you should have been cheering them on.

I'm just stating the facts of the case. You're the one ignoring them for your own delusional giggles to dunk on the FLP (which seems to be everyone who doesn' think exactly like you).

Keep shouting at clouds.

Sadly there is not a cloud in the sky today. If you keep lying to yourself repeatedly your bound to convince yourself your correct. I can't believe you haven't figured out my modus operandi yet? Effing with FLP is huge fun because y'all don't realize how predictable y'all are and so very easy to manipulate. You can't have this kind of fun with right wing nutjobs. In short you liberals are fun and entertaining toys to play with. You never learn and never understand when your all being toyed with... I know that because even after 50 years my own FLP sister hasn't figured it out. It is very similar to having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Is the FLP in the room with us now?

If getting things wrong again and again makes you think you're both winning and messing with "the FLP"? Well I guess that explains a lot of the world we live in today.

Ron White said it best, and it applies to your posts.

[MDlaxfan76]

yes it does explain a lot...and though it's rather pathetic, it's also quite dangerous en masse.